Questions on American Long Smoothbores vs Rifles

[Seth Isaacson]

Is it just me or is there not an incredibly large amount of smoothbore "American longrifles." It doesn't appear to be uncommon for people to mention that they are smoothbore in books but continue to call them "rifles" in the writing. Why don't they get more direct attention as smoothbores? For example, there are "Kentucky Rifle and Pistols" type books, and these books often include a great may smoothbore guns, but they don't get called out in the titles or much explanation in the text despite there being a significant number of them. Why were these rifle-styled smoothbores so common? It is pretty clear to anyone who hangs around this site that a lot of modern shooters of traditional guns also enjoy using them, and I can definitely appreciate that they are more versatile, but why were they built essentially the same as rifles? Is it just style and preference of customers or is it because one consistent style with different types of barrels was simply easier for the gunmakers? Obviously some makers built guns as fowlers with distinct aspects compared to rifles.

I know I just asked a whole slew of questions, but I've been wondering about the origins of these guns off and on for years now, and figured some of you guys probably have well-informed ideas on the subject.

[rich pierce]

1) Rifles are more valuable than smoothbores to collectors. So there is some bias to calling it a rifle if it looks like a rifle.

2) A good many rifles got converted to smoothbore, at least in the East. Less so in the South and in the West. So it’s common to surmise, hope, or state that “it was most likely rifled, but got converted to smoothbore during its working life. Often true but hard to prove. See #1 above. There’s increased coolness and value in rifles.

2a) factors arguing against a gun that is smoothbore now, having been rifled when built (influences, not definitive): round or octagon to round barrels, no rear sight, fowler style guard and buttplate. But note that there are zero classical Bucks County “rifles” currently having rifled barrels, to my knowledge. That suggests that though rifle-built, they were always smooth rifles.

2b) factors arguing for a rifle that is smoothbore now, originally having been rifled (influencers not definitive proof): double set triggers, very small caliber in a heavy barrel, Southern Mountain origins.

[cshirsch]

If I lived back in the early 1800s, a smooth-rifle would make a load of sense if I could only own one gun.  Small game up to buffalo can be taken with one gun.  I have some in my collection and I really like them.

[JV Puleo]

I've always interpreted that terminology as a reference to the style more than to the barrel. As a further to the above, I have two NE rifles, one with a round barrel and one with an octagon to round barrel that are rifled.

[Elnathan]

At least a couple of "smooth rifles" have turned out to be rifled rifles coned deeply enough (either deliberately or through wear) to erase the rifling at the muzzles.

[RAT]

A smooth rifle is a smoothbore with rifle styling... rifle stocking... frnot a rear sights... etc.

A fowler is a smoothbore with fowler styling.

A musket is a smoothbore with musket styling.

A rifled musket is a musket with a rifled bore.

Makes sense to me.

200 years from now how will they describe turkey shotguns with rifle sights? Or shotguns with rifled slug barrels?

[Shreckmeister]

Semi relevant to this discussion, September 21, 1815 Dr. Malthus Ward writing back east from the Western Pennsylvania frontier states “A smooth barrel is seldom seen and “shotgun”  is a common expression of contempt for a poor rifle“

[RAT]

"Frnot"?... good grief! I need to stop posting these from the free WiFi at the bar.

[Seth Isaacson]

Thank you for your responses.  I'm aware of the terminology and various types of guns. What I'm trying to get at is why aren't they actually discussed in any detail within these books or elsewhere and why we don't seem to know much about them in general? I'm sure the latter feeds into the first and vice versa. They are certainly important aspects of early American gun making. I would think the fact that "Kentucky rifles" have long had more mystique about them has played a significant role, and it is definitely clear that some where originally rifles that are just worn out or rebored, but others certainly appear to have been originally built as smooth bores but with rifle style architecture and sights perhaps thanks to the popularity of rifles of the same type and for the same reasons we often put rifle sights on non-fowling smooth bore guns today.

200 years from now they'll probably use the same terms for our various modern guns since we will leave behind ample documentation about what these guns were called.

[Elnathan]

While you do run across occasional mentions of smoothrifles in period documents, I'm not aware of any period sources discussing firearms that deals specifically with smoothrifles as distinct from rifled pieces. Virtually all the sources on the Kentucky rifle - Hanger, Weld, Doddridge, etc., - appear to be talking about rifled pieces exclusively.  From what I've observed, there a quite a discrepancy between the ratio of smooth and rifled that survive today and what we'd expect to see from reading original sources.

Since they aren't discussed in period sources, there isn't a definitive answer to what niche they filled or what the rationale behind their design was. There are various hypotheses floating around, but little original documentation to back them up.

Personally, I think it is a mistake to look at the surviving rifles and ignore the testimony of those that saw their use firsthand and described it, and if they don't mention smoothrifles as a significant class of firearms we should be open to the possibility that either smoothrifles didn't make it significant numbers to the less settled areas or that they did but weren't classified as "rifles" but as generic "guns," "firelocks," or something of that nature.

[rich pierce]

Elnathan, I believe there are significant regional differences and smooth rifles were made in some numbers in the flintlock era in specific areas of Pennsylvania. In contrast I have not seen references to or a high abundance of rifle-built guns from Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, or North Carolina that seem to have been made originally as smoothbores. 

[Seth Isaacson]

Elnathan, I believe there are significant regional differences and smooth rifles were made in some numbers in the flintlock era in specific areas of Pennsylvania. In contrast I have not seen references to or a high abundance of rifle-built guns from Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, or North Carolina that seem to have been made originally as smoothbores.

I don't have near the years of experience or specific knowledge many here have in terms of different schools, regional variations, etc., but from the guns Ive seen, it does seem to be more prominent in Pennsylvania.