Maximum shot range without jug choking???

[paulvallandigham]

Joe: Please don't use the issuance of a Patent to justify anything as " New ". Writing patent applications so you qualify for the issuance of one is an Art form, more than a science. You can get a patent on just about anything, but it may not be worth the paper its printed on. And, most of the patent infringement cases ruled against the Patent holder when they got to the U.S. Supreme Court from about 1950- 1990, when a couple were upheld. The U. S. Supreme Court takes a much tighter view about inventions than does the U.S. Patent and tax Court of Appeals, about these matters. I am sure that the patent office was not aware of the museum in-line flintlock in Europe because it is not the subject of any written patent or machine drawing still in existence. Had they known of it, and if a court is made aware of its existence, the patent granted to whoever will be largely unenforceable. Patents have become tools of intimidation, and matters to be bartered for, because its much cheaper to get a license than to go through the litigation involved in challenging a patent. I am afraid the patent office staff is more and more aware of this, and the quality of their searches has dropped off in the last 30 years. They got a scare of their lives when one justice wrote that he didn't think that it was possible to invent anything really new anymore, thus challenging the patent office's very existence. Most patents today are " Utility " patents, rather than design patents, protecting a new or " novel " use rather than a truly new invention.

 

[chuck-ia]

I bought an american fowler kit from tip curtis a year ago, did not have it jug choked, thought about it but decided against it. bought it mainley to shoot shot, turns out I have shot very little shot out of it this year, thought I'd try a few shot with round balls just for the heck of it, turns out a few round balls turned into hundreds, what a blast, quick reliable ignition and accurate to boot. I shot a deer with it a couple weeks ago, I will now load it with shot and hunt squirrels and rabbits, pheasant maybe ducks. I do not regret not having it choked. flinch

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Thanks for the treatise on patents Paul, I see that you have studied the matter at some length. However I still think that patent dates are our best historical reference as to when an invention first appeared. The patents of Pape, Roper and Kimbal, all in late 1860's and early 1870's are commonly cited as the dates of the first known application of choke boring. If any form of choke boring was well known in earlier times I doubt it would have been forgotten and have to be re-invented.
In England I know there were trials rather like the card shoots here in the U.S. where the object was to put as many pellets as possible into a square of paper of a certain size at a certain distance. Winning that trial would sell a lot of guns for that maker. W.W. Greener simply blew away the competition when he entered his first choke bored gun, and that, in large part, spelled his success as a shotgun maker and is why his name is still well known today. I don't think he was just re-inventing something already known to gunmakers.

 

[paulvallandigham]

We probably are talking apples and oranges, here. I have no doubt that patents serve a useful purpose. However, the U.S. Patent office does not have access to museums in other countries. If they extended to Knight, or some other company a patent relating to the In-L##% type action, I would want to read the language of the patent granted to determine what is covered, and what is not. Even then, the patent may not be worth the paper its printed on.

I don't know where Greener got his idea about chokes. He may be the original inventor, but I have to doubt it. They call it "Jug Choke", because it resembles the neck on a bottle, or " Jug ". Such bottle necks date back thousands of years. So just how novel is it to design a barrel to have a similar sloping neck to squeeze a column of shot together when it comes out of the " bottle "?

Regarding in-l##$% actions, are they anything more than a " Zip Gun " on a formal production model? We have had pull button .22 rifles for more than 100 years. There certainly is nothing novel about a gun that mounts the nipple in the center of the back of the breech. Sam Colt did it with his 1836 model Paterson Colt. There is nothing new about using modern primers- pistol, rifle, or shotgun - to ignite a rifle. There is nothing novel about a bolt action. Or a flintlock. Having a touch hole in the front bottom of the pan of an action, with the hammer pivoting on the inside of a split tang is not novel, either. In addition to the German or Austrian Museuam gun, such an design borrows from every revolver, and from the flintlock. The reason that this kind of action would not be popular is because of the fuse effect having the flash hole or flash channel located in that position, causing a slow fire, with a long fizzle before the main charge would fire. I don't think that design can be made to fire fast today, any better than it could 400 years ago.

When it comes to finding the dates when certain types of firearms appear, anything after 1787, when our Constitution with its provision for the creation of the Patent office, was adopted, the Patent office records are certainly a good, if not absolute, source to look at to determine when a particular kind of gun appeared. Before that time, we have to look to historical accounts, private letters, and bystander accounts to determine what was done and when it was done first. Its clear that rifled guns were not found in any quantity much before the French and Indian War, where the early rifles proved their military worth. After that war, rifles were more in demand, and we know fairly well the historical development of rifle making in Pennsylvania, and later in other colonies. We need to remember that there were so few people occupying these colonies, that most of them could find land to claim east of the Appalachians. It was in the final years and after that War that peopel started exploring West of the Ridge, and into the Kentucky country, and beyond the Ohio.

