smooth rifles - why?

[asbrown]

:v This response is to all involved. I have read through this discussion and several others just like it over the last year or so. The end result is always the same. There's historical proof that some rifles were freshed out to smoothbore due to aging eye's, game availability,ect. There are historical records showing smiths made smoothrifles on purpose. Why? Who knows. There are also kentucky/pennsylvania fowlers that have 2 sights and other typically "rifle" characteristics (check Grinslades book) Since we have undeniable proof of the existence of all 3 it's safe to say that owning one comes down simply to choice. Just like it did back in the day. We can never know the factors that caused that choice to be made, but can safely say those factors were important to the individual at that time.
I personally have never seen a Bedford county fowler, but I'm building one in 28 gua because I want one. Why, I like the stock and lock style, and I do love my smoothbores. Again, personal choice.
P.S. if anyone out there has a picture of a Bedford fowler I would LOVE to see it.

 

[Sperit de bois]

Any thing you stuff in it works!!! Lead,rocks,old nails.round ball, slugs,shot. Rifled barrels, not so versitile.

 

[George]

Since we have undeniable proof of the existence of all 3 it's safe to say that owning one comes down simply to choice. Just like it did back in the day.

I think you make a very important point, one which is far too often ignored. And the cause of many flame wars. Many people seem to assume things in the day were black/white, either/or. For example, if it is a smoothbore it can have only a front sight. If it has a rear sight or has ever had one, it must have been originally rifled. Not true. Not true then any more than now.

It's hard to find original documents discussing such things, but if you pay close attention, you can occasionally find scattered items. In his book "An Essay on Shooting", 1789, London, Wm. Cleator is discussing the current situation with Spanish smoothbore/shotgun barrels. He says:

The Spanish barrels are generally from three to three and a half feet long; their caliber from 22 to 24, and their weight from three to three and a half pounds. The reinforced part extends two-fifths the length of the barrel. At ten or twelve inches from the breech is placed a sight, such as is usually put upon rifle barrels, or upon those intended to shoot ball only.

So, in the 18th century some smoothbore shooters chose one or two sights, depending upon what they intended to do with the gun. Just like today.

From that one little item we learn that 1) they sometimes put rifle sights on smoothbore guns, 2) they shot both ball and shot from their smoothbores, and 3) some smoothbores were dedicated ball shooters.

Spence

 

[Dphar]

Any thing you stuff in it works!!! Lead,rocks,old nails.round ball, slugs,shot. Rifled barrels, not so versitile.

First let me say that I do not care what people wish to shoot, rifled or smooth.
But I do care about people trying to tell me about versatility and efficiency of the smoothbore.

Anyone ever try shooting rocks? How is the accuracy? What is the condition of the bore after a few shots? Do the scratches increase fouling in use and make the gun harder to clean perhaps?

