What does a longer barrel add to a rifle's ability that a shorter one gives up ?

[PowderSchooner]

Hello everyone, recently I popped a question on here about a 46" Barrel .50 caliber rifle and it was pretty vague after not being able to take pictures of the rifle per the seller's request. The same seller called me last night letting me know he will be willing to sell 7 more of his rifles and let me have a first crack at which one(s) I wanted to buy. I went over early this morning and looked them all over and they are all very nice rifles. 3 of them have 46" barrels and are .40, .45 and .50 cal. 2 have 33" Barrels and are both .54 caliber. The final 2 rifles are an original 1817 Common Rifle made in 1841 with a flintlock and is .54 caliber 33" Barrel and final rifle is a .77 caliber Jäger Rifle and has a 32" barrel and was made in the 1930s. My question is this simply put, what would a 46" Barrel give you that a 33" barrel couldn't if both barrels were same twist rate and caliber. Also if the longer barrel had a slower twist rate than the shorter barrel would that be a more accurate rifle ? My apologies if I'm being a nuisance on this forum but I'd rather not buy a rifle online to where I can't see it nor return it if it's a custom rifle purchase from a private party. These rifles are local and can be held and seen with my hands and eyes so I'm very interested in them. Thanks to all who can help me with this question as I've been reading older forum posts and have been getting too many conflicting results that have lead me nowhere for about 3 hours. Thanks to all who reply.

 

[doubleset]

A longer barrel adds two things: (1) muzzle velocity for a given load, and (2) length of sighting plane (and so potentially improved accuracy for a given shooter, if using standard iron sights).

Of course, it also typically adds weight and subtracts some degree of "handleability".

 

[SirFrancis]

It’s my understanding that a longer barrel gives you good looks and historical correctness first and foremost. It’sthought by some that the long barrel of longrifles was more fashion than function. Fowler barrels were long and the frontier Indians wanted their hunting rifles to look the same.

Also a longer sight plane which may make your shots more accurate compared to a similar-sighted rifle with a shorter barrel.

And theoretically a long barrel gives you a greater powder burn efficiency (better velocity from worse powder) but in practice I doubt it matters. You can always add more powder and even the worst powder today is much better than the 18th century colonial era stuff.

 

[poker]

There are pro’s and con’s to most any differences in build. Otherwise there’d just be one version that would sell. If you’re going hunting in brush with it, get the carbine. If it’s going on wide open prairie hunts, get the 46er. If you want to hang it on your wall to enjoy looking at, get the prettiest in your eyes one.
This is why you buy all the rifles you can get your hands on. Then you can waste whatever money you have left on other things.

 

[doubleset]

And theoretically a long barrel gives you a greater powder burn efficiency (better velocity from worse powder) but in practice I doubt it matters. You can always add more powder and even the worst powder today is much better than the 18th century colonial era stuff.

Not quite that simple in the general case since it's not just "efficiency" that's the issue (and I take "efficiency" as you use it to mean how much of the powder charge is burned). A potentially significant issue is the pressure and pressure curve, and the longer barrel can affect this. But that gets pretty esoteric, and for BP rifles it's difficult to imagine that it would ever become a genuine issue.

 

[tenngun]

Looks is the primary thing. Most old guns had long barrels…. If they came from France, the Low Countries or the British isles. Spanish , Italian and Germanic guns tended to be shorter. Scandinavian guns were mixed.
Across the board military guns after the invention of the bayonet tended to be long.
Guns tended to shorter in the nineteenth century although in Appalachia’long toms’ remained the style.
So the only thing is if you want classic American flintlock, a French trade gun or English import you need a long barrel.
Should you want nineteenth century you will find shorter guns in flintlock, by percussion times many long guns were converted, many new guns were short.
Powder quality could be poor in the past but it wasn’t ‘mere coal dust’. Eighteenth century ballistic test were done. As they had no chronographs they used a ballistic pendulum and Newtonian math.
Charge for charge the velocities recorded were in the midrange of velocities recorded now with particular charges
Lyman published ballistic tables for ml and charge for charge an inch could lose velocity or gain up to 18 fps per inch. All and all it works out to about 10fps per inch. And over 42” there are diminishing returns
And although the Hudson valley fowlers had barrels of six feet that 38”-46” seemed the sweet spot for classic flintlocks.

