Thoughts on long-barreled smoothbores

[Sudsy]

Around 1751, the Royal Society of England did tests on how quickly black powder burned up in the barrel and even then they found it all burnt up within at most two to three inches from the breech. (They did this by using VERY short barrels, including one that was only one inch longer than the loaded powder and ball itself.)

I'm confused, if that's the case then why all this flame going this far beyond the barrel ?

 

[megasupermagnum]

I'm confused, if that's the case then why all this flame going this far beyond the barrel ?

View attachment 90351

That's burning powder. There's lots of solids in blackpowder, that's why it smokes, and why it leaves fouling in the bore. Unburned powder, is unburned powder. There is a theory that you shoot over a white blanket, or snow, and you work up in powder until you see black particles on the snow. Of course you will find even with a poof load, there is unburned powder on the snow. It's a complete lie. No amount of barrel will ever ignite that powder. It either starts burning right away, or it does not. If you need more proof, look at the pressure curve of blackpowder. If blackpowder continued to ignite and build pressure, the curve would be nearly flat.

 

[megasupermagnum]

There is always the matter of which time in history we're discussing. I'll assume 18 hundreds.

If you judge today's powders by their consistency (specially brands like Swiss) then I could agree they are fantastic, but with regard to their strengths an argument can be made that there was "sporting powder" that was almost double the strength of our 3f available in 18-hundreds. This argument is based on loads and their velocities given in old books like Forsyth's, the Field trials etc. Although this is in the later half of the century. English authors had no problem obtaining good quality powder in India, but if I remember correctly even Forsyth mentions about importing powder from London. I'm not sure what the situation was in Americas at the time.

Regarding speed difference you mention a difference of 1050fps vs 1200fps. That is huge. It is 33% more energy (for a 67 grain buckshot ball for example) as energy increases with square of speed. The numbers perhaps don't seem drastically different, but I imagine for someone who carries all his supplies on his back being able to use 33% less powder to achieve same performance is worth carrying that rifle. Then you mentioned 26in barrel had 1200fps to 1250fps in 32in barrel.The energy difference with 1 ounce of shot is 9%. Is that a lot? If powder is expensive and you are getting other perceived benefits from a longer barrel (longer sight radius, more stability when aiming) and you like the look of it... This then results in fowlers with 44in barrels.

So my opinion is a combination of all those factors resulted in those long barrels.

Pattern wise I can't see a difference in pattern spread between my cylinder bore musket with 44in barrel and a cylinder bore in my side by side double with 29in barrel.

However, I can definitely see a difference in pattern spread between a 10in smoothbore barrel, and a 29 in one.

Those first two numbers are comparing a 10" to a 26" barrel. That's a pistol vs a rifle. I was surprised there wasn't a bigger difference. Then 1200 to 1250 fps, come on man. That is next to zero change. Go from 32" to 42", and the difference might not even be that much.

No, 50 fps is nothing, and nobody had the ability to measure that small a difference, or tell the difference until the 20th century.

 

[tenngun]

I might venture that it’s hot gas more then unburnt powder.

 

[Ironoxide]

Just saying at

Those first two numbers are comparing a 10" to a 26" barrel. That's a pistol vs a rifle. I was surprised there wasn't a bigger difference. Then 1200 to 1250 fps, come on man. That is next to zero change. Go from 32" to 42", and the difference might not even be that much.

No, 50 fps is nothing, and nobody had the ability to measure that small a difference, or tell the difference until the 20th century.

That's why I said one would choose a rifle as you get 33% more bang for your buck according to your own numbers.

The principle is not difficult to notice based on your pistol to rifle example. Do you think people back then wouldn't realise if their powder gives them 33% more performance stepping up from a 10in pistol to a 26in rifle barrel, the same rule doesn't appliy to 32in vs 42in?

I only mentioned that 9% energy difference(based on your own fps numbers) to demonstrate a seemingly unsignificant velocity change results in using almost a tenth less powder in the long run.

