Swamped Barrels

[Vic Price]

Where can I learn ( read ) more about swamped barrels and why they are made this way versus a straight barrel. I'm sure this has been discussed here more than once and I don't want to bore you folks with a re-discussion. I don't know or understand why the muzzle flairs out.

Regards, TraderVic

 

According to the book Building the Pennsylvania Longrifle..... There is NO definitive reason why a swamped barrel is the shape it is.

Woodhick

 

[rich pierce]

I'll give you conventional wisdom. Obviously they could have made the barrels any way they wanted, because if you take a wide look at 18th century arms, the barrels could be quite fine.

Why swamp a barrel?
1) Thickness at the breech was a premium then. That was the safety margin. Soldiers would double load accidentally in combat, and hunters or shooters might also. With a tapered or swamped barrel, the breech can be thick and still have a good weight or balance.
2) Why flare at the muzzle?
A) Looks good.
B) When welding up a barrel, It often ends up thicker at the ends anyway. Why not take advantage of it instead of working hard to taper it down?

 

[George F.]

I read somewhere that the muzzle flared to a larger dimension was to bring the line of your sight picture closer to the centerline of the bore, otherwise if you had a taperd barrel the front sight would be elevated considerably above the muzzle. I am aware that the later plains rifle ( Bridger style ) had a tapered barrel, how that looks I don't know... haven't seen one... but I'm sure it felt light when holding on a target like a smoothie feels. Still learning and have alot to learn, please feel free to correct me.
....George F.

 

[Flintandsteel]

The best explanation I've heard and hold to...
First of all.... Have you ever handled a 42" straight octagon barreled gun. That sucker is VERY muzzle heavy. The same 42" barrel that is swamped is a dream to handle.
The shape of a swamped barrel is based mostly on the handling ability.
As said before, the strenth is needed at the breech, the taper is there to reduce weight and make that piece into a fine handling rifle.
The flare at the muzzle, is the bring the front sight back up to the level of the rear sight.
It IS rocket science after all. 18th Century rocket science, but as well thought out and engineered as present day rocket science. If it didn't work, why go through all the extra work?? :winking:

 

[Zonie]

Taken from one of my old posts on swamped barrels:

I'll jump in with a guess about the reason for a swamped barrels shape.

IMO there was a desire to get weight out of the barrel and because of the high pressures around the powder charge, the breech was not a good place to remove barrel material.

The middle area, being reinforced by material on both sides could be made a lot thinner.

The muzzle was the weak place for two reasons. First, it only has material on one side (the area towards the breech.)

The second reason takes a little explaining:
The old barrels were not only iron (much weaker than any steel) but they were forge welded.
Forge welding, in which the barrel material is heated to the yellow-white hot plastic like condition and then fluxed (to keep the joint clean) and then pounded together to form the weld produces a weld of questionable quality to put it mildly. Simply put, the weld may or may not have bonded so it was weak.
If the weld was weak, the gun barrel should have as much thickness as it can have in the area. This thickness not only increases the likelyhood of having some good weld in the joint but it makes the barrel much stronger just because of the increased material thickness.

That is my theory of the reason for the swamped barrels shape. I'll gladly consider any other ideas (like I like the idea of raising the sight higher).

 

[C_Laubach]

Zonie,
A forge welded joint done properly is the strongest weld there is. Whether it be done with steel or wrought iron. Technically there is no joint if done correctly.

Chris Laubach

 

[Zonie]

Chris: I agree under ideal controlled conditions like modern industry uses.

IMO in a blacksmith shop with a open hearth coal or charcoal fired method of heating to a eyeballed temperature (they didn't have pyrometers) and using simple fluxes like Borax to remove the oxides that form (during and after heating) in the weld area leaves a lot to be desired and can create welds of very questionable quality.
I believe the potentially poor quality of the welds in that era is what made Proof Firing imperative.

 

[C_Laubach]

Zonie,
I could not disagree more. I have helped my father forge a many a barrel and it is not as “questionable” as one may think. My father has been forging barrels for over 30 years.
I can only remember one that had an issue when we proofed it. That issue was do to poor
Iron not the weld. The barrel stud proof but had a silicon inclusion at the muzzle that caused a chunk about ¼” to blow out of the muzzle. That was easily fixed with a hack-saw.
If you ever make it to Dixon’s Gunmakers Fair stop by, I think you will be quit surprised at
how effective the process really is.


Chris Laubach

 

[dlemaster]

Zonie
I have to agree with Chris on welded barrels
I have a small sectiom cut from the end of the last forge welded barrel we made. It is about 1" long, and the end is very slightly tear drop shaped where edges overlapped to make the weld on the outside end, but on the other end that was hacksawed off the barrel blank the hole is nearly round and no sign of the weld even when I polished it and examined it under a strong magnifying glass. In a good forge weld the metal becomes homogenous in the area of the weld (if that makes sense).

Regards, Dave

 

I would go with the sight height theory. I have seen several flintlock pistols with tapered octagon barrels whereby the bore was parallel with the top flat and the rest of the flats were tapered to center the bore at the muzzle, keeping the font sight very low.