Silly claims like this do not make for "more versatile". I can shoot ANY of this from a rifle, small shot for example and out to 15 yards or so kill game birds with shot. But I can kill them FARTHER with the rifle with a round ball.
A large bore shotgun is useful for night guard with large shot.
They are useful for shooting birds flying or in groups on the ground or water in this situation then are very efficient. But this situation is uncommon most of the year where I live.
They are useful for people that cannot use a rifle to its potential for whatever reason.
The legality argument is not a factor. This is a modern construct that has NOTHING to do with utility or the firearm.
How does anyone's UNCHOKED 28 or 20 gauge trade gun loaded with shot cut from sheet and wadded with old blankets or tow pattern at 30 yards? 40? Is it "efficient"? Will it RELIABLY kill a squirrel for example as far as a rifle can, 30-40 yards or even more? I don't mean put a shot or two in its guts or break a leg so it runs off and dies in agony in some hole someplace I mean to bring it to bag.
The smoothbore is a SPECIAL USE firearm. There are only a FEW things it does really well and almost NONE where it is more efficient than the rifle when shooting for the pot.
But people INSIST on claiming it is some magical device that is so wonderful that there is no need for a rifle.
If they are so wonderful and useful and versatile where did all the small bore "squirrel rifles" come from the 1760s (at least) onward right to today? Because the 32-40 caliber rifle will kill more game on less powder and lead than a shotgun will unless shooting birds in flocks on the ground/water. This is so obvious that it should not even need to be stated. People bought and used rifles even though the initial cost was 3-5 times that of a "trader" or common fowler.
Shooting small shot costs more for the weight of game provided to the table because they are NOT that efficient as a rifle with a single ball. They are limited in usefulness and EXPENSIVE to shoot compared to a rifle for anything but a few specific purposes. None of which involve shooting a single projectile.
People tell us of "outshooting" rifles with their smoothbores. I have never seen this. Though it might be possible in a shoot where large steel plates are the target and/or the rifle shooters unskilled.
Since they know how poorly an unchoked SB is for hunting (with anything they "stuff in it") moderns have them jug choked (which was at best only done in the late percussion era and then it was uncommon) so they can hunt with them with some reliability of shot pattern. They use modern shot, wads, sometimes even plastic shot cups ALL of which IMPROVE the gun over what it was in the 18th c and most of the early 19th. Then tell us how wonderful they were (once modernized).
The rifle needs no modern crutches to make it work. Black powder and a patched RB is all it needs. Within its range its fully equal to a modern rifle so long as its sized properly for the game being hunted. The ML smoothbore is not equal to an 1880s Parker unless modernized to improve its performance.
Does anyone remember the account of Boone shooting deer with 1/2 balls and light charges from his rifle so he could build a store of ammo for his escape?

Dan

 

[asbrown]

Wow Dan, slow down a bit. Your diatribe on the rifle as the answer to all hunting needs assumes one thing, and we all know what assuming something means.
NOT EVERYONE IN THE WORLD IS A CRACK SHOT WITH A RIFLE. Some of us are better at snap shooting than steady hold target level shooting, and the load of shot while more expensive than a 32 rb certainly increases our ability to put meat in the pot.

 

[Lonegun1894]

I think what some shooters forget is that not everyone hunts in the same kinds of conditions they have locally. I have been lucky enough to get to hunt (although mostly with modern weapons) in various locations around the world and have seen areas where 20yds would have been the average shot and 50 an extremely long one, and also others where 75yds was very close and the average was closer to 200yds, with many shots taken at much longer ranges than I would ever consider with a PRB or even most average modern deer rifles. No one weapon will be perfect for any and all conditions, but you can make any of them work for you by changing your methods of hunting. Most of us here are in the US, some are not, but that is irrelevant. ALL of us have ancestors who lived by hunting with a bow, and the bow doesn't give any kind of accuracy or range advantage over the smoothbore, so we can all feed ourselves with smoothbores. Now this isn't taking economics of powder or lead into account. I do agree that the rifle has advantages where the extra range is needed, but choosing a smoothbore over the rifle isn't necessarily an admission that a hunter can't shoot. For example, I sometimes still use modern guns for hunting, and I would bet I'm not the only one here. When I do, I often use a revolver instead of a scoped rifle, not because I believe the revolver is more accurate because it isn't, but because it forces me to hunt and get close, and not just shoot. Having said that, and I know this will step on some people's toes and I apologize for it, but this is how I feel and not intended to insult anyone, but some are hunters, while others are shooters. I spent years as a shooter, and have spent the last few years learning to be a hunter instead. So all hope is not lost...

 

[Dphar]

Wow Dan, slow down a bit. Your diatribe on the rifle as the answer to all hunting needs assumes one thing, and we all know what assuming something means.
NOT EVERYONE IN THE WORLD IS A CRACK SHOT WITH A RIFLE. Some of us are better at snap shooting than steady hold target level shooting, and the load of shot while more expensive than a 32 rb certainly increases our ability to put meat in the pot.

My point was not that people should not hunt or shoot a SB if they like. My point is that it is NOT more versatile.
My grandfather adopted the shotgun for squirrel hunting due to cataracts.
The fact that people either cannot for whatever reason or will not learn to shoot accurately does not equate to the firearm they use being more useful or versatile than a more accurate one they choose not to use.

