Artificer said:
For the old claim that longer barrels "hit harder" than shorter barrels, there has to be a significant difference in velocity between barrel lengths and the only way to test that is by using the exact same load, in the same barrel, at different barrel lengths.
George said:
Also true. In both instances, though, it's true only if you are not allowed to add more powder as needed in the shorter barrel to compensate for the change in length. Both ideas tell us interesting things about how our guns work, but we aren't locked into using the same charge in the real world. I can make the short barrel shoot flatter and harder than the long one if I choose.
Spence
Spence,
Thank you for this added information and I very much agree with you.
The reason I started this thread was to test the 18th century general belief that "longer barrels shot harder and were more accurate than shorter barrels" - would stand up to real world testing. I am trying to figure out why this old belief got started and whether it was actually true. It is something like what you mentioned in your thread on "Why we believe..." (at least I think so, though I could be wrong about that).
18th century gunsmiths and customers did not have the test equipment we have today. That does not mean they were stupid, it just means they did not have the capability to test things like we do today. So their conclusions from empirical evidence may not or do not stand up to real world testing.
Since modern testing does not show enough differences in velocity or drop or energy when using the same powder and PRB between 30" to 44" lengths of a barrel, then it seems likely or probable that this was not the reason for their belief that longer barrels were more accurate or the other benefits mentioned.
Shorter and slightly larger diameter/thickness barrels shoot every bit as well as Long Rifle Barrels, again, if not more so. We know this from Plains Rifles. We also know it from comparing Rifles to Rifle Muskets during the WBTS where period testing actually showed the shorter "Rifle" with a slightly thicker barrel was more accurate than the longer barreled Rifled Musket by British Tests and at long ranges. We also know that thicker modern barrels shoot more accurately than lighter weight barrels. In each case, the slightly heavier barrel weight gives the accuracy advantage from more uniform barrel vibrations. Jaeger rifle barrels often were heavier or larger in thickness/diameter than Long Rifles for the length of the Jaeger barrel and that would have given them an advantage of better barrel vibrations, unless the barrel was on the REALLY short end of Jaeger barrel length.
Longer sight radius does aid in getting the best accuracy out of a rifled bore/gun, but that also has limitations on how much is gained at what barrel lengths. I admit I am skeptical this was the reason they thought longer barrels were more accurate, both from the fact that 33"-36" barrels in plains rifles proved as accurate, if not more so than Long Rifles with PRB's and from a lot of modern experience in Long Range Iron Sight gun building and watching the best shooters shoot those guns.
So far, I believe there is one thing that definitely would or at least could have shown 18th century gunsmiths and customers that longer barrels were more accurate and that would have been had the shorter barrels had twists too fast for medium to heavy powder charges. Since many Jaegers seem to have been rifled "one turn in the barrel," that would often give them too fast of a twist for medium to heavy powder charges that would at least equal the accuracy of the Long Rifle Barrels IF the Long Rifle Barrels were also rifled "one turn in the [longer] barrel" or at least a slower twist.
Now, I do not pretend this is the main reason or only reason that longer barrels were believed to have been more accurate in the period. Nor do I pretend I have "all the answers." I am open to other reasons why 18th century folks may have thought that Long Rifle Barrels were more accurate, etc., etc. than short or mid length barrels. I would like to see other theories tested, though, so it can be proven.
Finally, I am open to the possibility that 18th century gunsmiths and customers just believed longer barrels were more accurate, etc., etc. and did not really have good evidence or proof to back it up.
Gus