Flared breeches on barrels....a discussion....hopefully....

[Acer Saccharum]

In talking with other gun enthusiasts, particularly of the 18th Century styled American gun, and how that relates to the European gun, I have come to wonder about the architecture of the gun, where it comes from, how the form was developed, etc.

The basis of the gun is the barrel, that is, the barrel is the foundation, the reason for the existence of all the other parts, and the wood that holds all these parts in a proper working relation to each other. The shape of this barrel is what determines, in large part, the style of the gun. After that, the hardware play a vital role in the design of the stock. The buttplate tells us what kind of buttstock, the guard says we will have a step toe, or a straight buttstock.

Jim Filipski and Rich Pierce keep bringing the 'hump' to my attention. This happens at the tang of many early guns. That hump, combined with a banana lock, is very different from from the late 18th Century American gun. But this design is very appropriate for European guns, and I suspect, very appropriate for early American built guns.

That said, I have come to realize that the BARREL is key to this style gun. I have come up with some sketches to explain my theory, but would love this to develop into a discussion about early barrel configurations, what you may have seen, or measured, or built yourself.

In the sketch below, the barrel is viewed from the side in XXII. The barrel has extreme flair through point 'b', the end of the barrel. The barrel flare continues into to tang, with the high point at 'a' and then curves down again. This is where the characteristic 'hump' comes from.

The top view of the barrel, XXIII, shows that the profile does NOT have the same flare as the side view, through points 'e' and 'f'. One purpose is to allow the lock to be closer to parallel with the bore, and the sideplate panel does not flare out either. Second, reducing the barrel flare allows a smoother transition into the wrist area, a slimming effect. How much this taper is removed varies from gun to gun.

One might effect a barrel like this by buying a heavy configuration Swamped barrel, and filing or milling the new profile, as in sketch XXIV. Note that the plug, or tang should be taller than the breech end of the barrel so that the hump can be filed appropriately. In an ideal world, you could make a drawing and the barrel shop would mill up the barrel for you.

[northmn]

I have seen pictures where the tail of the lock mortise really flares outward.  A barrel like that would do it.

DP

[Acer Saccharum]

I should point out that the sketches above are highly exaggerated.

My point in this whole diatribe is that barrels were forged with very specific uses in mind. This hump breeched barrel was DESIGNED for the architecture of the gun. The barrel design determines much of the stock design in the wrist/breech/lock area. The buttplate determines buttstock design. The guard and lock are minor players after the barrel and buttplate have set the stage.

Very little material was left for finishing, and the forge knew what pattern barrel to make for certain style guns. This particular style barrel was far from being concentric or symmetrical in cross section, and certainly not accidentally left high on one side.

[Acer Saccharum]

A humpy breech, very pronounced on this fine jaeger. Even tho' the actual breech is hidden by the cock, the lines of the barrel and tang area are evident.



Opposite side view. Upward slant of barrel does not turn down until well into the tang.


Photos used courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum for educational purposes.

[Don Getz]

Acer...the only thing you have shown is the fact that some barrels were made that way, mostly Jagers, but very few
Kentuckies have this drastic taper at the breech.........Don

[Dave B]

This is a Rev war period smooth rifle barrel. The breach section is a little over 1 3/16 across the flats mostly, top to bottom of the breach is at 1 1/4"  You can clearly see for your self the additional flairing of the breach section just back from the rear sight. The early guns tended to have more massive breach dimensions and as Acer points out it drives the architecture more so than any thing else.

[Acer Saccharum]

Don, you are right, you don't see breeches like this on Kentuckies.

But, as Dave points out, you DO see them on early American guns, guns with imported barrels, or on guns that may be American, with heavy European influences. There are several large breeched guns in Shumway's MB articles, and in RCA 'unknown origin' section. This trait is pre-Kentucky.

Over time, this flare got smaller, maybe as iron technology got better, and certainly, as styles changed. Dave B, you show a perfect example of a barrel that is somewhere in between the big flare and the later tapers.  Cool pic, thanks.

