Wogdon's bent barrels

[WRussell]

In the 1780s Robert Wogdon became famous for his duelling pistols. He was one of the few gunmakers of the day who retired wealthy. There are widely varying opinions about just what his success was due to, but all agree that his bent barrels had something to do with it.
Pistols of the day had tapered barrels, and unless the front sight was inconveniently high, the flight path of the ball went uphill compared to the sight line. Wogdon bent his barrels down so the ball left the muzzle going parallel to the sight line. My opinion is that he who could hit the center of a target at all the common duelling distances would be reckoned a crack shot, and Wogdon made that easier.
Some collectors are of the opinion that it was all a sales gimmick and couldn't work.
My question: have any shooters out there actually tried a Wogdon dueller to see if it works?

 

[TFoley]

I have to admit that my expertise in this field is limited over the last forty something years, so you'll have to forgive me if I simply say that I don't recall ever seeing a duelling pistol from the era of Wogdon, Nock or any others,where the slight taper, if it was there at all, was sufficient to sent the ball skywards at the close ranges encountered in the duel.

I've also shot a LOT of duellers in my time, and found that they all shot to just about where I pointed them. Thankfully, that did not mean that I survived a duel but just got well placed or even won competitions shooting them in the way that they were intended to be shot.

Can you quote more information on this subject, please?

tac

 

[Gene L]

I didn't think English dueling pistols had front sights on them. Wouldn't have to bend a barrel to raise the impact, just tilt it up in the stock.

 

[dave_person]

Hi Gene,
I don't know where this idea that dueling pistol did not have sights comes from? It certainly is not from anyone who has handled an English or European-made original. Dueling pistols had front and rear sights and the pistols were very accurate. The rear sights, at least on English dueling pistols, usually had a wide "U" notch designed for quick nap shooting. The great British collector and author on firearms, Keith Neal, demonstrated the accuracy of a pair of Mortimer pistols by consistently hitting the center of a playing card at 20 paces.

dave

 

[hawkeye2]

In the 1780s Robert Wogdon became famous for his duelling pistols. He was one of the few gunmakers of the day who retired wealthy. There are widely varying opinions about just what his success was due to, but all agree that his bent barrels had something to do with it.
Pistols of the day had tapered barrels, and unless the front sight was inconveniently high, the flight path of the ball went uphill compared to the sight line. Wogdon bent his barrels down so the ball left the muzzle going parallel to the sight line. My opinion is that he who could hit the center of a target at all the common duelling distances would be reckoned a crack shot, and Wogdon made that easier.
Some collectors are of the opinion that it was all a sales gimmick and couldn't work.
My question: have any shooters out there actually tried a Wogdon dueller to see if it works?

I'm sorry but I may be missing something here. If you bend the muzzle end of a barrel down the front sight will be lowered by the same amount the barrel end is lowered. A person sighting the pistol would have to hold the muzzle higher to maintain the sight picture with the result the ball would still be going uphill as before.

 

[Gene L]

I guess I'm wrong. What I read a LONG time ago is that English dueling pistols were smooth bore without sights to allow Providence to take a hand in duels. In other words, if a duelist missed, especially if both missed, satisfaction had been reached. The code of the duel in America I believe required smooth bore pistols. Otherwise, it was murder.

Dueling was a gentleman's occupation in England. French dueling pistols (I read) were rifled and designed to kill rather than reach satisfaction.

I know a lot (or some) duels were fired two or more times without drawing blood.

 

[denster]

Dueling pistols were smooth bore as a rule and most had sights although they were really not necessary at the close ranges duels were fought. Within dueling ranges a smooth bore gives up nothing in accuracy to a rifled bore.

 

[TFoley]

While this is generally true, those sneaky French persons invented what was called French rifling, or, as the English-speakers correctly called it, concealed rifling. This was rifling that began at the breech, but disappeared into smoothity as you got to the muzzle. It was not at all obvious, and needed VERY close inspection to detect at all.

Having shot a number of French duellers with this, ahem, 'improvement', I can reliably inform the audience that it makes not a jot of difference at 20 yards whether or not the barrel is rifled or no.

Every dueller I have ever shot has had sights, many had the improved roller frizzen, and all went bang instantly, just like shooting a percussion pistol, in fact.

