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

[Twisted_1in66]

So why the early development of swamped barrels rather than fluted barrels? Easier to machine with what was available at the time (lathe as opposed to milling machine)?

Because the barrels at the time were hand-made by hammer forge-welding a wrought iron skelp (flat and long) into a round barrel with no seam. Heat and hammer over and over for perhaps a week around a mandrel of the approximate caliber they wanted the barrel to be. There was no machining involved in that. Bear in mind that the ability to drill a bore into a cast steel blank was invented by Remington circa 1832. There was no way to drill a rifle bore in steel before that. Canons were typically cast and then reamed, which they referred to at the time as boring a canon. Although they were called cannon boring facilities, they were really canon reamers. They could clean up and straighten out an existing hole but couldn't actually drill one into a solid steel blank.

After the barrel was completely welded seamlessly together, they would remove the mandrel and ream out the bore to make it perfectly straight. n some locales the un-reamed barrels could be sent to canon makers who did have a machine that could do the reaming but not the boring. But generally, that reaming was done at the gunsmith's shop. This reaming process to straighten the bore is why several different calibers could result from the use of the same mandrel. Then, after the bore had been reamed straight, they would do the rifling, which is a very slow and laborious process using a very long "rifling table". Finally they would file the octagon shape onto the barrel. Octagon shape was easier than making it round.

That swamped style of making barrels came to America along with the Moravians from Germany who had been making Jaeger rifles in Germany since the 1600's. The swamped barrels, if you've never used one put the balance point of the barrel up close to or under the hand you use to hold onto the forearm of the rifle. That balance point makes it very easy to mount swing and hold on target, as well as just carry around - far better than a straight tapered, nose-heavy rifle where the balance point is a foot or more past where you hold onto the forearm.

The butt of my rifle that you can see in my avatar is resting on the ground (I'm all of 5'6" tall on a good day). The Barrel is 44½" long and the overall length is 60½". My Traditions longrifle has a 40¼"-long barrel and is 57"-long overall. My Early Lancaster Rifle is a full 4¼" longer than my Traditions PA longrifle and yet it weighs a pound less at 7¾-lbs. vs. 8¾-lbs for the shorter Traditions. Not all of that is due to the barrel though. My Early Pennsylvania Lancaster is a very slim and very fine build with a very slim forearm and superbly fitted stock. Both are .50 caliber and I use a .490 ball with both. I have loaned out my Traditions longrifle to members of the regiment at reenactments where they otherwise would not be able to take the field, but I keep my Early Lancaster to myself. If it goes into the field, it is going there because I'm carrying it.

 

[gustrolland]

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.

With black powder, the longer barrel is better with the burn rate. But shot different guns with different barrel lengths, I just prefer shorter barrels when hunting in thick brush. I find it just a bit easier in the thick brush around where I live. But again, have done well with a gun that has a 42 inch barrel and 15 inch pull. Shoot what you like and be happy, let no one tell what to use if you don't want.

 

[Grenadier1758]

Because the barrels at the time were hand-made by hammer forge-welding a wrought iron skelp (flat and long) into a round barrel with no seam. Heat and hammer over and over for perhaps a week around a mandrel of the approximate caliber they wanted the barrel to be. There was no machining involved in that. Bear in mind that the ability to drill a bore into a cast steel blank was invented by Remington circa 1832. There was no way to drill a rifle bore in steel before that. Canons were typically cast and then reamed, which they referred to at the time as boring a canon. Although they were called cannon boring facilities, they were really canon reamers. They could clean up and straighten out an existing hole but couldn't actually drill one into a solid steel blank.

After the barrel was completely welded seamlessly together, they would remove the mandrel and ream out the bore to make it perfectly straight. n some locales the un-reamed barrels could be sent to canon makers who did have a machine that could do the reaming but not the boring. But generally, that reaming was done at the gunsmith's shop. This reaming process to straighten the bore is why several different calibers could result from the use of the same mandrel. Then, after the bore had been reamed straight, they would do the rifling, which is a very slow and laborious process using a very long "rifling table". Finally they would file the octagon shape onto the barrel. Octagon shape was easier than making it round.

That swamped style of making barrels came to America along with the Moravians from Germany who had been making Jaeger rifles in Germany since the 1600's. The swamped barrels, if you've never used one put the balance point of the barrel up close to or under the hand you use to hold onto the forearm of the rifle. That balance point makes it very easy to mount swing and hold on target, as well as just carry around - far better than a straight tapered, nose-heavy rifle where the balance point is a foot or more past where you hold onto the forearm.