 

[martin9]

Simply put ....a longer barrel gets more velocity for the same powder charge.....better sight radius so easier to focus on target....and is steadier on target, or better put for me, the follow through after the shot is more steady. I've built and shot several Jaegers and many longrifles....I am always a better shot with the longer barrels.

 

[doubleset]

Eighteenth century ballistic test were done. As they had no chronographs they used a ballistic pendulum and Newtonian math.

Lavoisier, eh?

 

[SirFrancis]

Not quite that simple in the general case since it's not just "efficiency" that's the issue (and I take "efficiency" as you use it to mean how much of the powder charge is burned). A potentially significant issue is the pressure and pressure curve, and the longer barrel can affect this. But that gets pretty esoteric, and for BP rifles it's difficult to imagine that it would ever become a genuine issue.

Maybe more relevant in the era of welded, hand-forged iron barrels with greater propensity to failure, and perhaps widely variable pressures from different grades of BP? But yeah, in todays world it’s hard to imagine a real advantage in terms of powder consumption or velocity between a 46” barrel and a 39”er. And safety is more or less moot because a gun barrel of todays manufacture will not let go with bp pressures unless there is a loading error of some kind (eg air space, bore obstruction.)

We tend to load with the amount of powder that gives us good groups in a particular gun, not necessarily the load that will compensate for a few inches of lost barrel length.

 

[Art Caputo]

I recall reading that the longer barrels of the day were common with the idea to accommodate the variability of burn-rate for the the available black powder. I fully concur with the previous statements about velocity and sight plane effects. As to practical accuracy/precision at ranges under 100 yards, I have not seen much of a difference between 38” and 44” barrels with common specifications other the length. My choice of barrel length is usually chosen based on a blend of the handling characteristics, and the dimensions of a particular rifle type.

 

[longcruise]

To dig a bit deeper on the sight plane length.

For older shooters the sight picture becomes more difficult to put together due depth of focus issues. One thing that helps is moving the rear sight forward. A longer barrel allows that and still helps keep a longer sight plane.

I used to shoot with an older guy who had two extra dovetails between the breech and the dovetail that held his rear sight. The extras had brass inserts with dates stamped in them. Said they sort of documented his aging eyesight. Also said there is historical documentation for it.

 

[SOLANCO]

What is it for? Woodland hunting? Open land hunting? Still hunting or stalking? If for hunting, how long and how far will you have to carry it? The range?
Consider the advantage of a longer sight radius. The advantage of less weight if you will be carrying it for long periods. The advantage of a shorter gun in brush/woods.
I think the difference in pressure/velocity/accuracy is as nothing compared to the importance of getting lots of practice at the range.

 

[longcruise]

What is it for? Woodland hunting? Open land hunting? Still hunting or stalking? If for hunting, how long and how far will you have to carry it? The range?
Consider the advantage of a longer sight radius. The advantage of less weight if you will be carrying it for long periods. The advantage of a shorter gun in brush/woods.
I think the difference in pressure/velocity/accuracy is as nothing compared to the importance of getting lots of practice at the range.

I think that's a very important consideration.

For a hunter who does it from a tree stand in thick woods they would probably be fine with a 20" barrel .

 

[doubleset]

For older shooters the sight picture becomes more difficult to put together due depth of focus issues. One thing that helps is moving the rear sight forward. A longer barrel allows that and still helps keep a longer sight plane.

Good thought, and perhaps worth trying at some point -- assuming you're willing to cut (or to pay someone to cut the extra dovetails. But of course, this may also then require modification of the rear sight notch in terms of width. You can't win.

