What we call Jug Choking...dated in the 1600's

[roundball]

Saw a terrific reference to what we call Jug Choking dating it as far back as the 1600's in Portugal.

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=121752&page=1#Post121752

 

[mazo kid]

Hey Bill....now isn't that interesting? Also validates wing shooting with flintlock fowlers in the 1600s, something that seems to have never had much provenance before....Emery

 

[roundball]

Hey Bill....now isn't that interesting? Also validates wing shooting with flintlock fowlers in the 1600s, something that seems to have never had much provenance before....Emery

Fascinating article...noticed too that what we call 'bird shot' they called 'hail shot'

 

[Capt. Jas.]

I think they are referring to enlarging from the muzzle itself down a few inches like we would think of the inside of a blunderbuss. In other words a 12 bore barrel would be opened up to about a 10 bore from the muzzle down for a few inches. This was common on English fowling guns and the breech area was sometimes also enlarged and "roughed". This is not a jug or tula as we know it where you go back some distance behind the muzzle and enlarge an area for the shot to expand and then be contracted again.

 

[roundball]

I think they are referring to enlarging from the muzzle itself down a few inches like we would think of the inside of a blunderbuss. In other words a 12 bore barrel would be opened up to about a 10 bore from the muzzle down for a few inches. This was common on English fowling guns and the breech area was sometimes also enlarged and "roughed". This is not a jug or tula as we know it where you go back some distance behind the muzzle and enlarge an area for the shot to expand and then be contracted again.

I think the most telling aspects of the article describing a Jug Choke are the references mentioned like:

"going in three fingers" from the muzzle before expanding the bore diameter...(an expansion chamber that starts in a ways from the muzzle)

The purpose to "keep the shot together for distance out to the game" (words to that effect describing a choke for a tighter pattern at longer distances)

 

[roundball]

Key reference quotes supporting the design of what we call a Jug Choke":

At p.361: "...Good adjustment of the barrel consists of firing far with the hail-shot close together and this length, that gives it esteem, until now the ultimate point to which art can cause a shot to go with undispersed ammunition, is fifty paces..."

"'...The most proven remedy for correcting this ill [1], is to widen it at the muzzle two or three fingers within [2], in such a manner that this widening becomes an adarme [3], or an adarme and a half more hollow [4], than the remainder of the gun.'"

I other words: [1] The "ill" is blowing a pattern and not keeping the shot charge together to a killing distance;

[2] The gunmakers would go in the muzzle "two or three fingers" (being about 1 1/2- to 2 1/2-inches) and open up the bore size, making it [4] "more hollow," by about [3] "an adarme or adarme and a half," an adarme being a unit of weight of lead, or, in effect saying that a 12-balls-to-the-pound "12-bore" should be relief-choked a couple inches from the muzzle to ten-bore.

"'...This widening serves for two things, which are that the pressure, and force which the powder makes in the narrow part of the gun may be less with that widening, in order to give ease to the hail shot that it may leave well, and keep together...'"

 

[Capt. Jas.]

Key reference quotes supporting the design of what we call a Jug Choke":

At p.361: "...Good adjustment of the barrel consists of firing far with the hail-shot close together and this length, that gives it esteem, until now the ultimate point to which art can cause a shot to go with undispersed ammunition, is fifty paces..."

"'...The most proven remedy for correcting this ill [1], is to widen it at the muzzle two or three fingers within [2], in such a manner that this widening becomes an adarme [3], or an adarme and a half more hollow [4], than the remainder of the gun.'"

I other words: [1] The "ill" is blowing a pattern and not keeping the shot charge together to a killing distance;

[2] The gunmakers would go in the muzzle "two or three fingers" (being about 1 1/2- to 2 1/2-inches) and open up the bore size, making it [4] "more hollow," by about [3] "an adarme or adarme and a half," an adarme being a unit of weight of lead, or, in effect saying that a 12-balls-to-the-pound "12-bore" should be relief-choked a couple inches from the muzzle to ten-bore.

"'...This widening serves for two things, which are that the pressure, and force which the powder makes in the narrow part of the gun may be less with that widening, in order to give ease to the hail shot that it may leave well, and keep together...'"

Here is the meat of the original minus the editor's remarks and the remarks of the poster on the other board....



"'...The most proven remedy for correcting this ill is to widen it at the muzzle two or three fingers within in such a manner that this widening becomes an adarme or an adarme and a half more hollow than the remainder of the gun."