IF We HAD A PATENT OFFICE in existence in the 1740s, it might help settle the matter of who did what and when. It didn't happen.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

P.S. in the 'good ol days' the turkey hunters typically used round balls or 'swan shot'/buck shot/etc on the big birds, so choke would have been no real concern even if it existed. Modern game laws in most states lead us to the dilemma of chokes and fine shot for turkeys--but a few states still allow rifles.

The "good ol' days" wasn't even all that long ago Mike. I was leafing through a Stoger's "Shooter's Bible' from 1959 and came across a chart of Remington arms recommendation of loads for various shotgun uses. For turkey they recommended #4 shot if called in close and #2 or BB for longer shots.
The idea of using very tight chokes and shooting for the head with small shot is a rather recent fad, doesn't have to be done that way. Check your state game regs but if #2 lead shot is allowed that may add a bit of range to a cylinder bore. If not, then I'd expect #4 lead would still be adequate past 30 yards for body shots and surely the "game gods" would allow #4's.

 

[Slamfire]

Here in Tennessee the game laws allow 4, 5 and/or 6 shot. It is considered a violation if you have any other size shot in your possession at the time. Knowing how fast round shot loses it's energy, you can see that head/spinal column shots are necessary to instantly kill/disable a tom at 40 or so yards. Body shots just won't do. :shake:
As to the inline controversy, the Paczelt rifle in the Tower of London's collection is dated 1738, and is marked No. 11, hardly a one off experimental, piece. The Munich double uses the same design, differing only in the mechanism of cocking. As to why they didn't catch on, one can only assume the gasses escaping from the flash hole were directed into the shooter's face, and the action. The Munich double is in nearly unfired, suggesting that the fellow that paid for the gun didn't much care for the face full of fire, or the detailed cleaning of the coil spring mechanism required. :winking:

 

[roundball]

"...As to the inline controversy, the Paczelt rifle in the Tower of London's collection is dated 1738, and is marked No. 11, hardly a one off experimental, piece..."

Just trying to follow...to be clear, you're not suggesting that statement qualifies "inlines" as being commonly used and therefore representative of the muzzleloaders typically found in use during the tradional early American muzzleloading era?

 

[paulvallandigham]

We were dealing with apples and oranges, and now you throw in lemons. No one is saying that in-lines were commonly used until recently. The standard for the issuance of a patent, however, requires that the idea be original, and if a prior example of a similar machine exists, your invention is not entitled to meet that test, and should not receive a patent. But, as I was saying, ( apples) you have to read patents carefully to see what the patent covers. Drawing patent applications is an Art form, because a skilled draftsman can insure that something will be patented , even if its so technical that its worthless. Companies know that people don't read patents, so they want those words on their product to scare away competitors. Even the phrase " Patent Pending "is enough in most cases to scare away a competitor, who just doesn't have the money, or want to spend the money to defend a lawsuit. When the Patent office was taking more than 7 years to process a patent application, companies could get rich selling products that had absolutely no chance of receiving a patent, just by filing an application, and putting that phrase on it. You might think the U.S. Government would take this kind of business practice as a form of fraud, and go after it, but, of course, our Justice Deparment can't even go after monopolies and other anti-trust violations these days.

 

[Slamfire]

"...As to the inline controversy, the Paczelt rifle in the Tower of London's collection is dated 1738, and is marked No. 11, hardly a one off experimental, piece..."

Just trying to follow...to be clear, you're not suggesting that statement qualifies "inlines" as being commonly used and therefore representative of the muzzleloaders typically found in use during the tradional early American muzzleloading era?

Actually just tryin' to point out that this particular design wouldn't be somethin' a fellah would want to be shootin' regular. So it would hardly be in common use. It is the only design I'm aware of that was taken beyond the experimental stage, that is, several makers, more'n one rifle. Bein' custom made for the bespoke trade, as the existin' examples apparently were, they would hardly show up on the frontier, and influence PA or TN gun makers. :v

 

[roundball]

:thumbsup:

 

[CoyoteJoe]

I've seen a few geese dropped well past 40 yards with lead #4's from Remington Express 2 3/4" 12ga. loads. Those geese were a bit smaller than an average turkey but they also have very dense and tough feathers. Steel shot changed all of that, now most folks think they need a 3 1/2" shell even for small ducks. But, back to the point, I'd still believe that #4 lead and body shots will outrange #6 and head shots from a cylinder bore muzzleloader.

 

[Hoyt]

I would really like to get my Virgina .62cal. gun jug choked, but not bad enough to have to remove all the soldered lugs and soldered front sight. Guess I'm going to have to build another one and have the barrel jug choked before lugs and sight or installed.