Put in a few miles on horseback and by canoe - over 100 miles last summer on a horse and a short rifle or smoothbore - with a barrel of around 28" or so and a sling would have come in mighty handy - getting on and off a horse is tough sometimes with a full length fowler or rifle. There is ample enough evidence and documentation of shortened guns to make them historically correct in most any setting or region (except perhaps military units)
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Shortened Guns
- Thread starter KHickam
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
And Then,,?
Mike Brooks
Cannon
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 6,686
- Reaction score
- 33
I'm surprised the old timers ever used anything but pistols, those damned long barreled rifles being so inconvenient and all... :haha:
So, Mike in your experience trekking from horseback through the mountains and prairies that historically the trappers/mountain men traveled - what would be your preference for a length of gun to carry on horseback for days, weeks at a time?
And what lead you to that conclusion?
And what lead you to that conclusion?
Mike Brooks
Cannon
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 6,686
- Reaction score
- 33
I don't have any interest in horses or Mt men so I have no opinion. I would assume they were carrying what ever was in style in that particular time period. I know they didn't saw their guns off just because they were going for a horse ride.
No ones current experience or opinions about barrel length is relevent to any connection with history or why or what "They" did in the past. This is what always starts these issues, trying to use current styles or perferences and tying to find a way to justify it from a HC/PC point. there are some types of guns that if you want to cut short just do it but do not expect the studied historians to always go along with it being a PC/HC choice depending on the individual situation.It is not a difficult process, and if one choses a historicaly unsupported choice it is not in the least painfull to say that it was not a historicaly supported choice,or just use it and say nothing, it may be pointed out but will soon fade from peoples thoughts, at least I have never felt any pain from the non PC/HC things I have used. Your first post here suggests that you have ample evidence for what you want so there should be no problem, I am not sure who you are trying to convince as no one is arguing if the evidence is there as you stated, as this is only applicable to the history sensitive requirments for guns.The vast numnber of "Mt Man" guns I have seen were probably 36" plus which was a short gun by the earlier standards of the east and early westard moving folks.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 13,013
- Reaction score
- 7,261
Well, might best just get a long one, a short one and one in between and try them out.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 9,356
- Reaction score
- 4,526
I had a short 20 inch barreled .45 cal Hopkins and Allen buggy rifle for a few years and it never shot all that well so I converted it to a target rifle and mounted a Green Mountain .45 cal, 32 inches long.
It is now my most used target rifle. MD
It is now my most used target rifle. MD
KHickam said:
MY preference is irrelevant since I have a 20th century perspective. I have a 30" barreled English style rifle that I really like. But its a little short for a "typical of the era" American rifle. I have a 38" barreled rifle that is very typical in caliber and length to what was used in the West from 1820 to 1860.
My choice and conclusions would be based on a study of the firearms of the time.
A lot of Hawkens used in the west had barrels in the 36-38" range. The Modena Hawken thought to have been rebarreled circa 1860 has a 34 3/4" barrel. Some have barrels in the 30-32" range especially the later guns but these are well after the classic western fur trade era and are more "gold rush" era guns. These were "short" by American standards. In fact 36" was at the bottom end of typical in 1830-1840.
The J Henry trade rifle was used widely all over the upper Missouri etc and these were virtually all Kentucky length 36 to 42" was typical in orders of the 1830s.
This info is available if you take the time to find the right books. It also save a lot of suppositions and assumptions.
Try "Firearms of the American West 1803-1865" Worman and Garivaglia has a LOT of direct from the time period information and is really required reading for anyone thinking about firearms of the west.
If you want a short barreled gun use one. But what people want TODAY is generally different that what was USED back in the day.
One of the reasons for hunting with MLs is not to hunt an extended season (We have no ML season) or hunt from a blind. But to connect with my past. Its impossible to connect with the past unless the firearm is similar. A 24-28" barreled Kentucky is a lot easier to get in and out of a vehicle etc etc. But it has no connection with the past.
Dan
You just need some imagination.
Your Dad, in the revolution, stole a jaeger rifle from a hessian mercenary - 28 to 30 inch or so long barrel, some shorter, sling swivels too, and now you are using it in the fur trade.
or
You just stole a fancy englishman's flinter - Pedersoli Mortimer with 36 inch long barrel, longer than you like maybe but it still has sling swivels, and are heading off to the mountains. I don't know enough about the "English style" to know how short they made barrels, but I suspect some were shorter than 36 inches.
or
Hanover gunsmith apprentice, just off the boat in colonial America, makes an "americanized" jaeger, a short-barreled "Edward Marshall rifle", with sling swivels, that you are now using in the fur trade.
All of these are "historically correct". Just go for it!
--------
Flintlock, black powder and round balls - Life is Sweet!
Your Dad, in the revolution, stole a jaeger rifle from a hessian mercenary - 28 to 30 inch or so long barrel, some shorter, sling swivels too, and now you are using it in the fur trade.
or
You just stole a fancy englishman's flinter - Pedersoli Mortimer with 36 inch long barrel, longer than you like maybe but it still has sling swivels, and are heading off to the mountains. I don't know enough about the "English style" to know how short they made barrels, but I suspect some were shorter than 36 inches.
or
Hanover gunsmith apprentice, just off the boat in colonial America, makes an "americanized" jaeger, a short-barreled "Edward Marshall rifle", with sling swivels, that you are now using in the fur trade.
All of these are "historically correct". Just go for it!
--------
Flintlock, black powder and round balls - Life is Sweet!
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2011
- Messages
- 478
- Reaction score
- 13
Most flint English sporters were 28-32". Make that "most surviving". We are talking some very rare guns here. Surviving golden age American rifles probably outnumber them 100:1.
Alan
Alan
It really boils down to how close to verifiable histopric evidence one want to get, the ewho/when/where atre the key fcators as you know, most serious reenactors avoid having to tell a "story" to make something fit, if you are doing the RMFT I would think that there would be ample evidence of 30-36" barels on some types of guns to choose from. When representing cutting down a longer gun I have always thought it best to either cut one down or build it to look cut down rather than a scaled down version of the long barrel original. The rr pipes position/number and thickness of barrel wall at the muzzle are some things that could make it more believeable.When cutting 2'+ off of a long barrel most times one would not expect the very thin barrel wall at the muzzle that many originals show, and there may be a rr pipe considerably closer or father from the muzzle end than on a long barreld gun.
RedFeather
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2005
- Messages
- 1,306
- Reaction score
- 42
How did they typically carry them? I used to think, boy, these plains rifles weigh a ton. I can't imagine trekking all over creation with one? Then it struck me that maybe they weren't afoot, riding horses and that made more sense. (Although just about any period muzzle loader is anything but a light weight.) So, I guess barrel length would be limited by how you could pack it and handle it on horseback. Sound reasonable?
Sounds reasonable. 
Having a 11 pound rifle laying across the front of the saddle isn't uncomfortable as long as the horse is willing to carry it and you. :grin:
Having a 11 pound rifle laying across the front of the saddle isn't uncomfortable as long as the horse is willing to carry it and you. :grin:
Considering what/how MLs looked like and weighed for a couple of centuries those in the past probably did not give it a lot of though for the most part as even in the 18th century much travel was on horse or boat/canoe. Today we all to often put out 21st century mind sets/experiences into the equation which can really skew the whole thing severly. WE often tend to put aside what/ how they did things and adjust for our contemporary comfort levels and standards
Similar threads