The butt of my rifle that you can see in my avatar is resting on the ground (I'm all of 5'6" tall on a good day). The Barrel is 44½" long and the overall length is 60½". My Traditions longrifle has a 40¼"-long barrel and is 57"-long overall. My Early Lancaster Rifle is a full 4¼" longer than my Traditions PA longrifle and yet it weighs a pound less at 7¾-lbs. vs. 8¾-lbs for the shorter Traditions. Not all of that is due to the barrel though. My Early Pennsylvania Lancaster is a very slim and very fine build with a very slim forearm and superbly fitted stock. Both are .50 caliber and I use a .490 ball with both. I have loaned out my Traditions longrifle to members of the regiment at reenactments where they otherwise would not be able to take the field, but I keep my Early Lancaster to myself. If it goes into the field, it is going there because I'm carrying it.

In some barrel forging facilities, the barrels were shaped using an octagonal swage block with several sizes of octagons, As the skelps were forged into a welded barrel, the welding began at or near the middle of the barrel. As the skelp is heated and welded metal moves slightly from the just welded section towards the unwelded section. The first part of the welded barrel will be smaller across the flats than the final welds at the breech and the muzzle. As the barrel makers finished filing the barrels to a smooth contour, they would start at the middle and work towards the ends, further enhancing the taper and swell of a swamped barrel. If you watch the "Gunmaker of Colonial Williamsburg" video, you can see that they do not use any special process other than going to another part of the swaging block as the barrel is made and the result is swamped barrel. While the original barrel forgers may have realized that there was some benefit to a swamped barrel, the swamped result was more of a case that swamped barrels happen. Note that after the deep drilling of rifle barrel became common, the prevalence of swamped barrels in rifles ceased. After that barrels were tapered or straight.

 

[BP Addict]

I have recently switched from short-barreled half-stock rifles to longer barreled full stock. My first was a 40-caliber iron mounted Pennsylvania with a 31.5” X 15/16” barrel. It’s a little longer than my wife’s 39” x 15/16” Pedersoli 45 caliber rifle. I can definitely feel the first one in my lower back (I might send the barrel to Hoyt and have it made into a 45). My wife’s rifle when I’ve shot it is a little easier on the back but not by much.

I’m still getting used to the longer stock and barrel and not exactly sure where to put my left hand. I’ve chosen the “Balance Point”, but it still feels a little foreign to me.

I’ve also shot a 54 caliber Lancaster with a 38” Swamped barrel. I loved the weight but hated the recoil. My favorite is my Chambers’ Issac Haines 40 caliber with a 38” swamped barrel built by Jack Hansberry. Recoil is non-existent, even if I load it with 60 grains of powder. It’s legal for deer here in Oregon but still think it might be a bit underwhelming. Especially when I have bigger calibers I can use.

In addition to the longer radius, I’ve also noticed that the rear sight is more forward than the shorter barrel half-stocks I’m used to shooting. If I go back and shoulder one now, they’re blurry. The other thing I love is the longer barrel seems to allow a more complete burning of the powder.

My hunting rifle is my GRF Trade Gun with an accessory 50 cal, 30” Octagon to round barrel. Easy to swing in the woods, not too heavy and the large trigger guard allows me to wear gloves if I want. It has a large Davis lock that throws a shower of sparks!

I’ve answered some of your questions but like the others have said it comes down to looks, fit, and weight. I’d go and see which one feels the most comfortable. Also, which caliber would be best for your hunting purposes. If you can afford it, you might get the 40 for small game and something larger for big.

And remember, you can’t have too many guns as long as there are empty slots in your safe!

Good Luck!

Walt

 

[M. De Land]

I always heard that a copper penny would show better than brass when used in low light conditions as a front sight

I've tried the penny but prefer the brass for a front sight blade. I feel it makes a better color contrast. I have not noticed any glare or fuzz from brass and it will still show up under an over head cover employed at many ranges. Shiney brass will air tarnish to a flat yellow very quickly and is the reason for it not fuzzing up the sight picture.

