Some things to learn from an antique barrel

[Chowmi]

I thought it would be helpful to post some pictures of details on an original Longrifle barrel as a reference for those who don't get to see these things, and are interested in what old iron barrels look like when out of the stock and up close.
 
This barrel is about 40 inches long, and very lightly swamped.  It is a pretty hefty barrel.  I have only the barrel, no other parts of the original gun.  The barrel has a maker's mark, "ROOP", and a signature, "T. Ford". 

This is intended as a study of one particular barrel, and therefore, a study of how one gunmaker used this barrel.  There is a notable diversity in how gunmakers executed tasks, and this is one example. 
It is entirely possible that there are modifications to the barrel in it's life.  However, I see no evidence of the sights or barrel loops being moved.  The front loop is missing, so it either fell out, or was removed for whatever reason. 

The barrel loops are not dovetailed, they are what we would now call "staples", installed by chiseling out 2 small depressions in the bottom flat, and upsetting the outer edge of the depression in a similar manner to upsetting the ends of a dovetail.  Here is a picture of the loop on the barrel:





You can see that the depression, or hole, in the barrel has been upset and then peened down. 

Here is a picture of the chiseled depressions left in the barrel after the missing front loop was lost or removed:




It's likely that the barrel loop was bent into a slight "U" shape prior to installation so that the feet with barbs would fit in the chiseled holes.  It was then set in place and tapped down into square so that the barbs on the feet moved outward into the upset portion of the holes.  Then, the upset was peened down to secure the loop. 

Here is another pic of the loop in place:




You can see the "U" shaped outline of the area that was upset, and then peened down to cover what was probably a barb in the loop.   

Also note the obvious file marks on the bottom three flats of the barrel.  I have seen this same thing on other original barrels, including a Dickert barrel. 

My internet is wicked slow, so I will post this section, and then move on before I lose all I have written in a rural internet disaster. 

Cheers,
Norm

[Chowmi]

2nd Installment:

There has been a discussion of how small the sights were on original guns.  This gun has a very small barleycorn front sight.  The rear sight is quite bulky by my eye, and appears higher than I would have thought. 

The front sight has a brass base and a silver blade.  I supposed it could be German silver, but I think I would be surprised if it was German silver. 




Note that the height of the sight is very small.  Roughly equivalent to the depth of the dovetail.  It's also quite long compared to the base and does not have that distinctive curve (tall at back and sloping down towards the front)  that you see on modern sights. 





In these two pictures, you can see that the sight base extends just slightly past the edge of the top flat.  It is not filed flush with the flat.  That may be to allow the front sight to be drifted for windage without exposing the dovetail.  Or, it just might be the way they were made.
Also, there is a decorative line in the base aligning roughly with the edge of the top flat.  That may be decorative, but I have a hunch it may also serve as an index line so if you drift the front sight, you can see how much.  That's just simply my own uninformed guess. 

You might notice that the muzzle end seems to have a bit of a lip, as if the barrel was used to pound on something.  Your guess is as good as mine.  I've not seen that before. 

More later,
It's time for a drink with the neighbors!

Norm

[Eric Kettenburg]

The lip/ridge on the muzzle is from repetitive standing of the soft iron barrel muzzle-down on a hard surface.  I  have seen quite a lot of this, pretty much always around the upper three flats.

[PPatch]

That is some neat work on those barrel lugs.

dave

[Chowmi]

The lip/ridge on the muzzle is from repetitive standing of the soft iron barrel muzzle-down on a hard surface.  I  have seen quite a lot of this, pretty much always around the upper three flats.

Thanks Eric, that hadn't occurred to me.

Cheers,
Norm

[Chowmi]

third installment:


Here is the rear sight.  To my eye, it looks a bit clunky.  By that I mean that the sight post is a bit thick, and stands tall in proportion to the length of the whole sight. 
If there was any decoration on the front of the sight, it has worn away. 

