Tennessee or Iron Pennsylvania?

[stombaug]

rr11, Kopfjaeger, and Henry (Happy Birthday Henry, by the way )...

The Early Virginia is a handsome piece that I am considering as well. My intent with the original post was to poke the forum for input about rate of twist for a 54 caliber, and not so much a discussion of Tennessee vs. Iron Pennsylvania. The original title was "Another bucket of the same old worms", or something like that,(moderator changed the title for clarity, which is fine, and I see why they did).

As far as HC/PC goes, TVM told me that it would fit my target period of 1780-1830... do you guys agree? (this could be yet another bucket of said worms)

To be honest, the base package for the Early Virginia, according to TVM's new pricing, is a little outside of what I was looking to spend. My cousin (FortFireman) recommended this model as well (with a swamped barrel and the L&R Queen Anne lock).

But, if you guys think that the Early Virginia is HC/PC for the period I mentioned above (and carried by someone who was dressed the way the goofball in my avatar is), and based on what you said about the balance/recoil in the .54, then I might just have to find a way. :hmm:

 

[kopfjaeger]

The early Virginia rifle is what I went with (10 years ago) as my hunting rifle. I have a 36" half round barrel and it is a joy to carry. The deer hate it :wink:

Octagon to round barrels are nice. I have a Danny Caywood northwest trade gun with one. The barrel is rifled, 36" long, and in .58 caliber. It is a joy to carry in the woods, it's pretty light in weight.

Clickflash, I really like my TVM Early Virginia. The wider butt plate does help with recoil. Mine has a 42" rice swamped barrel ( C-Weight ) in .50 caliber, a round face english lock, a single trigger, a three piece domed patchbox, all the furniture is browned steel, it balances very well, and shoots excellent. Right now I'm waiting for my brother-in-law to get some time to carve the stock for me with a few 18th century designs.

 

[Twisted_1in66]

Sorry, I thought your were looking for a gun that could be used throughout the Rev War. 1780 is still within the Rev War but for all intents and purposes, the war was over a year later with Cornwallis' surrender (Oct. 19, 1781). Although the war wasn't officially over until 1783 because the Brits wouldn't sign a separate peace treaty with the US, they basically stayed put in the places they occupied after 1781. So it's not really something that would be seen in the early and mid-War.

That will certainly be good for the fur trade era (1790-1830 or so) but not a real good choice for 1770's as that style didn't come about until about 1780 and Tennessee was even more of a frontier than western Virginia was at the time.

I'm with r11 about the wider butt plate and the swamped barrel. I have the wide butt plate on my Early Lancaster rifle and the thing butt on my Traditions PA Longrifle. Both are .50 cal and my Early Lancaster rifle is much easier on my shoulder.

Also, I will never again purchase a longrifle that doesn't have a swamped barrel. The swamped barrel on my Early Lancaster is much easier to bring up and hold on target than the straight barrel on the Traditions. The 40-3/4" straight octagon barrel on the Traditions makes it a very nose-heavy rifle. The 44-3/4" swamped barrel on my Lancaster makes it much easier to mount and sight the rifle and keep it on target. It is a very nicely balanced rifle. Add to that the fact that my longer Lancaster is about 2 to 3-lbs lighter than the Traditions and you can see why I prefer it. It really makes a huge difference in the rifle and although it typically cost about $100 more for a swamped barrel, it's well worth the difference.

Twisted_1in66 :thumbsup:

 

[galamb]

I will start by saying that I think TVM fills a very large gap between totally custom builds and "stuff" that is sold off the shelf in places like Cabela's.

TVM makes very good rifles. The parts are from some of the best providers and essentially no different than what some of the 6K rifle builders use.

I also get "economics" plays a large role in the average "buyers" decision. I can't afford to drop 5 or 6K on a rifle (which is why I build my own - of course, by the time I ever get good enough to build a 6K rifle I will probably have spent 10K on "practice rifles" :rotf: )

This is how I would "critique" Matt's rifles with regards to the question as you asked - "how HC/PC are they".

They are "generically" HC/PC.

What I mean is - his Early Virginia can easily be recognized as a HC Early Virginia rifle (depending on your own definition of Early).

The PC part is where it gets a little more "muddy".

You really need to define what "period" you are looking at.

His rifles (regardless if you are talking about an Early Virginia, Late Lancaster etc) have taken design/architecture elements from a whole slew of builders who worked over "upwards" of a 50 year period - to me that is stretching "PC" to quite an extreme.

If you are looking for an "early" Early Virginia, then perhaps some of what you see in a TVM model would not have been done until 20 or so years "later".

If you are looking for something more "general" such as "I want a rifle that could have been built in Virginia in the latter half of the 17th century" then a TVM WILL fit that requirement.