 

[M. De Land]

Because the barrels at the time were hand-made by hammer forge-welding a wrought iron skelp (flat and long) into a round barrel with no seam. Heat and hammer over and over for perhaps a week around a mandrel of the approximate caliber they wanted the barrel to be. There was no machining involved in that. Bear in mind that the ability to drill a bore into a cast steel blank was invented by Remington circa 1832. There was no way to drill a rifle bore in steel before that. Canons were typically cast and then reamed, which they referred to at the time as boring a canon. Although they were called cannon boring facilities, they were really canon reamers. They could clean up and straighten out an existing hole but couldn't actually drill one into a solid steel blank.

After the barrel was completely welded seamlessly together, they would remove the mandrel and ream out the bore to make it perfectly straight. n some locales the un-reamed barrels could be sent to canon makers who did have a machine that could do the reaming but not the boring. But generally, that reaming was done at the gunsmith's shop. This reaming process to straighten the bore is why several different calibers could result from the use of the same mandrel. Then, after the bore had been reamed straight, they would do the rifling, which is a very slow and laborious process using a very long "rifling table". Finally they would file the octagon shape onto the barrel. Octagon shape was easier than making it round.

That swamped style of making barrels came to America along with the Moravians from Germany who had been making Jaeger rifles in Germany since the 1600's. The swamped barrels, if you've never used one put the balance point of the barrel up close to or under the hand you use to hold onto the forearm of the rifle. That balance point makes it very easy to mount swing and hold on target, as well as just carry around - far better than a straight tapered, nose-heavy rifle where the balance point is a foot or more past where you hold onto the forearm.

The butt of my rifle that you can see in my avatar is resting on the ground (I'm all of 5'6" tall on a good day). The Barrel is 44½" long and the overall length is 60½". My Traditions longrifle has a 40¼"-long barrel and is 57"-long overall. My Early Lancaster Rifle is a full 4¼" longer than my Traditions PA longrifle and yet it weighs a pound less at 7¾-lbs. vs. 8¾-lbs for the shorter Traditions. Not all of that is due to the barrel though. My Early Pennsylvania Lancaster is a very slim and very fine build with a very slim forearm and superbly fitted stock. Both are .50 caliber and I use a .490 ball with both. I have loaned out my Traditions longrifle to members of the regiment at reenactments where they otherwise would not be able to take the field, but I keep my Early Lancaster to myself. If it goes into the field, it is going there because I'm carrying it.

One correction to your post should be made and that is that barrels made from scalps hammer forged and later rolled as were Springfield musket barrels are not straightened by reaming but rather bending/striking with a lead hammer after the reaming makes the hole round and smooth.
A drilled hole is never perfectly round ,this is the job of the reamer. A reamed hole will cast a shadow line from a vertical string when viewed through and turned against a light source any curve in the shadow is a bend. The bends were struck with a lead hammer until the curved shadow line was removed.
Cast steel barrels made by Schefield of England initially and later Remington were made by a short cylinder of cast steel 9-11 inches long and about 3 inches is diamegter with a hole punched through length wise when still soft from the casting. These cylinders were then rolled out around a mandrel which made them seamless and much more consistent and strong metallurgically.

 

[DuncNZ]

I've tried the penny but prefer the brass for a front sight blade. I feel it makes a better color contrast. I have not noticed any glare or fuzz from brass and it will still show up under an over head cover employed at many ranges. Shiney brass will air tarnish to a flat yellow very quickly and is the reason for it not fuzzing up the sight picture.

I have used old broken horse harness buckles made of German silver to make foresights , it doesn't tarnish very much once it has settled down and makes a great fine foresight .

 

[DuncNZ]

Sheffield in England was a major Iron and Steel making area , specalising in knives and cutlery ,Maybe some companies also made gun barrels but Birmingham was the main source of of firearms and firearm parts in England ,next was London .

 

[david w]

I have used old broken horse harness buckles made of German silver to make foresights , it doesn't tarnish very much once it has settled down and makes a great fine foresight .

Years ago, when I made a good salary, I flattened out a pure silver coin for a front sight. It went on a Bedford County rifle. It was the best sight I ever owned.

 

[M. De Land]

Sheffield in England was a major Iron and Steel making area , specalising in knives and cutlery ,Maybe some companies also made gun barrels but Birmingham was the main source of of firearms and firearm parts in England ,next was London .

