round barrel kentuckies?

[Va.Manuf.06]

A good post Rich and If I offended Gary or went against his knowledge of the facts (something I could never hope to exceed) I am truly apologetic.

The example you show does appear to be ground rather than filed.

I do think that gunsmith-made barrels, even in America, are the exception rather than the rule, especially by the third quarter of the 18th Century.

 

[George]

Are you saying that the majority of metal removal was by hand filing? The process of making both round and octagon barrels involved forging to rough shape (actually very close to finished form), then grinding to final shape and only finishing by filing.

I have read detailed descriptions of barrel making in two places. One was in England in the 1780s, the other in Portugal in the first few years of the 18th century. Both describe forging to close tolerances and then hand filing to final shape. Both also describe the use of the lathe as part of the process, the Portuguese as routinely done, the British as a process used by some people. Neither mentions grinding of the type being discussed here. As these are both describing the process as it existed at that time and place, why would grinding be omitted if it was as routine as it is being described here?

Spence

 

[tg]

I still think that someone developed a functional caplock system in the 1750-60 period which became lost and was re-decovered years later and unless someone can prove that it did not happen then it will remain a fact. We can re-write history from the begining to satisy our individual beliefs in this fashion

 

[rich pierce]

Are you saying that the majority of metal removal was by hand filing? The process of making both round and octagon barrels involved forging to rough shape (actually very close to finished form), then grinding to final shape and only finishing by filing.

I have read detailed descriptions of barrel making in two places. One was in England in the 1780s, the other in Portugal in the first few years of the 18th century. Both describe forging to close tolerances and then hand filing to final shape. Both also describe the use of the lathe as part of the process, the Portuguese as routinely done, the British as a process used by some people. Neither mentions grinding of the type being discussed here. As these are both describing the process as it existed at that time and place, why would grinding be omitted if it was as routine as it is being described here?

Spence

Spence, any use of a lathe strongly implicates they are highlighting how round barrels were made to their final shape. I think the topic has drifted to encompass how octagon rifle barrels came to their final shape. Can't find the source at the moment but have seen drawings of a rack of octagon barrels all in a wooden framework on a large water-powered grindstone (think 10 feet in diameter and quite wide). The rack moved forwards and backwards, say breech to muzzle and back. Not making it up- but sure wish I had a source.

 

[George]

Not making it up- but sure wish I had a source.

Sources? We don't need no steenking sources!

Spence

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Are you saying that the majority of metal removal was by hand filing? The process of making both round and octagon barrels involved forging to rough shape (actually very close to finished form), then grinding to final shape and only finishing by filing.

I have read detailed descriptions of barrel making in two places. One was in England in the 1780s, the other in Portugal in the first few years of the 18th century. Both describe forging to close tolerances and then hand filing to final shape. Both also describe the use of the lathe as part of the process, the Portuguese as routinely done, the British as a process used by some people. Neither mentions grinding of the type being discussed here. As these are both describing the process as it existed at that time and place, why would grinding be omitted if it was as routine as it is being described here?

Spence

Spence, I understand where you are coming from but consider this; both Springfield and Harpers Ferry as well as the Virginia Manufactory of Arms installed grinding mills as part of their earliest construction. These were important for grinding barrels as well as the other iron parts of the guns being made. If this was being done in the US by 1795, I hardly think it was a new innovation in barrel making on a large scale.

I am away from my sources now, but on the web I can find a number of articles mentioning gun barrel grinding in England. here is one:
http://blossomsblackcountry.freeservers.com/custom2.html

This is only one source, but barrels were being ground before the beginning of the 19th Century, both in Europe and here and, I am certain, much earlier. Grinding was not a new thing and it was certainly faster and, given an experienced (if short lived - silicosis was a problem)) operator certainly much faster than filing. The mention of 8 foot diameter wheels weighing 3 and 1/2 tons is fascinating as well as is the skill of the grinder.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Not making it up- but sure wish I had a source.

Sources? We don't need no steenking sources!