In my grandfathers case it means he could no longer shoot a rifle well enough due to failing eyesight. But his shotgun was choked too. A full choke is universally recommended by "moderns" when using a shotgun for squirrels from my reading.

If a person is not a good enough shot to use a rifle effectively how do they justify using a SB with a ball for larger game?

The point is this it was documented in the 1760s that the rifle was more effective in the way the natives conducted war and required less powder and lead than the trader did. LOTS of natives in the PA/NJ area had rifles by the 1740s, documented. By the 1760s there was a general uneasiness about the number of rifles the natives were using and it was thought they should be banned and only "traders" sold. People on the frontier were selling their rifles to natives at "monstrous price". This begs the question. "Where did the natives learn of the rifle and why did they want them when they could get cheap traders that people today insist are more "versatile".
People like to make copies of "Tecumseh's trade gun" they ignore that it was traded to the white family who preserved it FOR A RIFLE. He got rid of it for something he obviously thought was superior for his uses.
I believe that the EFFECTIVENESS, economy and the fact the NATIVES were using them was the prime reason the FRONTIER was populated to a great extent by riflemen. It is IMPOSSIBLE to adequately counter a rifle armed antagonist with a smoothbore in frontier warfare.
The CLASSIC example of this is the effect that Morgan's Riflemen had on the French Canadians and Natives Burgoyne had for scouts at the Saratoga battles. When Morgan arrived and started scouting for patriots the French Canadian and Indian Scouts WENT HOME. Only a few remained and these in the words of a BRITISH OFFICER "could not be brought within sound of a rifle shot". Now if the SB is so wonderful why were these people not able to chase Morgan's Riflemen back into the ramparts? Hmmm?
I wrote what I did to counter the seemingly never ending stream of BS that is constantly written about how wonderful the SB is. I can kill deer with a FL pistol as far as many people in the east shoot them from tree stands with their smoothbores. Or a 32-36 caliber rifle for that matter with head shots. The fact that the SB is accurate enough to kill deer at 50 yards does not make it more versatile than the rifle.
I state that the SB is a special purpose weapon. There are only 2-3 uses in which it is superior to the rifle. Its proven in modern use, its proven in historical documentation. But people that like them for whatever reason INSIST on posting this "versatile" stuff. Poor vision or lack of skill or legal restraints do not make the firearm more "versatile" in of itself.
Yeah, they were used in the west. So long as there were riflemen around to keep the hostiles at bay the shotgunner was pretty safe. Otherwise he could not keep the natives out of bow range.
Look at the casualty rates when the generally smoothbore armed western natives (who admittedly were generally very poor in the use of firearms compared to the eastern tribes) got into extended firefights such as at Pierre's hole with rifle armed trappers.
Now if someone wants to hunt with and shoot a SB go for it. Its a valid choice. I have hunted with them myself as have some friends. Just don't expect me to read of how "versatile" they are because you can shoot rocks etc and expect no comment.
Finally it is unethical to hunt with a firearm, or anything else that is not accurate enough to CONSISTENTLY place a killing shot on the animal being hunted.

So tell me is your fowling piece choked to bring its performance to 20c expectations or is it something that our forefathers actually used?
Do you use traditional wadding or modern?
If so then your ideas of usefulness and effectiveness are distorted by these modern additions. The choked flintock or percussion smoothbore is far more effective than the one Tecumseh traded off for a rifle.


Dan

 

[silly goose]

Rifle is useless here on running rabbits in the brush, Turkey is illegal to shoot with a rifle, and 50 yards is a long shot on a whitetail..... all adds up to the job of one versatile smoothbore.

 

[Lonegun1894]

Dan,
I dont believe that anyone disputed the superior range and accuracy of the rifle. I think all that the SB supporters are saying is that there are times when due to range constraints imposed by our hunting areas, the usuperior accuracy just isn't needed. I will use Silly Goose as an example, since he said that 50yd shots are nornal for him. Within that range, if the two of you are each hunting with your chosen weapons, there is no difference between the half inch group a rifle is capable of and the 2-3" group a smoothbore will do, due to the target (deer vitals) being about 8" across, so well within the capability of the wepons each of you is using. Now if you and I are out hunting in the areas you have shown with your 150ish yard shots, you will get much more meat with your rifle than I will with my smoothbore. Which brings us back to our individual hunting conditions again, and the different areas we all hunt. I'm not saying we should all be using rifles, or smoothbores, or anything else for that matter. I just dont understand the criticism of any weapon other than our favorite type that happens in these posts sometimes, and resent those of us who shoot anything except rifles being basically called irresponsible due to being willing to use something other than the absolute best and most accurate rifles on game. We all sacrifice some range and accuracy by choosing to hunt with MLs, regardless of type, and I don't believe it makes us irresponsible slobs, but rather hunters who choose to follow the old ways and are willing to accept more challenge than we would have if we all hunted with modern suppository guns. Please dont anyone take this the wrong way, but this place makes me think of you all as family. We have a lot more in common than we disagree over, and yet we keep nitpicking each other over the very minor differences we have. I love this place. :hatsoff: to all. If it wasn't for these disagreements, I know I wouldn't have learned nearly as much as I have here with various people presenting dissenting opinions and experiences.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

I have tried hunting squirrels with a rifle. I am too much of a deliberate target shooter and can't for the life of me successfully snap shoot with a rifle. Derned tree rats rarely if ever set still for more than a quarter second. And we have rather little grays in this area. No giant fox squirrels like up north.

I have a 50 caliber smooth rifle. Add to that several muzzleloader shotguns, flint and percussion from 410 to 10 ga. the shot compensates for my slow aiming capacity. I cut my own wads from leather and cardboard.

Most hunters around here from the civil war to the first world war didn't even own a rifle. Strictly shot gun hunting for it all. Here in the Eastern Woodlands with so much underbrush, whitetail shots average 30 yds. As said above, at that range it doesn't matter.

 

[rich pierce]

Since we can't help debate the relative merits of smoothbores versus rifles I will start a separate topic on that subject. That may allow further productive discussion of the origins, usage and prevalence of smooth rifles here. Maybe.

 

[asbrown]

OK, here goes. Versatility is loosely defined as being able to perform more than one specific task. The level of performance is not brought into the equation. A rifle is no use on flying birds, ground flocked birds, tree leaping squirrels, running rabbits, or any other type of fast moving target, no matter how close you are. A smoothbore can do all these things. How well it does is up to the shooter. A rifle has only one purpose, accurate placement of a projectile at extended ranges. A smoothbore can be used to accurately place a RB as well, just not at as long a distance. I'll never dispute the advantage a warrior has in battle with a rifle over a shotgun, but don't forget that in WW1 the Army issued 12gua pump guns to some soldiers to be used in the close confines of trench warfare, and the police still use more shotguns then rifles nationwide. The simple reason is that with slugs, buckshot, and birdshot, the smoothbore is and always will be a more versatile weapons platform.

 

[pargent]

Location ,location ,location :haha: :haha: ar the sadness of it all.

 

[caddo]

Thank you!!! Nuff said!!
:thumbsup:

 

[Birdwatcher]

I'm wondering if the maintenance angle played a part. This in an age where folks were far less insulated from the weather than we are now and drenchings were common.

I'm still fairly new to all this but it does seem to me that, even with modern cleaning rod attachments, my .62 cal smoothbore is simpler to clean and maintain than is my .53 cal plains rifle. Likely was even more so "back in the day".

Sure a rifle outperforms a smoothbore in accuracy, but how about a slightly shot-out rifle in need of "refreshing", how about a rifle with a rusted/pitted bore?

It'd be interesting to know how well and with what tools and oils Euros and Indians alike kept their bores from rusting back then, and how many years of service a rifle typically gave before requiring "refreshing"..

Birdwatcher