If you want a rifle "that is representative of something that the (elder) messers Haymaker or Sheetz might have built immediately preceding the Rev War, then you would "disappointed" with the product.

 

[J.D.]

My cousin (FortFireman) recommended this model as well (with a swamped barrel and the L&R Queen Anne lock).

But, if you guys think that the Early Virginia is HC/PC for the period I mentioned above (and carried by someone who was dressed the way the goofball in my avatar is), and based on what you said about the balance/recoil in the .54, then I might just have to find a way. :hmm:

Mr Lamb is correct in his description of the TVM "Virginia" Rifle.

The Early Virginia really isn't all that representative of a particularly early rifle, or even a Virginia rifle, but it is close enough to
get by. I suggest you nix the L&R lock, in exchange for the Chambers Early English lock or the Early Virginia lock. IMHO, the Chambers locks are much, much better locks, and a far better value.

 

[Blackbruin]

rice barrels will be 1-66 for a .54 i believe unless custom, standard .54 colerain will be 1-56, as my memory serves me. The manufacturer will dictate, not sure what barrels tvm uses.

 

[Dphar]

Even the barrel builders can't all quite decide what twist is "best" - they all have their own Voodoo calculators.

There is a few mathematical forumlae that are supposed to "help".

The "Greenhill" formula (says) Twist = 150 X diameter of the bullet (squared) divided by the length of the bullet (obviously with a ball all measurements are the same).

For a .530 ball that would give you - 150 x ((.53 X .53)/.53)) = 79.5 (if you trust my math)

So Greenhill says 1:80'ish for a .53 roundball.

But Greenhill didn't initially take into account "velocity".

Once velocity is factored into Greenhill, the twist drops a bit. At "typical" muzzle loader velocities you would only require a 1:70 twist for a 54 or 50 cal (Green Mountains Twist rate).

So next the "modified" Greenhill formula was born to try and come up with a "rule of thumb/one size fits all" calculation.

The Modified formula says take the caliber and multiply it by 1.25 = 54 x 1.25 = 67.5 (1:66 is what Rice uses)

Then there is the Miller Twist Rules which determine the "stability" of a projectile fired at X speed with Y twist.

Miller states that for stability you need to achieve a (stability) of between 1.5 and 2.0 for "stable flight".

A 54 cal (.530) roundball will achieve a score of 1.75 if fired between 1400 and 1700 fps (typical with 60 to 100 grains of powder) from a 1:56 twist barrel (the twist used by Colerain).

So you can flip a three sided coin :grin:

Greenhill says shoot a Green Mountain barrel;

Modified Greenhill says shoot a Rice; and,

Miller says shoot a Colerain.

Or you could say to heck with all of them and get a custom 1:48 twist 54 cal like the Hawken Brothers used to rifle in their shop. And you could argue they knew a little bit about making 54 cal rifles whose owners very lives depended on their functionality...

The problem with Greenhill is it was designed for artillery not small arms and does not really work for any of them its only ball park. In a 40-45 caliber BPCR for heavy bullets its about 2" too slow. Its WAY too slow for a 54 if is gives 80+- inches. Berger Bullets puts a 48 or 56 as well stabilized for a 54 RB and 70 marginal and 80 as too slow. But its for modern bullets so there will be some error.
But a 48 will give all the velocity one wants with a 54 RB and in my experience is very accurate. If I were to order a barrel in 32 to 54 It would be 48 twist. I have a 80" twist 67 cal barrel that is very accurate though Bergers program lists in in the middle of the marginal range. Really a RB will be fairly stable with a very slow twist, it takes very little. But they tend to shoot better with a little more spin.

Dan

 

[Dphar]

. . . a gunsmith could actually be arrested for making steel parts as all of those were supposed to be imported from England . . .

So all barrel blanks, lock parts and plates were imported? ;-)

The Colonies were also suppossed to pay six pence per gallon of molasses imported from the West Indies. Not.

A lot of them were.
But before the American Revolution there were water powered barrel mills for forging and grinding barrels in PA.

Dan

 

[Dphar]

. . . a gunsmith could actually be arrested for making steel parts as all of those were supposed to be imported from England . . .

So all barrel blanks, lock parts and plates were imported? ;-)

The Colonies were also supposed to pay six pence per gallon of molasses imported from the West Indies. Not.

Hey Stumpkiller,

The longrifle barrels were made here because England didn't make them. But they did supply all the smoothbore barrels (fowlers and muskets). Prior to and at the beginning of the war, locks were imported from England by the barrel and the round-faced English locks were used in both rifles and muskets.