Spence

Posted while I was replying, eh? :wink: Ah, but I do have them, just not here at work as said in my post above. :thumbsup:

 

[Coot]

My earlier post cited period references and the Old Mill website, all of which show that round smoothbore barrels were being produced in large numbers at a few large industrial sites and that grinding on very large water powered wheels was clearly part of the process. The earliest US arsenals, being built at the end of the 18th century at Harper's Ferry and Springfield were located next to good sources of waterpower. But, these are all large operations with extensive financial backing and located to take advantage of waterpower. The original question concerns "round barrel kentucky rifles". What I think of as a "Kentucky rifle" was not the product of large factories and small shops could not afford the investment in the huge grinding wheels and mill structures as were used in the large scale production of musket barrels. Without large water powered wheels, the slower more labor intensive process of draw filing was an option available to even the smallest shop and is suited to both the octagon shape and limited production numbers. Period records make clear references to the importation of locks but not so rifle barrels - likely because the mass production of locks and round musket (and fowler) barrels was well established but the market for rifles was too small & varied (in the 18th C) to get the attention of the large scale producers.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Coot I understand what you are saying and yes, I have unintentionally somewhat wandered off topic to make a point.

Let me say this; the manufacture of barrels was undertaken in what became the United States by several barrel makers as I said above. I am not a believer in individual gunsmiths making every rifle barrel that they used, far from it. Well made barrels were available in this country from these manufacturers and were more economical than the barrels made in a small shop by one man and a couple of apprentices. I'm not saying that many were not capable of it but why do it when a good product was available at what would be a lower price that could be passed on to the customer?

These barrel mills could very likely out produce today's so called custom makers by a long chalk, even though today's makers have the advantage of electric power tooling. There were plenty of rifle makers that needed barrels and these mills were very well able to keep up with the demand, the barrels did not have to be imported like locks.

 

[tg]

I believe there are some references to numbers of German and English barrels being stored in the Christian Springs shop in Whickers or Scumways books also numbers of barrel in inventories. Thos with god libraries should be able to fins quite a few such references, I believe that during the last half of the 18th century that many builders used imported locks and barrels even some furniture as it was the most efficient way to produce guns,i thhink thye did rifle theri own barrels as most estates showed rifleing equipment beloning to the builders tool list. The source or parts from Europe did dry up due to a small dissagrement between the colonials and the English for a few years from 1776-1783 or so. and I will sick to this theory untill someone proves it to be false...I like that concept it can be very usefull.

 

[Coot]

I agree with rifle barrels being made in American mills in the 19th century with Simeon North and Nathan Starr both receiving contracts for thousands in 1823 and Remington's origins going back to 1816. I do not doubt that many of the later (19th c) kentuckys were built with specialist made barrels but the basic form of the gun goes to the 18th c and I am not aware of any record of factory made rifle barrels in the US in that time. The octagon shape lent itself to small scale experiment and development work and, likely became an easily identified style that marked a gun as a rifle rather than smoothbore. Once the mills were built and a large market established, the shape likely continued as a matter of style, tradition & customer expectations.

 

[asbrown]

That is why I take the "prove it wasn't done and I won't do it" stance.

That will definitely get those who could be of help to you to leave you alone to your own devices. :thumbsup:

Thats OK with me. I tend to ask questions involving technique, or function, not style or pc/hc anyway. I would hope there's noone on this forum so childish as to deny assistance because of a difference of opinion.

 

[asbrown]

I still think that someone developed a functional caplock system in the 1750-60 period which became lost and was re-decovered years later and unless someone can prove that it did not happen then it will remain a fact. We can re-write history from the begining to satisy our individual beliefs in this fashion

As usual I need to clarify myself. Words have meaning. As such, I said "prove it wasn't done," assuming a certain level of intellectual integrity. A round barrel, rifled rifle, in a rifle stock, with rifle design and fittings is both well within the available technology of the time, and plausible as a possibility of something that could have been done. Just like today, there are/were customers who wanted what they wanted and were willing to pay for it, and gunsmiths who were willing to build it.
People who camp out at juried events :hatsoff: should use juried equipment and arms. The rest of us are free to build and enjoy whatever we want. :blah:

 

[sc45-70]

:thumbsup:
SC45-70

 

[Capt. Jas.]

