swamped barrel accuracy

[LRB]

Wick Ellerbe:
I find that very hard to believe. Even wrought iron isn't THAT soft as to stretch from tight loading. Wear down maybe one or two thousandths from a polishing effect, but not acually stretch from loading.

Thank you. In my entire lifetime on the planet I’ve never seen another endeavor that comes close to having so much unsubstantiated old wives tales and pure speculation set forth as facts, as there constantly seems to be in the world of traditional muzzleloading.

RB, you just ain't looked into knifemaking steels and heat treating yet!! :grin:

 

[Rifleman1776]

probably thought

That is really convincing. :shake:

 

[Vaino]

In the realm of practicality, whether a swamped or straight bbl is more accurate, is quite academic. Fairly accurate, useable loads can be developed in both types of bbls, but these loads wouldn't be considered accurate by target shooters and definiely not by the bench guys. These 2 classes of shooters use straight bbls of greater dias to suit their needs...target shooting demands a muzzle heavy rifle and bench shooters demand a large dia, straight OD for consistency. The reason swamped bbls came into existence is unknown...we can surmise why it happened...easier to make by forging, lighter bbl w/ a heavy breech to withstand greater pressures, better balance, lower front sight vs a taller one w/ a straight tapered bbl, aethetics and some other guesses not mentioned. Asre harmonics and bbl deflection yrs back...don't think there's evidence that it was even considered, but then again, we definitely don't know the reasons for a lot of things.....Fred

 

[Larry Pletcher]

Fred,
I think that was a pretty good answer. My gut says that it would a great target style sight system to ring out the differences we're discussing. Maybe it took the advent of quality sight systems to allow the development many of the advancements we enjoy today.
Regards,
Pletch

 

[Vaino]

I agree that refined sights are needed to ascertain..."what indeed is an accurate rifle?"...Fred

 

[roundball]

Actually, I think the original poster was looking for more of a real-time practical assessment of their accuracy, and the thread may have drifted a little when the declaration was made that barrels were swamped to make them more accurate by dampening out harmonics.

An official support for that declaration was asked for.
No such official support has been identified.
By contrast George produced a historical paper to the opposite of that declaration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But speaking for myself in every day terms to the original poster's question, I use a number of swamped barrels in multiple rifle calibers and multiple smoothbore gauges. I also have multiple straight barreled rifles.

I haven't found my swamped barrels any more accurate than the straight barreled versions...and if anything, I'd give the slightest nod to the straight barrel versions as they are heavier.

However, my swamped barrels carry and handle much easier and feel livelier than my straight barreled MLs...IMO the very result that their design was intended to produce...and as a result, I prefer to still hunt with them over the same corresponding caliber or gauge straight barrel.

Other's mileage may vary...

 

[LRB]

We agree RB. I will add though, as far the mentions of sights in above postings, there were cross bows fitted with peep sights. It was the later development of machinery that could drill and shape barrels easily and cheaply that killed the swamped barrels.

 

[tg]

Obviously the peep sights of the 14th 15th century would not produce comparable results as the 21st century version of peep sigts if both were installed on swamped or straight ML barrels to try and determine accuracy. there are many "items" which have comparable uses and names throughout the centuries, but also have quite different degrees of usefullness and efficiency. Just another of many tired dogs that may require a bit of rest and perhaps should not be awakened. :hmm:

 

[Coot]

Has anyone ever seen a true swamped barrel (not just a bit of muzzle flare) on any gun other than an antique muzzleloader or replica thereof? Serious modern target shooters spend many thousands on custom guns and modifications to guns made by the most knowledgeable manufacturers and gunsmiths available and if a swamped barrel was for any reason inherently more accurate than a straight or tapered or stepped barrel, I am pretty sure that we would see swamped barrels out there on guns that have no pretense at being historic. :idunno:

 

[hanshi]

Swamped barrels go back a long time whatever the impetus that got them started. They handle better and feel better to me than most straight barrels. this makes them a better choice, IMHO, for the woods and recreational shooting.

I have never missed a deer - or seen one missed for that matter - because a rifle was not accurate enough. In this respect whether or not swamped beats straight in the accuracy department is moot. High level competition is a whole-nuther-game!

With all this considered go with what the match winners use if that's your game. If it's hunting and fun shooting a swamped barrel will serve fine and out shoot you, me and them. Plus it's not as hard to hold up and lug around.

 

[Coot]

Don't get me wrong on swamped barrels - I have two and would never trade either for anything else. They look, carry, balance and hold too well. My point was that IF there was any greater inherent accuracy (how well the barrel shoots as opposed to how easy it is to hold it) in a swamped barrel, we would see them in the hands of serious target shooters of modern guns. If your post was addressed to this thread in general & not a specific reply to my post, then I agree completely.