You can see that the dovetail was upset slightly to install the sight.  Not as much as on some other guns that I have seen. 





On these two pictures, you can see that the top edge of the rear sight is not a level plane parallel to the top flat.  The outer sides are the highest point, and the top edge of the sight slopes down from each side to the middle to form a very very shallow "V". 

On the picture below, it appears that there is a line across the top of the sight post at the very rear edge.  It looks quite distinct and obvious in the picture, however I simply cannot see it in real life, even with my reading glasses on in good sunlight.  It is probably there in reality, but looks nothing like the picture. 

The highest part of the sight, i.e. at the outer edge, is .180" above the top flat.  The top of the "V" notch for the sight is lower, I just don't have a good way to measure how much.  Not much, is the answer. 

The front sight is .058" at it's highest point, which happens to be a hair under 1/17th of an inch.  Very tiny. 

cheers,
Norm

[David Rase]

Great stuff Norm.  Appreciate you sharing.  There is always something to learn.
David

[Chowmi]

Fourth installment:

Here is the touch hole. 

This may provoke several comments and speculation as to whether the barrel is original flint or not etc etc.  I do not claim the expertise to definitively say one way or another and will happily take discussion on the matter as long as it is pointed towards learning from this relic. 




So, you can see that there is a circular impression around the touch hole. That is food for thought. 
In my mind, it could be one of two things:
It could be that the gun was percussion at one time and converted or re-converted to flint and we see the reconversion plug installed and drilled for flint.  There is quite a bit of large pitting on the barrel at the rear that may have come from early percussion caps. 

Alternately, it could be a period repair to a burnt out touch hole.  Install a plug, and then re-drill the touch hole. 


You also can see a notch filed in the bottom flat of the barrel for the front lock nail.  This is common on original guns. 
If you have to do this in order to build a skinny gun, don't feel bad.  You are in good company. 

Next obvious thing:
The touch hole is very high on the flat.  That is worth noting.  it puzzled me a bit.  I looked on the opposite side ( the left side vertical flat of the barrel) and there is a definite rust line that would seem to indicate a line defining where the wood on the stock is. Above that line is exposed to the elements and more rough.  Below that line is more smooth, as in protected from the elements.  I have seen similar lines on old guns.  On this barrel, that line is actually particularly rusty, as if moisture sat right on that line. 
Anyway, on the side opposite the touch hole, that line rides quite high.  Similar to the touch hole position.  I realize that side plate mortices and lock plate mortices often do not match.  That is a given.  But, on this barrel, the touch hole is high, and the rust line indicating wood on the other side is also similarly high.  The barrel may simply have been set deep into the wood for whatever reason. 

Here is another view of the notch, and the barrel maker's name.  My apologies that the name is slightly out of focus:




The photo above also gives a sense of the filing marks on the barrel.  Rough on the bottom 3 flats because they are not exposed. 

Lastly on this subject, the rear edge of the touch hole is less than .500 from the rear face of the barrel (roughly .470 or so).  Most American guns had a 1/2" breech plug.  This one could have impinged on the breech plug and have had a notch filed in the face of the plug.  In just the right light, I can just barely see the edge of the face of the breech plug at the back end of the touch hole. 

Cheers,
Norm

[Chowmi]

Lastly,

Here is a picture of the signature on the barrel. 

I had a hard time getting all of the first letter to photograph well.  I manipulated the photo a bit, which resulted in some odd colours and made it look like the pitting is greater than in reality.  The top left extension of the first letter "T" is faint, and that is what I was trying to show better. 

Anyway, it is "T Ford".  To the modern eye, it might look like J Ford, so I looked up 18/19th century script in James Meek's engraving book, and for good measure, Google, and that first letter most closely matches a T. 
I then went to the KRA website to find a T Ford gunmaker, and came up blank.  The other gunmakers list, referenced in our ALR library also did not have a T. Ford. 

It looks way better in person, but still has a good amount of rust/pitting. 