 

[tenngun]

There is always diminishing returns. The increased friction from the ball as it moves up the barrel vs the cooling and decreased pressure of the gas column

 

[Ironoxide]

There is one more advantage to long barrel anything. If you mess up your muzzle and you have to shorten it you still have more barrel left.

Heck, if you somehow destroy half of a 44 in barrel you can still make two 10in pistols out of it

I imagine long barrel guns were to some extent seen as more valuable as the barrel was one of most expensive components.

 

[Ironoxide]

No, 50 fps is nothing, and nobody had the ability to measure that small a difference, or tell the difference until the 20th century.

Also the above is completely false. Measuring 50 fps difference in muzzle velocity between 1200 and 1250 is as simple as observing extra 3/4 inch of bullet drop at 100m with round ball.

Just read Forsyth's books and how precise his velocity measurements were in 18-hundreds. Or the records of the field trials where then measure absolutely everything that had to do with guns with great precision. Including strength of powders available using same method we use today to measure strength of some explosives (lead block displacement).

 

[Artificer]

I'm confused, if that's the case then why all this flame going this far beyond the barrel ?

View attachment 90351

This answer is combined to you and others.

NO, It is NOT unburned powder we see as the fiery discharge in this picture!! Every bit of powder that was GOING to burn, burnt up within a few inches of the breech.

What we are actually seeing is the superheated Propellent Gas hitting the atmosphere, after the shot charge left the barrel. That superheated Gas is actually igniting OXYGEN in the air, the largest and most intense flame is closest to the muzzle where it is the hottest and it goes out from there while it cools off.

Gus

 

[tenngun]

Look at a revolver being shot as an example. In the dark you get flame coming out beaten the chambers and the barrel. In normal use the gap would never be big enough to let a powder grain slip through, even under the pressure of the gas, but you do get hot gas escaping that glows of flame.

 

[Eterry]

Well Lyman’s black powder ballistic shooting a .54 on 90 grains 3 f have a 28” barrel at1531 fps. A 43”barrel at 1685 a gain of 155 fps. But a 34” 1591, 60 fps faster then the 28” … 60 fps for 6”
A .50 in 28” on 70 grains 3f go gets 1587 while in 43” 1725, about 140 fps for 13” just over ten fps per inch
80 grains in a .45 in a 40” barrel Lyman got 2093, going to 43” 2106. 13 fps for 3”
At 1800 fps for a .54 velocity drops to 1375 at fifty yards. At 1700 fps a ball drops to1300, a 100 fps drops to 75, at a hundred yards it’s 1062 vs 1020. That’s the difference between a 120 grain charge in a .54 43” vs 120 grains in a 30”. Same charge in a 34” is 1853, you get 54 fps for nine inches, about 6 fps per inch.

Well everyone knows that book is full of crap... or that's what I hear on here when I publish data from the same book on the difference between FFG and FFFG.

Some people on here must be direct descendants of the Apostle Thomas.

Thanks for posting it... maybe someone will believe you.

 

[Eterry]

I might venture that it’s hot gas more then unburnt powder.

I totally agree....LOTS of HOT Gas around here...!

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Well Lyman’s black powder ballistic shooting a .54 on 90 grains 3 f have a 28” barrel at1531 fps. A 43”barrel at 1685 a gain of 155 fps. But a 34” 1591, 60 fps faster then the 28” … 60 fps for 6”
A .50 in 28” on 70 grains 3f go gets 1587 while in 43” 1725, about 140 fps for 13” just over ten fps per inch
80 grains in a .45 in a 40” barrel Lyman got 2093, going to 43” 2106. 13 fps for 3”
At 1800 fps for a .54 velocity drops to 1375 at fifty yards. At 1700 fps a ball drops to1300, a 100 fps drops to 75, at a hundred yards it’s 1062 vs 1020. That’s the difference between a 120 grain charge in a .54 43” vs 120 grains in a 30”. Same charge in a 34” is 1853, you get 54 fps for nine inches, about 6 fps per inch.

