Most common caliber?

[George]

Those fractional calibers I listed are caused by taking the average. All the individual guns were listed with whole number calibers, .45, .50, etc. So two .45 caliber and one 50 caliber average 46.66.

Spence

 

[Gene L]

I believe there is pretty solid documentation that the rifle Davy Crockett used to kill over 100 black bears of all sizes in one year in west Tennessee was somewhere around .38 caliber.

Although many seem to believe this, others think the reference to his gun being a 38 think it is very possible this is the number of balls per pound the guns bore was sized at.

Many of the old guns were described this way and modern writers, not understanding this think the number is the size of the bore in inches.

A 38 bore gun would have a actual bore size of .497 making the gun basically a .50 caliber rifle.

I agree. I doubt most colonial gunsmiths had micrometers back then and went balls Per Pound,which they could measure, and this was general so far as caliber, meaning it wasn't exact. .48, 49, .50 calibers differences in pound wouldn't be great. It reflects modern thinking in terms of caliber. Nowadays, it's easy to figure out, but we have tools they did not.

 

[George]

If you look at my first post in this thread, about Blane's description of bore sizes used, you can see that balls-per-pound results in fractional sizes, not whole number calibers.

It's even more confusing than that...when they said a gun shot so many balls per pound, were they talking about bore size or ball size? I have an original single cavity ball mold from early 19th century marked '100'. Assuming that was size in balls per pound, I cast a half-dozen balls with it, expecting them to be .36 caliber. They were all .33 inch. So, can we assume that indicates they meant bore size when they said 100 to the pound and the mold was made to cast undersize balls for a .36, to allow for patching?

Spence

 

[Loyalist Dave]

It's even more confusing than that...when they said a gun shot so many balls per pound, were they talking about bore size or ball size? I have an original single cavity ball mold from early 19th century marked '100'. Assuming that was size in balls per pound, I cast a half-dozen balls with it, expecting them to be .36 caliber. They were all .33 inch. So, can we assume that indicates they meant bore size when they said 100 to the pound and the mold was made to cast undersize balls for a .36, to allow for patching?

I think you're wishing you knew if the mold was properly sized? :haha:

The proper way, and they did know this back then, was that the bore = the number of balls that just fit inside to equal a pound. So they should be talking bore size.

In your case, patching can be subjective..., what thickness cloth and how tight the shooter thinks it should be..., does it need to be forced hard to start OR does thumb pressure do the trick.

Then you have the problem of the mold maker's tools. The fellow who rifled the bore made a mold to cast a ball that fit (according to the understanding of that word to the mold maker) a rifle bore, then he casts ball in it, until the finished ball when several were placed on the scale, equaled an ounce, and he ends up with 6, so figures it's a 100 bore (but if his scale was off or he was imprecise when he read it ??? )


If the measurement was an even simpler situation... the fellow casts ball from the mold he made using a very accurately weighed ounce of lead, but fails to correct for lead loss during the casting so gets six from the casting having lost lead that would give him at least another ball if not two...,

Only in a perfect setting will an acutal single pound of lead give you 96, .36 caliber ball, and you don't get near that when hand casting.



:idunno:

LD

 

[Gene L]

All I can say is thank God for micrometers.

 

[George]

The proper way, and they did know this back then, was that the bore = the number of balls that just fit inside to equal a pound. So they should be talking bore size.

Proper way according to whom, and how do you know they know it? Did they write it down?

The fellow who rifled the bore made a mold to cast a ball that fit (according to the understanding of that word to the mold maker) a rifle bore, then he casts ball in it, until the finished ball when several were placed on the scale, equaled an ounce, and he ends up with 6, so figures it's a 100 bore (but if his scale was off or he was imprecise when he read it ??? )

Is that something described in period writings, or is it your speculation?

Spence

 

[Elnathan]

IIRC, different nations used different ways of determining gauge. The English standard was the size of the ball that matched the exact bore size, whereas the French calculated bore size by what ball it actually shot. Can't recall who said that, though it might have been Artificer.