A few other notes and impressions:

The bore seems to be smooth.  I have not run a bore light down to check for rifling, but there is no evidence of it at the muzzle. 
Almost dead on, .50 calibre, approximately 1/2 inch down the bore. 
It looks to be coned, as at the muzzle it is .540
No noticeable run-out on the bore at the muzzle. 

The edges, or corners, of the barrel flats are slightly rounded where they have been exposed above the stock wood.  The corners on the bottom 3 flats, while not sharp, are much more crisp that those of the top flats.  This fits with what I have seen on other guns. 

I see occasional posts by folks who are worried that they need to pull a barrel for cleaning every time they shoot their guns.  I would bet several cases of beer that the old timers almost never pulled the barrel, and were not nearly as nit-picky as we are about cleaning their guns.
Yet, and this is important, the bottom three flats are much sharper and have less pitting than the top three flats on this barrel.  Remember that the bottom three flats were not filed nearly as well as the top 5, which would lead one to think that they would be ripe for corrosion setting in.  That is not the case. 

I do not claim to be an expert, so these are my musings, and lessons from this barrel.  I wish I had 20 more of them. 

Cheers,
Norm

[Curtis]

Lots of cool stuff there Norm, always lots to learn from original guns and relics!  Glad you shared the photos and your thoughts.

Curtis

[Chowmi]

There is a possibility that this barrel was made by Jacob Roop, Dauphin County PA.  By no means definite.

J. Karl, on this site sent me a link to a bio of Jacob Roop, who was a gunmaker, and had a boring mill.  He likely apprenticed in the late 1790's and is listed as a gun maker in 1805. 
Here is the link:

http://roop-history.blogspot.com/2009/01/biographical-sketch-of-jacob-roop-1779.html?m=1

To further the idea that Jacob Roop might have made this barrel, there is a Roop gun in the ALR library, and the lock and barrel are engraved or stamped in all capital block letters, similar to my barrel. 
Here is the link:

http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=7481.0

I do not wish this post to devolve into a discussion of who made the barrel and/or gun, as the intention was to show a sample of a typical 18th/19th century barrel and how one guy did it. 

I provide the links to Roop as a way to show how me might develop research to link it to a certain maker and learn a bit more.  I do not make the leap of attributing this barrel to Jacob Roop at this time.  Certainly, learning who the barrel maker and gun maker was is valuable, and I greatly appreciate the association made by J. Karl. 

To keep the thread on the track of learning general traits,  if you have more information or insights into Jacob Roop, or T. Ford, please PM me as J. Karl did, and I will post updates as and when. 

Cheers,
Norm

[n stephenson]

Norm, Neat old barrel!  I have a few old barrels and pieces , I need to take some good photos sometime to post. I could be wrong but, I was told that the side to side "file" marks on the bottom flats were actually grinding marks , where the flats were ground on a very large water powered grinding wheel. The grind marks would be filed off  of  the top five flats as the barrels were draw filed as we do now. When the builders bought a barrel from the barrel mill , the barrels had these grind marks on all sides.  Of the barrels I have looked at , I personally have found most to be breeched not much more than 3\8 inch deep, with what we would call "coarse" threads. As stated , I definately haven't seen them all, but the one`s I have seen would make most modern makers "cringe" at the breech set ups . Thanks Nate

[Mike Brooks]

Touch hole appears to be "bushed" and not converted from percussion. Your just seeing a common worn out touch hole repair. Most breech plugs I have seen on old barrels are 3/8" or there about and as you pointed out course threaded.

[Gaeckle]

With regards to the barrel flats being ground, from what I understand, the barrel would have gone to a mill and the flats smoothed, if there was a mill nearby and within traveling distances. Mostly, with a hand forged barrel, the smith would only finish the top 3 flats by hand (if no mill was around), but there would be evidence of hammer marks easily seen on the bottom and sides, these being covered by the stock.