"'...This widening serves for two things, which are that the pressure, and force which the powder makes in the narrow part of the gun may be less with that widening, in order to give ease to the hail shot that it may leave well, and keep together, for in this I have great experience, and never err, and have therewith corrected many guns...'"

I find no evidence in this writing to suggest going inches below the muzzle and then relieving material. I do find however that it does say that it is widened "at the muzzle" down 2-3 fingers distance.

Here is a quote by J N George concerning smooth bores in the early 18th century in "English Guns and Rifles". He handled more original guns from accross the waters than most of us ever will. He handled and owned the type of guns being described above.

"The fowling piece proper was, moreover, distinguished from the "fusil" by the form of it's barrel, which was not only considerably lighter than that of the ball gun, but was flared or enlarged at the muzzle, instead of being bored in true cylinder.... "

This description follows what I think the writing in question is describing.

George goes on to say about the flare..." The object of this "flare" was to give the shot greater velocity a the moment of leaving the muzzle by easing the friction between its wad and the inside of the barrel during the last few inches of it's passage., while at it's breech end the interior of the barrel was "roughened" to produce the opposite effect of making the wad offer a strong initial resistance to the powder, and so ensure that the latter should become fully ignited."

 

[roundball]

Here is a quote by J N George concerning smooth bores in the early 18th century in "English Guns and Rifles". He handled more original guns from accross the waters than most of us ever will. He handled and owned the type of guns being described above.

"The fowling piece proper was, moreover, distinguished from the "fusil" by the form of it's barrel, which was not only considerably lighter than that of the ball gun, but was flared or enlarged at the muzzle, instead of being bored in true cylinder.... "

No offense meant here...but I don't see where the quote you reference has any correlation to the discussion about choking.

It is a generalized quote about general overall smoothbore barrel external design shape characteristics...not anything to do with the context of an internal modification to a smoothbore barrel for the purpose of introducing a choke effect, right?

In fact, it might be best if you went to the source at the link posted above and discuss it directly with him to estabish clarification one way or another as he seems knowledgeable about the subject.

 

[Capt. Jas.]

No offense taken but read again the part about "but was flared or enlarged at the muzzle, instead of being bored in true cylinder.... ".
I have also added to the quote. George is describing the same thing. IT's concerning the INTERIOR of the barrel and not exterior dimensions.

It seems the poster on the other board has not researched past his quoted reference and is just assuming what he sees in print is jugging.

I would love to be proven wrong but the Espingarda Perfeyta quotes do not hold up to jugging. If anything they lend themselves as written explanation of what can be seen as "flaring of the internal bore at the muzzle on guns of the period.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

From the first time anyone ever fired a load of multiple pellets there has been an ongoing quest to find some manner of holding those pellets in an effective pattern at a greater distance. If the secret had been discovered in the seventeenth century I very much doubt it would have been forgotten and rediscovered two hundred years later.
As published in "The Gun" by W.W.Greener, there was a series of public shooting trials conducted in England to establish the best shooting that could be achieved by any gun maker of the time.
These trials were highly competitive since they were well covered by the press and the winning gun maker was sure to gain business as a result.
Greener was, during the time of these trials, beginning work on developing the true choke bore as we know it today. Greener never claimed to be the inventor, there are claims by a Mr. Pape in England and in America a Mr. Roper had invented a device which attached to the muzzle of single barrel guns. That neither of these "chokes" were very effective was shown by the trials of 1866. The high score was achieved by Mr. Pape with a pattern of 45% inside the 30' circle at 40 yards.
That is somewhat better than I would expect of a cylinder bore with black powder but not a great deal better.
The trials of 1875 showed the remarkable improvement obtained with choke boring when Greener won with a pattern of 67%, several other makers doing better than 60% and actually the WORST of the 30 entrants did slightly better than the winner of the 1866 trials.
Exactly when and by whom choke boring was "invented" may never be known but it is clear that W.W.Greener lead the way to perfection of choke boring in the early 1870's. This remarkable improvement in what the British called "close shooting" set the industry on its' ear. A choke bored 12 gauge or even a 20 gauge gun could out range the 8 gauge cylinder bore.
Again, I feel sure that if a system of barrel boring had ever produced such results 200 years earlier, that system would have become universally adopted just as Greener's system is still in use today.
It appears to me that the language of this old text refers to enlarging the bore at the muzzle with no mention of reducing it back down which is what provides the actual "choke" effect.

 

[roundball]

If the secret had been discovered in the seventeenth century I very much doubt it would have been forgotten and rediscovered two hundred years later.