Don't underestimate their ability to make things to fairly tight tolerances, even without modern measuring tools. I used to use a defective pair of cheap steel verniers to compare check metal thickness, going by feel, and when I finally got a set of dial calipers I was pleased to find out that this primitive method had gotten me to about .005" or so. Someone who did that kind of thing for a living might be able to do better.

 

[longcruise]

I think that most Smith's probably had a gauge determined well in advance based on the size of the mandrel used to forge the barrel whether they forged it in house or purchased.

 

[Artificer]

Another factor is what was available. While PA, MD, and VA were the seats of early, British Colonial, rifle making, how many of the rifles that were sold, (let alone collected and now in museums), were ordered or bought being "just what the customer wanted", compared to "just what the customer could afford", and then coupled with "just what the guy in the shop had on hand for sale". ??

These are some great questions.

The first one I’d like to address is: “just what the customer could afford.” I am really unsure how Bore Size/Caliber would have made a significant difference in the cost of an 18th century Rifle, compared to how fancy of a rifle that was available or the customer wanted. IOW, a very plain rifle cost less than one with a lot of carving, wire or other inlays, etc. I don’t think bore size would have made much of a difference in cost because the barrel had to be reamed and rifled, no matter the caliber, or in some cases barrels were purchased already reamed and in some cases already rifled. The only possible difference in cost due to bore size/caliber, that I can imagine, would have been had the customer wanted something well outside the normal range of bore size the gunsmith/s were used to making for customers.

This leads us to another question of “what was available.” Somewhat to my surprise when I first ran across it, there was already an “American Market” in the 1730’s/40’s where American customers showed definite preferences in rifles as evidenced by what Caspar Wistar was importing from Germany to Philadelphia. “Caspar Wistar imported German rifles in the 1730s and 1740s, asking his supplier to tailor them for the American market, where consumers “prefer rifles with barrels that are three feet and three to four inches long.”
https://www.immigrantentrepreneurship.org/entry.php?rec=180

Now I realize that quote only pertains to the longer length of barrels preferred by the “American Market,” but I also have to assume there were also preferences for a certain range of calibers. If one was going to sell imported barrels, then the calibers/bore sizes of those barrels would almost certainly also had been according to the preferences of the “American Market.” Bore sizes that were too large or small for what most people preferred would not have sold well.

Further, when a gun shop was not busy on “bespoke work” or a custom order or other work; they were probably inletting barrels and perhaps locks into stock blanks that could later be shaped to the customer’s size and/or they were making complete rifles that could be sold locally or at Trading Posts or stores on the frontier. I would bet the complete rifles were relatively plain stocked, because they were less expensive and could be sold faster. Now assuming they did that, then they almost certainly had bored and rifled the barrels in calibers for which there was the most demand.

Something we don’t think about is in the 18th century, not all gunsmiths had a wide range of rough reamers and smooth reamers to easily make a wide/huge variety of calibers. (The actual rifling cutters could have been used on a wider variety of bore sizes.)

When an Apprentice finished his 7 year apprenticeship and became a “Journeyman,” it was commonly expected he would have a “set of tools” and a suit of clothes. There is no doubt he had made most of the tools himself during the apprenticeship as a way of learning how to work in metal and wood. Now, the “set of tools” did not include large “shop” tools like a forge, an anvil, a lathe, a rifling bench, and especially not a wide range of boring and reaming tools. The Journeyman would remain working in the shop for wages or went to another shop to work for wages. Then if he desired, he could part of his money aside to eventually purchase the larger tools and equipment that he would need for a shop of his own. Some Journeymen never started their own shops and remained a Journeyman for years and sometimes for the rest of their lives. In some cases, Journeymen “got their shops” by marrying the Daughter of another Gunsmith who did not have a son and wound up inheriting the shop and tools when his Father in Law passed.