I am thinking, when looking at the breach pictures, that this barrel wasn't shortened at the breach. The groove in the bottom flat was where the front lock bolt went.....and that can give you a basic idea of how large the lock may have been.

Old barrels are neat, and if done correctly, can be shot again.

[Chowmi]

I could be wrong but, I was told that the side to side "file" marks on the bottom flats were actually grinding marks , where the flats were ground on a very large water powered grinding wheel. The grind marks would be filed off  of  the top five flats as the barrels were draw filed as we do now. When the builders bought a barrel from the barrel mill , the barrels had these grind marks on all sides.  Of the barrels I have looked at , I personally have found most to be breeched not much more than 3\8 inch deep, with what we would call "coarse" threads. As stated , I definately haven't seen them all, but the one`s I have seen would make most modern makers "cringe" at the breech set ups . Thanks Nate

Nate,
thank for that description of the marks on the bottom of the barrel. It occurred to me later last night that they would not be draw file marks because they go the "wrong" direction for that.  The idea that they are grinding marks makes much more sense.  I had seen other barrels with the same marks, yet never made that connection. 
And yes,  I was wrong to state that most breeches were 1/2 inch.  Sometimes I need to remember to be careful about making definitive statements. 

Cheers,
Norm

[Chowmi]

Touch hole appears to be "bushed" and not converted from percussion. Your just seeing a common worn out touch hole repair. Most breech plugs I have seen on old barrels are 3/8" or there about and as you pointed out course threaded.

Mike,
thanks for commenting on the touch hole.  Your comment matches what my personal opinion was at the time of posting, but I did not want to make an assessment.  Should have taken the same approach to describing most barrels as 1/2 inch breech plugs!!

Norm

[JCKelly]

1,000 years ago had a Roop rifle. Agree, the touch hole was bushed, not a percussion venture.

[Ky-Flinter]

My first thought when I saw the "touch hole" was that sure is a big hole.  My next thought was it looks like what would be left in the barrel when someone tried to remove a drum and it broke off.

-Ron

[TommyG]

Hi Norm,  Tried to send you a PM, but I don't think it went thru so I'll just post it here.  Very interesting and curious thread going here.  Got me thinking, so I took a look at my copy of James Whisker's - Arms Makers of Pennsylvania.  There is a John Ford(1780-1862) Gunsmith/Silversmith, 1801-1862 Harrisburg PA.  1817 - appointed state armorer and superintendent of the state arsenal.  Harrisburg is in Dauphin county PA.  So maybe the "T" is a "J" .  Hope this helps.  TommyG

[Chowmi]

Tommy G,
thank you, I did get the PM, and have just responded.

Thanks again,

Cheers,
Norm

[Daryl]

My first thought when I saw the "touch hole" was that sure is a big hole.  My next thought was it looks like what would be left in the barrel when someone tried to remove a drum and it broke off.

-Ron

That is what I thought, as well, Ron. To me, it was "apparent". As far as the pitting goes, looks about right for flint to me.  With corrosive
caps, there is usually a LOT more on the angled flat above the drum than anywhere else. At least that is what happened when I was making
my own cap detonating compound, which was VERY corrosive - it had Chlorates in it - just like some other corrosive substances we know.

[Chowmi]

My first thought when I saw the "touch hole" was that sure is a big hole.  My next thought was it looks like what would be left in the barrel when someone tried to remove a drum and it broke off.

-Ron

Ron, Daryl,

I assume you meant that it is the touch hole that is big, not the impression from what is likely a touch hole bushing. 

I agree, it is a big hole for a touch hole.  I would guess that this barrel saw a lot of use, and the touch hole in the bushing burnt out to that size, rather than that being the original size. 
The bushing may have been a fix for a previously burnt out touch hole as well. 
I'm sure this is not news to you guys, just thought I would explain my thoughts on it.   

Cheers,
Norm

[James Wilson Everett]

Guys,

I really love to find great barrels like this one!  Now, you can fresh the rifling or re-bore and cut new rifling and get it shooting again.

Jim