The information I shared came from two prominent muzzle loading match barrel makers in America of the period, Horace Warner and Norman Brockway. They both preferred Shefield cast steel for their match barrels when available and second best was indeed Remington Cast steel, both were a product of the Besimeyer (sp) steel making process invented and used initially in England/Sctotland and is the reason Shefield steel was preferred as it was of a bit higher quality at the time than was Remington according to both their testimonys.

 

[DuncNZ]

Years ago, when I made a good salary, I flattened out a pure silver coin for a front sight. It went on a Bedford County rifle. It was the best sight I ever owned.

I have a pre WW1 US silver dollar stashed away for such a purpose , it is too worn to be collectable .

 

[Cattywompuss]

I have a pre WW1 US silver dollar stashed away for such a purpose , it is too worn to be collectable .

Reckon that would be a Morgan Dollar. Even worn Morgan's bring over $20 in today's silver crazy market, despite the melt value only being about $18. Get any US coin beside nickels and pennies from 1900-1964 and you have a 90% silver coin to do with as you please. A 1964 quarter has the same percentage of silver as your dollar. For a bit of martial flare, get a 1942-45 nickel, which is the only nickel made of silver.

 

[Twisted_1in66]

**SNIP**
Note that after the deep drilling of rifle barrel became common, the prevalence of swamped barrels in rifles ceased. After that barrels were tapered or straight.

Which is a real shame in my opinion. My longer Early Lancaster longrifle is so much easier and more pleasant to use than my straight tapered Traditions is.

 

[Smokey Plainsman]

The longer the barrel, the better.

You get far increased velocity that is useful to humanely harvest the animal and make the ball reach farther with better energy on target. Also, sight plane is increased and that causes accuracy to go up notably.

I personally have 0 use for a rifle with less than a 42” barrel.

They shoot MUCH, MUCH better than the cut down guns and aren’t nearly as good looking IMHO.

 

[M. De Land]

The longer the barrel, the better.

You get far increased velocity that is useful to humanely harvest the animal and make the ball reach farther with better energy on target. Also, sight plane is increased and that causes accuracy to go up notably.

I personally have 0 use for a rifle with less than a 42” barrel.

They shoot MUCH, MUCH better than the cut down guns and aren’t nearly as good looking IMHO.

Some of the old chunk guns pictured in Walters Clines book had barrels something like 6 ft long. I don't know where the length meets the law of diminishing returns in relation to velocity but practicality would most likely be the biggest limiting factor.

 

[DuncNZ]

They shoot MUCH, MUCH better than the cut down guns and aren’t nearly as good looking IMHO.

If you are referring to factory made rifles you may be correct with regard to looks , but I totally disagree with you when it comes to barrel length and accuracy . . Properly made and fed short barrels are as accurate as long barrels , maybe more as the projectile has to spend less time in the barrel and therefore it has less time for human influence on its accuracy .
Bullet placement in an animal is more important than velocity when it comes to clean kills .

 

[rusticbob]

From reading many of these posts it appears that many long barrel aficionados just want to be seen with there long barrels buy other people. And that is perfectly fine and to each his own. But from my perspective long barrels are a pain in the ass. I am primarily a hunter, and target shooter. My short barrel “carbines” hit just fine under the back seat of my Avalanche. Let’s face it, unless you walk to your hunting grounds, or shoot mostly in your have to someday transport that long gun sometime in a vehicle. My short guns are much more lighter and more maneuverable in the thick woods where I mostly hunt ,here in Vermont.
I don’t play dress up ,and I could not care less what other people hunt with or carry. To each his own, but I think my short rifles and shotguns shoot just as accurately as I will ever be able to hold.
And I have two grandsons who will find it much easier to learn on a well fitted, proper sized gun.

 

[Kmcmichael]

I have limited BP experience but I have shoot pretty regularly the last 2 years. I don’t think the longer sight radius helps that much within reason. I do think for off hand shooting the weight of the longer barrels is great for stability.
my reasoning is that I can shoot a 6” revolver with iron sights pretty well, not as well as I can shoot my Kibler but some days pretty close. There are others that can.
I do prefer the aesthetics of the longer barrel.

 

[bud in pa]

I thought that modern black powder was consumed in about 18 to 24 inches? If this is true, what advantage is a 46 in. barrel?

 

[BP Addict]

I recently viewed some photos on another forum of a Memorial Day event. At least three of those shooters had flames blowing a foot or more out of the muzzle. So, I would say that is not correct. Although much would depend on the amount of powder used.

Walt