Tulle weight

[alex efremenko]

..

 

[JohnN]

Actually the historically correct barrel length is 44".

 

[tg]

I think that holds true for some contract years from 1690-1741 or so but there were some deviations and earlier and later guns could have longer barrels, also the same style was made in other armouries. I believe there are surviving examples with 49 and 50 inch barrel

 

[Deadeye]

Cimarron, 6 1/2 to 7lb 2 oz. is only 10 oz. whick is plenty. I wish it only weighted about 6 lbs.
but it balances well so swinging on game isn't a problem. I loved it til I got a 6 lb. .52 with 36" barrel, now that's my #1.
Deadeye

 

[Deadeye]

tg, I think his business is still going strong but I believe he told me he is also a farmer.
He could certainly use an answering machine with some info about when to reach him. Maybe he has more than he can do already?
Deadeye

 

[Steve Tobler]

..

Alex, I would really like to hear what you have to say, but unfortunately did not get to the thread before you edited your post.

I'm new at all this and am willing and eager to learn from my betters, so let me have it, I can handle it.
:wink:

 

[tg]

"What do you all think about it, is the extra barrel length worth the carry weight all the time ?"

Mine has a 44" barrel and weighs just under 8 lbs and is not any burden to carry and balances very well and swings goods for me,I do not swing as fast as I once did but it is not the gun at fault there, I think one can get to light, I had a 36" fowler that was a feather weight and I did not like it and put a brass RR in it to add some weight,probably a matter of what you get used to over time as well and the fit can also be a factor when getting on target even if the balance is good, I also wanted something close to what the originals had which would have genealy been 44" and up

 

[alex efremenko]

I basically just realized i repeated my earlier post & deleted it.

 

[Mike Brooks]

Extra length doesn't mean extra weight. I build guns with 48" that weigh 6 lbs and sometimes a few ounces less. Just depends on your barrel profile, just like the 18th century.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

And I might add to what Mike said, the stock needs to be properly shaped to keep the weight down. A slim, properly proportioned stock just weighs less than a thick improperly shaped one contributing to the lighter weight everyone now and then wanted.

Look at Mike's stocks and you will see what I mean.

 

[tg]

I have never been able to take a stock down as far as I really wanted, probably a symptom of lack of experience, I know one old builder who says to thin them down untill you can start to see light thru the wood :surrender:

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

Actually the historically correct barrel length is 44".

44.3" if I recall Russel Bouchard correctly ...

 

[tg]

Again this would depend on the specific contract as several lengths are present on originals and some "deviations" in length is mentioned by Bouchard, some originals are 44 1/4" the 44" is just a standard we use for the guns that most of the furniture avalable matches from 1720-1740, longer would likley fly, shorter maybe not so much