Or rather, there's only one way to win, but on BP rifles we don't want to go there -- unless purely for hunting purposes. And even then the idea of sticking glass on a traditional BP rifle is seriously dissonant. But at some point, a classic non-magnifying/focusing tube sight might appeal.

 

[PowderSchooner]

What is it for? Woodland hunting? Open land hunting? Still hunting or stalking? If for hunting, how long and how far will you have to carry it? The range?
Consider the advantage of a longer sight radius. The advantage of less weight if you will be carrying it for long periods. The advantage of a shorter gun in brush/woods.
I think the difference in pressure/velocity/accuracy is as nothing compared to the importance of getting lots of practice at the range.

Where I hunt on my farm the woods isn't too thick. I'm not hunting in brush thicker than a stone wall. There are many deer trails running through the woods that are quite wide. I would say the deer woods I hunt are quite open with a seldom few areas of overgrowth. I don't hunt from a tree stand I usually sit up against a tree or behind a log or dirt embankment and just wait for em. Sometimes I stalk but not often. As for carrying the rifle I'd say maybe only a walk of about 12 acres at the most at any given time before I find a spot to stop and that is probably an exagerrated maximum. Farthest shots will be 75~80 yards at the most even when I get 100% comfortable with my rifle whatever I choose. I also don't know if I should stick with a .50 or .54 as a choice or go down to a .45 or .40 as supplies aren't exactly growing on trees and I will be doing a lot of practice shooting. Hope this helps it didn't even cross my mind how the terrain would affect the rifle choice. Thanks for pointing that out and I hope this additional information gives a better explanation than my original post.

 

[PowderSchooner]

To dig a bit deeper on the sight plane length.

For older shooters the sight picture becomes more difficult to put together due depth of focus issues. One thing that helps is moving the rear sight forward. A longer barrel allows that and still helps keep a longer sight plane.

I used to shoot with an older guy who had two extra dovetails between the breech and the dovetail that held his rear sight. The extras had brass inserts with dates stamped in them. Said they sort of documented his aging eyesight. Also said there is historical documentation for it.

I have seen a lot of posts on here about just buying rifles and eventually you'll buy and buy until you will have a house full of muzzleloaders. That being said I really would like to have one good one that will hopefully last me from now until a grow to old to hunt and shoot anymore. At least a deer rifle anyway I'd still like to get a nice fowler or squirrel rifle one day.

 

[nhmoose]

One word answer "Class!"

 

[SOLANCO]

Where I hunt on my farm the woods isn't too thick. I'm not hunting in brush thicker than a stone wall. There are many deer trails running through the woods that are quite wide. I would say the deer woods I hunt are quite open with a seldom few areas of overgrowth. I don't hunt from a tree stand I usually sit up against a tree or behind a log or dirt embankment and just wait for em. Sometimes I stalk but not often. As for carrying the rifle I'd say maybe only a walk of about 12 acres at the most at any given time before I find a spot to stop and that is probably an exagerrated maximum. Farthest shots will be 75~80 yards at the most even when I get 100% comfortable with my rifle whatever I choose. I also don't know if I should stick with a .50 or .54 as a choice or go down to a .45 or .40 as supplies aren't exactly growing on trees and I will be doing a lot of practice shooting. Hope this helps it didn't even cross my mind how the terrain would affect the rifle choice. Thanks for pointing that out and I hope this additional information gives a better explanation than my original post.

Sounds to me like the longer barrel would not disadvantage you much in your terrain. And if you may be shooting out to 80 yards the increased sight radius and forward weight will be beneficial. And at that range you are going to want the .54, which will have the added advantage of being lighter.

 

[david w]

With my new Kibler SMR and it's 46" barrel, I can probably knock a squirrel out of a tree just by swinging the gun around!

 

[hanshi]

I've hunted with rifles sporting barrels from 24" to 42" and can only come up with two differences. First, a short rifle is definitely easier, to some extent, to carry, handle and maneuver through brush. The other is that longer rifles look "nicer". Actually never thought much about it.