Being a poor person, I could only afford a pair of duellers by selling something I love, like a kidney or my old Porsche. As such, I have to content myself by shooting those that belong to people who do not need recourse to such fancy dealing.

tac

PS - the generally-agreed rules for the conduct of a duel regard it as an 'exchange of shots', and not a continuous barrage until somebody gets hit and is wounded or killed. That is to say, one shot in each direction.

 

[denster]

Trust the French to come up with an ingenious solution to a non existent problem.

 

[TFoley]

Hélas, je ne pourrais pas faire un commentaire. :surrender:

tac

 

[dave_person]

Yes,
And Manton, Rigby, Mortimer, and others copied it, calling it "scratch rifling". Under English rules, the shooters were not to take deliberate aim but they could snap shoot using the sights, hence the wide rear notch. However, as target shooting became very popular in the early 19th century, dueling pistols also served as target pistols and rifling became more common. The barrels were polished bright , smooth, and true, even those with rifling, and the lock and trigger mechanisms were the best in their day. Despite usually being plain, a cased pair were very expensive.

dave

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
Have you tried contacting Geoff Walker ([email protected]). He is very knowledgeable about English pistols and frequently sell cased duellers by Wogdon and others. Visit his website at www.flintlockcollection.com

dave

 

[Mike M.]

I saw a reference to this in John Atkinson's "The British Duelling Pistol", which is pretty well the standard reference on the subject. He's got a whole chapter on Wogdon.

Having said that, I own a Wogdon & Barton pistol...with Robert Wogdon's personal inspection mark on the barrel. It doesn't seem to have any bend in the barrel. It does have properly set up front and rear sights. The grip doesn't fit my hand perfectly, but the gun will shoot...I have no doubts of its ability to deliver a World Championship score if I get my act together.

 

[denster]

Je suis sûr que vous pourriez avoir pensé à celui. :haha:

 

[TFoley]

I've bleeve I've seen his display stand on a couple of occasions, but sadly, I only had around $10,000 in my pocket, and had to pass on his stuff.......

Very beautiful guns tho'..

tac

 

[Many Klatch]

I don't know about dueling pistols but I have bent the barrels on a bunch of smoothbore long arms. In every case we had to bend the barrel up to get them to shoot on point not down. Sounds like some armchair theorist wrote about bending the barrel down.

 

[pargent]

:rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :bull:

 

[WRussell]

Wow. A lot of responses here.
To Dave Person - I just sent an email to Geoff Walker. We'll see what he has to say. Good thought.
To tac - a barrel like Wogdon's, but not bent, would put the ball a few inches high at 60 feet or so. A pretty rough number, since measurements are difficult on a hand-filed barrel, and any slight error gets magnified a bunch. About the only solid fact is that Wogdon retired wealthy. His duelers must have been successful.
To Mike M. - Barton apparently was not privy to Wogdon's secret barrel-bending technique, since I've heard all examples of his work have straight barrels.
To the several nay-sayers, make a drawing of a straight barrel and a bent barrel, same dimensions otherwise, thick at the breech to stand the higher pressure and thin at the muzzle, front and rear sights of the same height, and draw a line through the sights. Then on the straight barrel, draw a line from the center of the breech out through the center of the muzzle, and you'll see it goes up, eventually crossing through the sight line. On the bent barrel, the bend is (by trial and error, no doubt) enough to put the fight path parallel to the sight line.
Point is - this is just what I'm talking about: Opinions and questions. Where's the proof? Somebody needs to get out there and compare a bent barrel with a straight barrel. There's history to be made here!

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
It was no armchair theorist. It was William and John Rigby, two of the finest makers in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

dave

 

[George]

On the bent barrel, the bend is (by trial and error, no doubt) enough to put the fight path parallel to the sight line.

At dueling distances the difference in flight path would be inconsequential, but if the line of sight and the line of bore are parallel, the ball will strike low, it won't stay parallel to the sight line. The ball begins to drop, to fall away from the line of sight, the instant it leaves the muzzle, it can't be prevented.

The whole process of 'sighting in' a gun is done to compensate for that drop. The line of bore must be pointed up just enough to exactly cancel out the drop at whatever distance is chosen for the sighting in.

For a dueling pistol and at dueling distances, the difference in the flight path between a straight and a bent barrel would possibly not be as much as the width of the ball.

Spence