I still think that someone developed a functional caplock system in the 1750-60 period which became lost and was re-decovered years later and unless someone can prove that it did not happen then it will remain a fact. We can re-write history from the begining to satisy our individual beliefs in this fashion

People who camp out at juried events :hatsoff: should use juried equipment and arms. The rest of us are free to build and enjoy whatever we want. :blah:

So instead of seeking proof of a negative you really meant no proof needed or wanted. I can understand that. :thumbsup:

 

[asbrown]

So instead of seeking proof of a negative you really meant no proof needed or wanted. I can understand that. :thumbsup:

[/quote]
I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm essentially an idea man who doesn't have the money to see all of my ideas to fruition. If so I'd build a round barrelled rifle just to have one. When I get an idea I study to see if it was possible. I assume I'm not the only person to have the idea, and if I can think of it, then surely someone smarter than me somewhere along the way had the same idea and actually did something about it. I like the idea of the round barreled rifle because it is a possibility of something unique. I would never attempt to pass it off as anyhting other than one possibility among hundreds of possibilities that are as yet unknown or unproven. I find it entertaining to consider, like a daydream. Just take what you know and let your mind wander to all the possible variations that would fit in with the specific time frame and available technology. I offer as an example the Tucker automobile. Who would have thought that in the 40's someone would offer a car with rollcage type safety, safety glass,moving self dimming headlights, seatbelts, and an opposed flat rear engine. Not exactly the traditionaltype auto. ff I know, I was just making a point.

 

[Stophel]

Somewhere, there may well have been a round barreled American rifle, I don't say that they absolutely did not exist. I WILL say that IF they did, they would be quite rare. I could show you photos of a German rifle or two with round barrels (and raised ribs... which are SUPER cool!), but it's not exactly the same thing! :haha:

If someone wants to build themselves one, go ahead, knock yourself out. I won't say that it's "wrong", but it would definitely have been considered EXTREMELY unusual at the time. Someone may have done it 200 years ago (and someone else already mentioned military rifles), but it was not the accepted norm. The prevailing style dictated that rifle barrels were octagon. :wink: The original question was were there any round barreled Kentucky Rifles. My answer is very few, IF ANY. Again, smoothbored guns, lots of 'em, but not rifled guns.

Some here have posited the notion of "surely they thought of it", which is very dangerous. It can be, and is, used to justify virtually anything. Everything was invented by someone. The old saw is quite true, there's a first time for everything. How many times have you seen some new invention or something and said to yourself "duh, it's so simple, why didn't I think of that?"? Yeah, why didn't you??? Why didn't anyone else think of it before either? Same thing looking back on the past. Some of the simplest everyday things for us today might seem quite novel to them, even if the materials and technology existed at the time to do the exact same thing.

Of course it's "safe" to give ourselves a little leeway, we don't have to make precise copies of existing artifacts, but we should keep ourselves within the range of possibilities and probabilities that existed at the time, IF we wish to portray something close to an accurate representation of the way things were back then. :wink:

Personally, as a gunsmith, I HATE round and octagon-to-round barrels. Much less pleasant for me to inlet, much more difficult to get sights on, more difficult to get tenons on and get it all lined up. Hate them.

 

[Capt. Jas.]

Totally agree Chris. It is best to just call a fantasy spade a fantasy spade instead of arguing the woulda could shoulda.

 

[Stophel]

It's something that has taken time for me to get into my thick head too! :grin:

 

[asbrown]

Somewhere, there may well have been a round barreled American rifle, I don't say that they absolutely did not exist. I WILL say that IF they did, they would be quite rare. I could show you photos of a German rifle or two with round barrels (and raised ribs... which are SUPER cool!), but it's not exactly the same thing! :haha:

---------------------------------------------------

I for one would love to see photos of those german rifles you speak of. I also wholeheartedly agree with the tone of your response. The whole point for me has been the possibility, not the actual existence.

P.S. I'm a truckdriver by trade. We have an old saying that goes "arguing with a truckdriver is like wrestling a pig in mud. Sooner or later you figure out the pig enjoys it." :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: