Smoothbore .45

[Blackfingers]

I just sent a tired .32cal flintlock barrel out to be re-bored to .45cal smoothbore, that's as large as it can go due to the width of the barrel. I know it may sound crazy, but it's what I want, rather than a new barrel. Then the question, what to do with the original barrel? So it's on it's way for reworking.
The original gun was a Tennessee Long Rifle in .32cal, now it'll be....what? Any ideas as how to describe the new gun, will it be period correct? Will she be a musket now? At any rate, I'll have a ball with her when she's all better.

 

[Wes/Tex]

Suppose that leaves you with a 48 bore smooth-rifle...ish! :haha:

 

[CoyoteJoe]

I'll be interested to hear how that works out for you. Original smooth-rifles are generally of smaller caliber than shotguns or fowling pieces and sometimes as small as .40 caliber. I've often wondered just what such a small smoothbore would be good for. Your .45 could handle a heavier load than a modern .410 shotgun but lack of any choke will limit effective range of shot loads. Let us know how it goes.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I second ".45 caliber smooth rifle."

LD

 

[Britsmoothy]

I'll be interested to hear how that works out for you. Original smooth-rifles are generally of smaller caliber than shotguns or fowling pieces and sometimes as small as .40 caliber. I've often wondered just what such a small smoothbore would be good for. Your .45 could handle a heavier load than a modern .410 shotgun but lack of any choke will limit effective range of shot loads. Let us know how it goes.

CJ, I remember putting shot in a .45 rifle and noting it was good to 15yds!

I have heard of folks doing ok with a ball in .45 smooth rifles!

Good luck.

Brits.

 

[hanshi]

Yep, you'll have a "smoothrifle" and a good one.

 

[Blackfingers]

Sure hope so, tomorrow it will be delivered to a highly recommended gunsmith, will let everyone know how it all goes.

 

[jdkerstetter]

...Original smooth-rifles are generally of smaller caliber than shotguns or fowling pieces and sometimes as small as .40 caliber.......

I'd like to know your historical reference for this. Granted there are many original small caliber "smooth rifles" in existance today but I have always been under the impression that it was believed by experts that most, if not all, were originally rifled and due to use and the ravages of time have been left smooth.

Now, fowlers are common in 28 gauge (.54/.55 caliber) but I'm with you...I don't see to what advantage anything smaller would be....even with shot loads. Even the modern .410 is at best an experts gun on the wing...but a standout when "aimed" at small game. Many agree a .410 is not near as good as the 20 gauge at building a young wing shooters confidence.

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[nkbj]

It'll be interesting to see the patterns a long shot column will throw.

 

[jdkerstetter]

I agree....especially in a small bore. If indeed there were many small bore smooth rifles, it is my guess they were meant as round ball guns.

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[razorbritches]

friends I love my small bore smoothie, though it will never do what my 20 guage will do, I think it will suprise you how well it will perform. good hunting

 

[CoyoteJoe]

...Original smooth-rifles are generally of smaller caliber than shotguns or fowling pieces and sometimes as small as .40 caliber.......

I'd like to know your historical reference for this. Granted there are many original small caliber "smooth rifles" in existence today but I have always been under the impression that it was believed by experts that most, if not all, were originally rifled and due to use and the ravages of time have been left smooth.
Indeed the "re-bored" theory has always been the popular explanation for the existence of smooth-rifles but I think it clear that there is a distinct class of smooth-rifles. Arguing against the re-bored theory is the fact that re boring rifles was not the common method to restore a bad rifle bore. That's what is done today with modern machines but pre-twentieth century rifled bores were most commonly "freshed out", using the original rifling as a guide to first cut the grooves deeper and then cut down the land tops. To bore a rifle out smooth was much more work and required tools not every backwoods gunsmith had. There is also the fact that many smooth-rifles found today are still in very good condition, not at all what one would expect of a gun which was first worn out as a rifle and then bored smooth for use as a knockabout farm gun. But even if you like the re-bore theory the re-bored guns must have been thought useful for something, one wouldn't have a rifle bored out just to hang it on the wall. \

Now, fowlers are common in 28 gauge (.54/.55 caliber) but I'm with you...I don't see to what advantage anything smaller would be....even with shot loads. Even the modern .410 is at best an experts gun on the wing...but a standout when "aimed" at small game. Many agree a .410 is not near as good as the 20 gauge at building a young wing shooters confidence.

Enjoy, J.D.

My favorite book on the subject is "Kentucky Rifles & Pistols 1750=1850" It not only has excellent photos but is one of the few which gives detailed specifications of the rifles pictured, including caliber and whether rifled or smooth. This makes it easy to see that while smooth-rifles may be as small as .40 caliber and as large as .73 caliber, the vast majority fall between .47 and .53 caliber, .50 caliber would be a good median if we are to pick just one caliber. It is also apparent the the percentage of smooth-rifles varies with the region. In the Allentown/Bethlehem school smoothbores are in the majority, whereas in the Bedford school they are unknown.
I agree with your statement that the modern .410 is not a good choice for wing shooting but works well when aimed at stationary targets. That is of course how a smooth-rifle was used, carefully aimed and why they are distinct from fowlers which were meant for wing shooting.

 

[jdkerstetter]

My favorite book on the subject is "Kentucky Rifles & Pistols 1750=1850" It not only has excellent photos but is one of the few which gives detailed specifications of the rifles pictured, including caliber and whether rifled or smooth.

Compared to The Kentucky Rifle in it's Golden Age, Rifles of Colonial America Vol I & II, and others, the book you mention has but a mere sampling of original guns and is not as well researched....good book, but not as in depth.

Additionally, much hands-on research has been done since any of these books were first published....look at Shumway's notes in subsequent additions of the books I mentioned. Much has been learned since through thorough examination of these guns....like identifying period from later repairs, re-conversions back to flintlock, etc.

This makes it easy to see that while smooth-rifles may be as small as .40 caliber and as large as .73 caliber, the vast majority fall between .47 and .53 caliber, .50 caliber would be a good median if we are to pick just one caliber. It is also apparent the the percentage of smooth-rifles varies with the region.

Assuming that the barrels on these guns were originally smooth...we will never know.

In the Allentown/Bethlehem school smoothbores are in the majority, whereas in the Bedford school they are unknown.

The Bedford guns post date the Allentown/Bethlem guns by decades and were mainly built for recreational use as the time they were in use was non combatant. Those early guns saw war, frontier defense, longhunts and westward exploration.

Now, I never said anything about "reboring" or reaming, though I'm sure some were. I'm sure many were not taken care of by subsequent generations and the bores were left to rust and degrade....apparently many show evidence of this.

I'm not even arguing that there were no smooth-rifles as I'm sure there were, only that the "experts" who personally examined these guns agree many were originally rifled.

I agree with your statement that the modern .410 is not a good choice for wing shooting but works well when aimed at stationary targets. That is of course how a smooth-rifle was used, carefully aimed and why they are distinct from fowlers which were meant for wing shooting.

Could be. Without period accounts or references, we will never know....only speculate. It is fun to speculate though. I speculate, considering the lack of chokes, the most common use of smooth rifles would have been as buck and ball guns....not shot guns. :stir: :grin:

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

The "experts" to whom you refer tend to be very short on practical knowledge, Joe Kindig being a perfect example. No rifle barrel will ever just erode or wear out smooth, rust and corrosion just doesn't work that way, if a bore was rifled any close examination will show remnants of rifling. A smooth bore was bored smooth, either originally or later on.
As to "in depth" books, Mr. Kindig does go into excessive depth on his own theories and those theories have been accepted by many collectors who buy into what they read without question. I once owned a copy of "the Kentucky Rifle in it's golden age" and had no qualms about selling it for 1/4 what I paid for it. As a shooter and builder it was useless to me, the photos were poor, descriptions lack details such as weight, barrel length, caliber and whether smooth or rifled, and most of the book was just the author's ponpous theory. I particularly enjoyed how he would go into great detail as to the exact qualities which identify a particular school of rifle building and then proceed to illustrate with photos of guns which had none of those qualities. :haha:
I can agree that smooth-rifles probably were intended more for use with ball, but as to "buck & ball", no, small bores are not of much use with buckshot.

 

[jdkerstetter]

I believe you have misunderstood me. I was not citing Kindig as an expert...I was merely referencing the book as being better than the one you cited....in my opinion.

The experts I am referring to are more recently published....and some unpublished. Not to say they don't each have their own agenda....I'm no mind reader.

In an earlier post you gave the opinion that these early guns being bored-out smooth after a time wasn't likely. I and others find as likely as not. It really wouldn't have been that difficult with the technology of the day.