But if indeed it's basically what we refer to as Jug Choking today, it hasn't been forgotten and rediscovered.

The trials of 1875 showed the remarkable improvement obtained with choke boring when Greener won with a pattern of 67%, several other makers doing better than 60% and actually the WORST of the 30 entrants did slightly better than the winner of the 1866 trials.
Exactly when and by whom choke boring was "invented" may never be known but it is clear that W.W.Greener lead the way to perfection of choke boring in the early 1870's. This remarkable improvement in what the British called "close shooting" set the industry on its' ear.

Can I assume correctly that "choke boring" is what we mean by Jug Choking?

And putting aside for the moment the original discussion about the findings attributed to a book in Portugal, since my interest is trying to at least identify the oldest certain date that Jug Choking (choke boring) was sucessfully established, does this mean it can at least be said to have been successfully implemented in 1870 by Greener?

Again, I feel sure that if a system of barrel boring had ever produced such results 200 years earlier, that system would have become universally adopted just as Greener's system is still in use today.

And if it is what we happen to call Jug Choking today, it is still in use.

It appears to me that the language of this old text refers to enlarging the bore at the muzzle with no mention of reducing it back down which is what provides the actual "choke" effect.

Dunno...It may also be that due to the way terminology and sentence structure was used back in those days, and/or some effects of the translation not being direct and literal has some influence on the resultant wording...what does strike me is that the underlying issue that is fundamental to the point of the article seems to be this...regardless of what it is called:
That some sort of bore sizing manipulatiion at or near the muzzle resulted in tightening of the patterns.

 

[roundball]

If the secret had been discovered in the seventeenth century I very much doubt it would have been forgotten and rediscovered two hundred years later.

But if indeed it's basically what we refer to as Jug Choking today, it hasn't been forgotten and rediscovered.

I just realized in this particular "two hundred years" comment you were referring to the difference between the 1600s and the 1800s... :redface: ...just disregard my reply to that comment

 

[CoyoteJoe]

If the secret had been discovered in the seventeenth century I very much doubt it would have been forgotten and rediscovered two hundred years later.

But if indeed it's basically what we refer to as Jug Choking today, it hasn't been forgotten and rediscovered.
Well it must have been forgotten, if ever known, since the very best patterns produced by the best English and American gun makers in the 1866 trials were no better than would be expected of a cylinder bore gun.

The trials of 1875 showed the remarkable improvement obtained with choke boring when Greener won with a pattern of 67%, several other makers doing better than 60% and actually the WORST of the 30 entrants did slightly better than the winner of the 1866 trials.
Exactly when and by whom choke boring was "invented" may never be known but it is clear that W.W.Greener lead the way to perfection of choke boring in the early 1870's. This remarkable improvement in what the British called "close shooting" set the industry on its' ear.

Can I assume correctly that "choke boring" is what we mean by Jug Choking?
No, Greener's own system of boring was for production of new barrels with choked bore just as is done with modern guns today. He also describes and illustrates the "recess choke", what we call a jug choke, as a method employed to obtain a choke effect in barrels originally bored straight cylinder. He also describes the "swage choke", where a cylinder bored barrel is pressed into a die to to reduce the outside diameter of the barrel and thus choke the bore, a method still employed by manufacturers today.

And putting aside for the moment the original discussion about the findings attributed to a book in Portugal, since my interest is trying to at least identify the oldest certain date that Jug Choking (choke boring) was successfully established, does this mean it can at least be said to have been successfully implemented in 1870 by Greener?

Yes and no. It is clear that Greener knew of jug choking and that he and other gun makers employed that system to choke barrels originally bored cylinder. He makes no claim of being the originator of the idea. Greener was interested in producing new guns with choke bore. He probably looked on jug choking as an after market "fix" for older guns.
Again, I feel sure that if a system of barrel boring had ever produced such results 200 years earlier, that system would have become universally adopted just as Greener's system is still in use today.

And if it is what we happen to call Jug Choking today, it is still in use.

It appears to me that the language of this old text refers to enlarging the bore at the muzzle with no mention of reducing it back down which is what provides the actual "choke" effect.

Dunno...It may also be that due to the way terminology and sentence structure was used back in those days, and/or some effects of the translation not being direct and literal has some influence on the resultant wording...what does strike me is that the underlying issue that is fundamental to the point of the article seems to be this...regardless of what it is called:
That some sort of bore sizing manipulation at or near the muzzle resulted in tightening of the patterns.