Are these numbers for a rifle or a smoothbore?

 

[tenngun]

Are these numbers for a rifle or a smoothbore?

All rifle. Few shot smoothies except as shotguns when the book was written
External ballistics in terms of how rapidly a ball loses velocity would be the same
Internal ballistics would vary due to friction with a tight fitting load and in the case of a smoothbore gas blow by. However expanding hot gas converting to velocity would remain relatively the same.
Looking at velocities of a 240 grain .45 conical compared to a 220 grain.54 round ball we see the guns getting similar velocities vs powder charge. With the conical being a bit more efficient in this case solid base conical.
The .54 hollow base becomes almost a carbon copy of the .58 hollow base in the same weight, the smaller being a tad more efficient
One place we see a variance is a ,62 cal ball shot today vs a 320 grain .58 minnie tested by Lyman. Shooters record 11-1400 fps with a ball compared to 800-1000 Lyman was getting with the small minnie. I would suspect the small minnie was real poor at using the gas, and suffered a lot of blow by before expanding.
On the other hand in air the 320 grain minnie performed about the way a ,62 ball of near the same weight in terms of maintaining velocity mid range trajectory
While smaller bore rifle won’t carry over one to one to large bore smoothies I would hazard the trends are the same.
Reading Lyman we see shots fired under controlled conditions at constant temps. What can .54 data from Lyman tell us about cold November morning in the deer woods?
We probably get lower performance from our guns in the field then Lyman got in test, but the trends would remain constant
So I THINK the data is applicable even if the numbers are not directly translatable

 

[Artificer]

All rifle. Few shot smoothies except as shotguns when the book was written
External ballistics in terms of how rapidly a ball loses velocity would be the same
Internal ballistics would vary due to friction with a tight fitting load and in the case of a smoothbore gas blow by. However expanding hot gas converting to velocity would remain relatively the same.
Looking at velocities of a 240 grain .45 conical compared to a 220 grain.54 round ball we see the guns getting similar velocities vs powder charge. With the conical being a bit more efficient in this case solid base conical.
The .54 hollow base becomes almost a carbon copy of the .58 hollow base in the same weight, the smaller being a tad more efficient
One place we see a variance is a ,62 cal ball shot today vs a 320 grain .58 minnie tested by Lyman. Shooters record 11-1400 fps with a ball compared to 800-1000 Lyman was getting with the small minnie. I would suspect the small minnie was real poor at using the gas, and suffered a lot of blow by before expanding.
On the other hand in air the 320 grain minnie performed about the way a ,62 ball of near the same weight in terms of maintaining velocity mid range trajectory
While smaller bore rifle won’t carry over one to one to large bore smoothies I would hazard the trends are the same.
Reading Lyman we see shots fired under controlled conditions at constant temps. What can .54 data from Lyman tell us about cold November morning in the deer woods?
We probably get lower performance from our guns in the field then Lyman got in test, but the trends would remain constant
So I THINK the data is applicable even if the numbers are not directly translatable

The Lyman figures are good figures, but since we are discussing period smoothbores, the velocity difference at 100 yards doesn't apply. I can't document how far away they shot at game using shot in the period with a typical hand held smoothbore, but I doubt it was much further than half that range and may or probably were shorter distances than that. Probably most small game was taken between 25 and 40 yards, where the velocity differences would have been easier to recognize in the longer barrels and with the varying qualities of powders they used.

Sure, the more affluent 18th century shooters used the best powder available, but I speculate the average guy used the cheaper powders.