As far the why's and what for's? The fact remains, it is all just supposition until period documents confirm it either way. Maybe smooth rifles were favored by some for reasons unknown. If for hunting purposed then why early guns when we come to think of them being used for serious business in hostile times? Back to buck and ball? :hmm:

I am glad to see we agree on bore size. I really do fail to see any practicality for smooth bores under .54....especially for buck and ball.

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Barrel makers today, if asked to rebore a barrel with modern machinery, will first bore a barrel smooth to whatever standard caliber they have reamers for, then cut rifling grooves in that smooth bore. That is a complete "rebore"job.
Gunsmiths of the muzzleloading era, if asked to restore a bad rifle bore, would find boring out smooth to be pointless and counter productive. They would use the existing rifling as a guide, cast a lead slug in the bore, set a hook cutter into the slug to first cut the grooves deeper to eliminate all pits, then cast a new slug and set the cutter on a land to cut down the land tops to eliminate pits or roughness on the lands and to restore reasonable groove depth. That was called "freshening" a rifle. There was no reason to bore a rifled barrel smooth unless someone wanted a smoothbore, it was cheaper and easier to restore the rifled bore to a new rifled bore of slightly larger size. This could even be done by the gun owner himself or by itinerant gunsmiths who traveled about the backcountry with a bag of tools on a mule doing all sorts of general fix-it work including but not limited to guns. I believe there is even reference in the Lewis & Clark journals to a rifle bore being freshed out during the journey.

 

[jdkerstetter]

Right you are but I fail to see how this helps your case.

Again, I am not arguing that smooth-rifles were not made or that they would even be desirable to some, but the fact remains, we don't know.

You are making an assumption that these guns were not originally rifled and at some point during their usable life the owner didn't choose to have them reamed out....and it doesn't require a gunsmith to ream out an iron pipe. It doesn't seem logical to us in this century...but who knows...great-granpap's old flinter converted to caplock might make a good rat gun on the farm? Save those shotshells and cartridges for hunting up game. Lee Enfields in .410 don't seem logical to me either....though the Brits and Ausies had their reasons. :wink:

I am satisfied that they do exist...how they got that way and why is the stuff of fantasy for now. It's just nice to know that when I build that .62 Beck with the octagon to round barrel I have on the shelf right now, nobody can say it is or isn't "correct"....and it will make a darn fine turkey and deer gun within it's tested limits.

I am enjoying this campfire chat though. Can we agree that we've hi-jacked this thread and driven it over the abyss? :v

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[Blackfingers]

Well, I've enjoyed all the posts concerning my latest project. Although my rifle was a custom job, it was an old custom job. I didn't like the bore, it was dark and the rifling was thin, my idea was to have a nice-looking smoothie for events at my 2 BP clubs. I have plenty of TC rifles, a nice Trade rifle in .62cal smoothbore, 2 Brown Besses. The rifle getting the work has a high grade hunk of wood and I believe is worth the investment. When completed, it'll be a "fer sure keeper!" that'll be a hoot to shoot! Thanks for the attention!

 

[CoyoteJoe]

"it doesn't require a gunsmith to ream out an iron pipe" Try it, just try reaming out a rifled barrel and then maybe you will have the first clue as to what you are talking about.

 

[jdkerstetter]

"it doesn't require a gunsmith to ream out an iron pipe" Try it, just try reaming out a rifled barrel and then maybe you will have the first clue as to what you are talking about.

Have to say, I was glad that you had posted again. I thought we were having a civil exchange. Guess not. Apparently I touched a nerve.

So, I don't have a clue, eh? Not a very mature attitude to take for man of your claimed seniority. :shake: Oh, well, perhaps someone will garnder something useful from our discussion.

You must remember we're talking about 18th century wrought iron barrels here and the early to mid 19th century. There were plenty of trades/resources that worked with iron....especially when the barrel making process leaves the iron annealed...or soft. Unlike locks and other parts, barrels were not carburized...that's case-hardening.

You made the statement about the traveling gunsmith and his mule. Are we to believe that barrels were not bored out in the settled East or in the many towns of the mid 19th century? Were guns only on the "frontier"? How much hostile frontier was left East of the Mississippi by this point?

We're talking a span of over 200 years that these guns have been around. Much was left unrecorded and lost. All we can do now is discuss what may have been or what may have happened based on the available evidence so there will be differences in opinion.

Now, let's try to play nice or not at all. :v

Enjoy, J.D.