The remarkable difference in shooting between the trials of 1866 and those of 1875 clearly indicate that something revolutionary was developed during those nine years. The English gun makers lead the world in shotgun development during that time and they studied and kept abreast of developments on the continent and in America. If any sort of "muzzle manipulation" were known to tighten patterns prior to 1866 then the shooting of that trial would have been very much better.
I think it had first to be shown that reducing the muzzle diameter would indeed tighten patterns, then various methods of achieving that effect followed very quickly. Mr. Pape is one of those with some claim to having "invented" the choke and his guns placed first and second in 1866 but with unremarkable results. Greener is credited with "Perfecting the invention" during the 1870's and though Greener won in 1875, the results from all makers were much improved over those of just nine years earlier.
I think the most one can say with certainty is that choke boring by any method, jug or otherwise, came to be understood and widely employed during the 1870's. If attempts were made earlier they must not have been very successful. It would appear to me that the true choked bore, wherein the muzzle diameter is reduced at the choke, first proved it's worth, then the jug choke was developed as a method to achieve a similar effect.

 

[roundball]

Got it...
1) Some form of production manufactured choke boring introduced in the 1860's
2) Perfected production manufactured choke boring in the 1870's
3) What we refer to as Jug Choking today also called 'recess choking', emerged as an after-the-fact gunsmithing activity to attempt to get the benefits of production bore choking by adding the recess or expansion chamber ahead of the muzzle.

All makes sense and I can safely conclude the Jug Choke concept I'm using in my smoothbores today was not a new, 20th century idea...and was available back during early american traditional muzzleloading era.



Now however, there is still this one nagging question regarding the accounting in the Portuguese book: That some sort of bore sizing manipulation at or near the muzzle resulted in tightening of their patterns of hail shot.

So setting aside the 200 years gap issue...if it was not some sort of choke boring, recess choking, jug choking, etc, etc...what in the world could it have been ??

Or...even considering the 200 year gap issue, is it possible it could have begun emerging in Portugal but with communications and distances of the times that far back, it remained very localized over generations, then may have crept into Spain, etc...but that it simply never got out of the locale with respect to England...I mean its not like its just this guy's opinion over on the doubleguns forum...he references books, authors, dates, page #'s, etc.

Has to be an explanation somewhere, somehow...

 

[Capt. Jas.]

So setting aside the 200 years gap issue...if it was not some sort of choke boring, recess choking, jug choking, etc, etc...what in the world could it have been ??

After seeing a couple of these flared guns in person and using a bore mic on them, it is easy for me to see it was simply a description of the practice of flaring out the muzzle end of fowling piece barrel bores that lasted thru the 18th century.

Here are a few bore measurements I have handy from 18th century fowling guns with this type of barrel treatment to show as an example of the flares:

.714 at muzzle narrowing down for 2” to .682
.709 at muzzle narrowing down for 2” to .681.
.737 at muzzle narrowing down for 1.5” to .708

This practice was believed by some to improve patterns. If I had not seen them, it would be easy for me to imagine the writer describing a jug type of choking. That it could be kept hidden except to slip over in to Spain and never see the light of day in England does not hold true though. The English gentlemen went to great lengths to procure these same barrels from their place of origin.

Here is another period quote about the same procedure which the writer questions as wishful thinking.
"An Essay on Shooting" [based on La chasse au fusil by G.F. Magné de Marolles].
By Essay, Gervais François Magné de Marolles
Published by , 1789
"Some make the barrel wider for three or four inches at the muzzle; and this bell-mouthed form is of very ancient date.
Espinar,whose treatise has already been mentioned,says he has generally found this succeed in making barrels throw their shot closer. Were this true, we should expect to find this form of barrel more generally used than it is at present and not hear so many complaints among sportsmen about their pieces. We cannot ourselves perceive the slightest ground for perceiving it, nay we are decidedly of the opinion that it is rather of disadvantage to the shot of the piece and for the following reasons: As hat is seldom employed for wadding, it is scarcely possible that more or less of the flame will escape past the wadding of tow or paper and insinuate itself among the grains of shot; this flame will expand itself laterally as soon as it arrives at the widened part,and by driving the grains along the sides of the muzzle, will communicate a whirling motion to them, that will increase their divergency considerably.
When we consider that the grains of shot which are in acutal contact with the sides of the barrel, compose upwards of half the charge,we cannot be surprised if enlarging the surface of the caliber at the muzzle and therby increasing the number of grains that touch it, will tend to make the shot be scattered more widely..."More conversation ensues on barrel alterations to improve patterns and can be found here...
http://books.google.com/books?id=-...+Le+Chasse&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=0_0#PPA123,M1

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

So, rather than an actual bell mouth, the result is more like coning the muzzle? And any real improvement in the pattern would really depend on the loading technique and components?