[northmn]

Just wondering if they have something to do with the breech plug.  Almost like they want to leave a lot of metal around the plug before they start the taper.  Are the breech plugs fairly large in these barrels?  While I agree that the barrel sets the design, is the barrel made that way to accomodte design or is the design that way to accomodate some supposed need in the barrel

DP

[Acer Saccharum]

Northm, I can only speculate on the design. Maybe breeches were safer if there was lots of mass? It could be that's where the flared breech came from. Since the barrel is the foundation for a gun, I assume that the guns look the way they did because the barrel architecture.

Some tangs will have integral wings, and the valley between is the rear sight, as in a fowler.

[Stophel]

I wish I could get barrels with a stronger flare at the breech.  Oh, one can be filed down...but that ain't much fun.  A LOT of metal has to be removed to flare it just a little bit.

[dannybb55]

I'm sure that the smith just upset the breech end with some local heat and a hammer. It is a lot easier to make the end bigger than to make the rest of the barrel smaller. Massive breeches were common on Matchlocks and later muskets, both round and squared. It may have something to do with tooling and thread pitch. Earlier breech plugs were longer than later plugs and were sometimes notched for the vent. I bet an armorer made his own taps and screw plates or bought them locally and they were not Society of Automotive Engineer approved. If that was the case then a longer plug would make up for a tight fit and a meaty breech would make for more surface area around the plug. Some grease or oil would keep the flash in the bore. Look at the breech of a matchlock or doglock and you will see careful but not perfect work.

[Acer Saccharum]

I have a Turkish barrel ca 1650 I got from Hugh Tonjes. The breech threads are as good as any today. Better than most American or British 18th Cent. threads.

[Acer Saccharum]

That's a lot of upsetting, but from a smithy point of view, practical. Especially if you have a big German brute on the sledge. It would close the bore down some, but that could be bored out again. Hmmm.

Tom

[dannybb55]

I was thinking of post 30 year war work in Europe, Everything kinda slipped after that wee fight. To upset a breech you get the breech good and hot and drop it like a pile drive onto a low anvil or a steel plate until you get the flare that you want. This is before final boring.

[Levy]

I've worked on quite a few matchlocks and early muskets from the 1715 Spanish Plate Fleet wrecks and all the breechplugs that I have pulled were tapped right into the breech at bore size.  It was probably cheaper to do it that way.  An arquebus (smaller than a matchlock musket or rail gun) from 1622 had a breech diameter of 1 3/8" and a bore diameter of approx .65.  I apologize, I don't think this has much to do with the original question.

James Levy

[keweenaw]

The advantage of the accentuated taper at the breech probably has more to do with the desire of the builder to have the lock set with the tails wider than with safety.  Having the rear of the panels wide allows much more freedom to achieve a round wrist and many more options for transitioning from the wrist to the rest of the buttstock.  Add that to the more  banana shaped lock on those guns the advisability of the secondary flare at the rear of the barrel is evident.  We need to remember that buttplate widths on those guns are narrow at 2 1/4" with most wider.  One needs a substantial wrist width to make the architecture work.  The last barrel for an early long fowler that I had Ed Rayl make for me has a double taper at the breech for that very reason.

Tom

[Acer Saccharum]

Tom, what you say is true about the wide wrist with a big flared barrel. This will kick out the lock at the tail, and the sideplate panel as well.


But how about this thought: The side flats of the barrel have been forged and filed with just a little flare, so that the flats are almost parallel with the bore. Then the tails come in, and the gun can be more delicate. This is an option you can take, which you so wisely pointed out, has to work with your chosen buttplate.

I am thinking about these barrels because the were used on early American guns, and as the rifle and fowler evolved, this hump went away over time. Earlier guns may have a more pronounced hump and later guns, much less. This, combined with different makers and regions, leaves us with a varied and interesting design palette to pick from.

[rich pierce]

Here's an example of a flared-breech barrel that looks as though the lockside flat at least was filed to be more parallel with the bore.  The gun has a surprisingly delicate wrist compared to the Moravian guns, for example.

[Acer Saccharum]

A left handed fowler in Schoharie Museum. No, DOH, it's a mirror behind the gun in the foreground. Hahahahaha. This breech is not nearly as heavy as the earlier ones, but it still shows a bit of hump.