Gus

 

[ReeveM]

'Yet another 'take' on the long barrel's potential benefit. A fellow I built a Hudson Valley Fowler for claimed his shot pattern tightened when he used 1F powder. The thought here was that the slower 'push' type burn of the courser powder as opposed to the 'punch' ignition of finer grades was more conducive to holding the shot column together as it exited the muzzle. I've never tried it but it could conceivably make some sense. My own HVF is in 12 ga. w/60" bbl. and it will easily add another 5 yds. or better to your pattern vs. a 42" or 38" . Let's see it I can get a pic up of it.View attachment 90189

I know this is a older thread, but where did you find your top rifle? I am trying to make a Afghan style Jezail or Moroccan Moukala but i cant find either A. the right stock or B. the barrel length I like

 

[smoothshooter]

@TreeMan's good thread on short-barreled smoothbores got me thinking about barrel lengths in general and long barrels in particular.
I understand short barrels and how performance relates but my main question is this: Why on earth do so many of pre-1860 firearms have barrels in excess of 40 inches? I would think all that barrel length would have a negative impact on portability....especially dense woods such as I'm familiar with in the PacNorWest. Is it balance? Powder charge? Fashion? I dunno. Really.
I bought a 12 gauge fowler from a member but my word, the length (42"). Most early fowlers though have that +40" barrel and I'd like to understand why besides balance. All of my unmentionable modern "fowlers" are all 30 inches and less. Help me wrap my noggin around this.

wm

While I prefer my BP long guns to have barrels no more than 38”, I have never had problems with carrying or shooting the longer ones in thick brush. I like the shorter barrels for convenience in loading, and fitting into vehicles.
Sure, if you insist on moving through dense vegetation carrying the gun at “ port arms “, you may have problems. There are better ways to do it.
I don’t recall ever catching a long barrel on any brush while swinging on a target either, come to think of it.
Too much is made of problems with long barrels in heavy brush, methinks.

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
There is a reason why British smooth bore sporting guns usually had 40"-46" barrels through most of the 18th century. As Feltwad wrote, it was slow burning powder. Then at the tail end of the century barrel lengths shortened a lot, often to 28"-34". The reason, powder improved a lot. Generally with today's black powder the entire charge is completely burned up by 30-34" of barrel so no need for more. That also made the side by side double sporting gun a practical firearm for hunting upland birds and game. Long barreled smoothbores were still made in the 19th century often for shooting waterfowl on the water from longer ranges. The heavy charges of powder and shot kept a dense pattern over longer range with the recoil better absorbed by the long heavy barrel.

dave

 

[smoothshooter]

The Lyman figures are good figures, but since we are discussing period smoothbores, the velocity difference at 100 yards doesn't apply. I can't document how far away they shot at game using shot in the period with a typical hand held smoothbore, but I doubt it was much further than half that range and may or probably were shorter distances than that. Probably most small game was taken between 25 and 40 yards, where the velocity differences would have been easier to recognize in the longer barrels and with the varying qualities of powders they used.

Sure, the more affluent 18th century shooters used the best powder available, but I speculate the average guy used the cheaper powders.

Gus

The use of swan shot or Rupert shot would have shortened the effective range on small game too.

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

Many years ago here I started advocating 1Fg powdah in my long barreled (65-cal of 54" and 75-cal of 60") smoothies and the results are nothing short of fantastic! So much so that I started using 1Fg loads in my 62-cal 48" club butt fowler.

Go long or go home! This is that 75-caliber club butt of 60” barrel in a tiger-striped stock, and yet it is incredibly light due to the custom Greg Christiansen highly tapered barrel, weighing less than 8-pounds. It handles like a dream and points extremely well. She will shoot paper cartridge roundball loads (no cloth patch, no wads, nada … ) into some really tight groups, like 3-4” groups or better from the sitting position @ 50-yards, using 100-grain 1Fg (due to the looooong barrel length). I once came in 2nd place to a rifle in a local woodswalk using her, but I broke a few of their gong/metal targets, so they kindly asked me not to bring this one back again, LOL!

Everyone who picks this one up is very surprised ... and leaves very impressed at how well it handles! But note I don't use it for wing shootin' ...