 

[paulvallandigham]

My thoughts on this too. Unless someone can show me how belling the muzzle tightens up patterns, no matter the load, I think this old Portuguese treatise is talking about something else. And, I read it the way that Roundball is reading it, or at least I think he is still reading it! :shocked2: :surrender: I think they are talking about a form of jug choking.

I am not surprised that something like this might be lost. When Portugal began losing its empire to both Spain, and later France and Britain, much of its influence on current ideas in every aspect of society were ignorred as well. The Baby WAS thrown out with the bathwater. Portuguese gun makers, always making good arms, were pushed aside. If only a few of them were jug choking barrels, I can see where the process could have died out with the passing of the smiths who knew how to do it. A lot of ideas have their origins back in antiquity only to be rediscovered hundreds of years later.

I also think the tooling needed to do jug choking would be rather difficult to reproduce and control, making someones unguided attempt to do this a mistake at best. Not until machine tools became better made in the 19th century, could anyone expect to do this kind of fine work inside a barrel with any measure of accuracy.

Just my $.02.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

I believe Capt.Jas. covered this very well. Relieving the muzzle as described was a "questionable improvement" and thus was in time abandoned.
Jug choking as we know it today can easily double the pattern percentage of a cylinder bore. Anyone witnessing the shooting of a choked bore would be in no doubt as to the improvement. If one gun maker succeeded in doing that prior to 1866 his guns would have become famous and the practice would have soon become universal just as it did become universal in the 1870's. Even if the inventor endeavored to keep it secret he could hardly have done so while commercially marketing his product. The presence of a jug choke in a shotgun bore can be easily seen, felt and measured by anyone examining the muzzle and any exceptional shooting gun would have been closely examined by many hoping to duplicate such shooting.
The process of cutting a jug choke is hardly veiled in mystery. I made my own tools for jug choking and I am neither a rocket scientist nor a tool and die maker. I would not know where to begin to make a barrel from scratch but with my simple hand tool I can turn a cylinder bore into a full choke in about an hour, assuming there is sufficient metal in the barrel walls.
Choke boring, by whatever process, makes such a remarkable improvement in the shooting results that there is simply no way such improvement, once discovered, would ever have been allowed to die out and be lost.
I believe there is a quest here to place an early date on the practice of choke boring similar to the attempt to justify "inline" muzzleloaders by citing an obscure example. This ignores the fact that if an idea has merit and offers some clear and practical advantage or improvement it would not long remain obscure. Jug choking offers an enormous advantage, doubling the range of a cylinder bore.

 

[paulvallandigham]

JOe: I am not going to argue with you about any of the things you say. However, I think you should consider the fact that most of what you say relates to a gunsmith in a unregulated, free- market Economy.

By contrast, Back, 400 years ago, Gunsmiths and gunmakers were highly regulated by the governments in Europe, because they were considered to be a " dangerous " resource of the King. They were not only licensed, but what work they did was often dictated to them. They could not go around creating new ideas, and then go into business for themselves to market the idea. The King might not have even allowed the smith to publish, or talk about his new "invention" because the King wanted a monopoly on that secret. He would want the "secret " so he could kill birds at longer ranges than his cousins from other countries who visited him. He could win handsome wagers with such a secret. And, he had life and death control over all his subjects, and particularly over his gunmakers. Gunmakers and gunsmiths were not free to work on any kind of gun, or on guns owned by just anyone. They worked for the King. Any smith found working for himself could be jailed or killed as a traitor.

Under those conditions of political repression, its far easier to understand how an advancement like jug choking could be " lost " when the artisan died.

Portugal has never been known for its open mindedness or encouragement of free thought. About the only radical thing ascribed to the Portuguese kings was the financing of Columbus' first Voyage to the new world, and the Queen( Isabela ) only did that to beat out her Spanish and Italian Enemies and secure to herself possible riches if this crazy Italian succeeded in finding a more direct way to the Orient!

Just something to think about.

 

[roundball]

I believe there is a quest here to place an early date on the practice of choke boring

If you're referring to me, you're wrong...I was excited to find and share with all of you, a reference article about a book from Portugal that suggested that was the case...