Even if the gunsmith did not forge gun barrels himself, he would need rough reamers and even more finish reamers for finishing rough bored gun barrels or when the barrels were shot out and had to be finish reamed and rifled again. When the gunsmith needed a different set of reamers for a different caliber than he was used to making, he had to make or buy the rough and smooth reamers for that caliber. This is why in the 18th century Probate Inventories, there were large numbers of rough and smooth reamers when the Gunsmith had worked for many years before his death.

Speaking of Probate Inventories, there were normally also a fairly large supply of “Cherries” or “Cherry Cutters” to make molds for the rifles and/or smoothbore guns the gunsmith had worked on over the years. An Apprentice would have made at least one, if not more Cherries during his apprenticeship that he would keep as part of his “set of tools.” The size/s of the Cherry/Cherries would almost certainly have been the ones for calibers most requested by customers. Then as a Journeyman and later as a Master, the gunsmith made or purchased more Cherries as needed.

So taking these things into consideration, the gunsmith made or purchased tools for the most popular calibers of guns he worked on and only added more tools when he had requests for calibers that were outside what was normally preferred.

Since there were no precision instruments available for gunsmiths in the 18th century and all tools to make the gun barrels were handmade, I have come to the belief that “Balls to the Pound” was only a very general term used by gunsmiths and customers.

Let’s look at the table below where the left figures are Balls to the Pound and the figures on the right are the actual diameter in precision fractional measurements that period gunsmiths had no way to measure.
36 .506
38 .491
40 .485
44 .474
48 .463
52 .453

Most customers would have had no way to check the actual precision bore diameter and quite frankly I don’t believe they cared if they ordered a 38 Balls to the Pound Rifle, and got a rifle with a bore a little larger or smaller. They might or even would be able to tell the difference between 36 Balls to the Pound Rifle and a 52 to the Balls to the Pound Rifle, but the differences between sizes in between are so small, I can’t see how they would have known the difference or cared as they got a mold that cast a ball that fit the rifle when they purchased the rifle.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

One more thing about 18th century apprentices. They would make at least one barrel (though that may have been the last barrel they ever hand forged themselves), a rough reamer, a smooth reamer, a rifling cutter, and a cherry. They got to keep that set of tools. They also had to make one lock and that also may have been the last complete lock they ever made. Depending on the Shop Master, the Apprentice may have made a complete rifle all by himself and sometimes been allowed to keep it or work for wages to pay for it.

But all other boring, reaming, cherries and other tools - the gunsmith had to make or acquire on his own after his Apprenticeship.

Gus

 

[smoothshooter]

With most gun owners not having access to all the wonderful cleaning materials and accessories we have nowadays, I think a smoothbore would have been a popular choice.
Easier to clean, easier to pull a charge, works great with double ball or shot loads.
Probably 20% cheaper to buy as well.
Most of the guns made for the frontier trade would have been pretty plain, with the knowledge that they would likely be weathered and beat all to hell, or lost in boating or horse accidents, within a couple of years.

 

[Gene L]

Which came first, the mold or the barrel?

 

[Coot]

Much easier to make a mold than a barrel. :wink:

 

[Artificer]

Which came first, the mold or the barrel?

Gene,

This is only speculation on my part, because I have not been able to find documentation.

I believe in an age when there were no precision measuring instruments and the best they had was comparative calibers, that it made sense they would have made the mold first and cast some balls. Then they used the balls as a comparative guide to finish ream the bore size with whatever amount of "windage" or space around the ball they thought best. Then if the gun was to be a rifle, they would cut the rifling in the bore.

This way they were assured the balls cast from the mold and the barrel were the best match possible.

BTW and before his untimely passing, Gary Brumfield (past Master of the Colonial Williamsburg gun shop) stated many times they could finish ream the bore within one or two thousandths of an inch all the way down the bore with the bore tapering down slightly from the breech to the muzzle. So it wasn't a matter they couldn't do precision work, they just had no way to take precision measurements.

Gus