The Brits didn't much care about brass side-plates, pipes, and nose-caps but they didn't want the colonials making steel parts and you could be arrested for doing so. Britain would use the raw materials from America; manufacture the goods, and then sell the goods back to us. That was actually their business model. Britain primarily wanted the colonies to provide the raw materials but not do the manufacturing.

As you got away from the British presence, people used what they had because there was little chance of British enforcement of the laws and trade goods were harder to come by. That's why you more commonly see iron/steel fittings on southern rifles such as those from Tennessee and western Virginia and darn few on Pennsylvania rifles. The tidewater areas of Virginia (such as Williamsburg) also primarily used brass because the Brits were all over that area too.

Twisted_1in66 :thumbsup:

Actually they DID make longrifle barrels in England. Apparently quite a few of them. The Moravian gunshop originally used imported barrels and apparently made almost all rifles until eve of the American Revolution.
They were also making longrifles and they were being imported and sold in the Colonies.
Some information on this can be found in "British Military Flintlock Rifles" By DeWitt Bailey and "Moravian Gunmaking in the American Revolution" by the Kentucky Rifle Association.

The British were especially concerned that we not have the ability to make sheet iron or have milled for cutting sheet iron. Shipping pig iron back to England was apparently OK. Nor were we allowed to import unworked brass. The brass had to be made into something, in England preferably. These oppressive policies were just part of the reason the Colonies rebelled.

Dan

 

[Ken Cormier]

I personally prefer iron mounted rifles.

 

[bpd303]

Iron is my choice as well.

 

[stombaug]

Reply to everyone who chimed in on this thread:

Thanks to ALL of you, for your opinions and input. Based on these responses, here is what I have decided to go with (if it is available - I'm waiting for an email response):

A TVM Early Virginia with iron furniture, super premium maple, stained dark brown. Ideally, with a swamped Colerain barrel in .54 cal, 1/56" twist, and round-bottom rifling (that's what I am hoping is available). Also hoping that I can get it with the Chambers Late Ketland flint lock.

If that's a viable combination, I will be ordering very soon. Thanks again to all. :bow: :thumbsup:

 

[stombaug]

:rotf: , Considering the title of the thread!

 

[hanshi]

Reply to everyone who chimed in on this thread:

Thanks to ALL of you, for your opinions and input. Based on these responses, here is what I have decided to go with (if it is available - I'm waiting for an email response):

A TVM Early Virginia with iron furniture, super premium maple, stained dark brown. Ideally, with a swamped Colerain barrel in .54 cal, 1/56" twist, and round-bottom rifling (that's what I am hoping is available). Also hoping that I can get it with the Chambers Late Ketland flint lock.

If that's a viable combination, I will be ordering very soon. Thanks again to all. :bow: :thumbsup:

IMO it would be a mistake to use a dark stain on P++ wood. It will likely cover up much of the striping and figure. I'll be happy to tell you how I know that.

 

[frogwalking]

A .54 caliber Tennessee rifle will be very uncomfortable to shoot. Most originals were between .32 and .38 caliber. The shape of the stock,, and buttplate are not suitable for a rifle that has substantial recoil.

 

[Mike.54]

Good point hanshi made about going too dark stain on a figured maple stock.

 

[rr11]

I do not know really how HC/PC the TVM Early Virginia is I had my rifle build for a deer rifle. Matt gave me his advice on what he felt I needed with the info I gave him. The rifle is a great hunting rifle at a price I could afford. That is what I wanted.

 

[Wes/Tex]

I do not know really how HC/PC the TVM Early Virginia is I had my rifle build for a deer rifle. Matt gave me his advice on what he felt I needed with the info I gave him. The rifle is a great hunting rifle at a price I could afford. That is what I wanted.

You're the only one that has to be happy. Shoot it and enjoy it...never forget to have fun! :wink: :thumbsup:

 

[stombaug]

There are a number of pics on TVM's Facebook page in that scheme and the striping is very visible. I don't care for the red stain and I think their coffee stain is WAY to dark, although it looks good on plain maple. And I don't think the light honey stain would be PC.

 

[kopfjaeger]

There are a number of pics on TVM's Facebook page in that scheme and the striping is very visible. I don't care for the red stain and I think their coffee stain is WAY to dark, although it looks good on plain maple. And I don't think the light honey stain would be PC.

I agree ClickFlash. I have two Early Virginia flintlocks by TVM. The one I have with a super premium plus stock is stained lighter which allows you to see the strips in the maple easily, my other early virginia has a plain maple stock. Matt suggested to stain it coffee, he was right the coffee stain made the plain maple stock look nice.

If your going to get a super premium plus stock I would go with a lighter stain to show the grain of the maple. At least ask Matt which stain he recommends to bring out the grain of the stock.