RCA volume 1

[bob in the woods]

If we look at the "usefull" properties of a smoothbore re round ball shooting, we really need to look at the local geography. If I lived were Dan is, I'd want a rifle if I could only afford one gun. Here, in the woods of Ontario, I can count more deer I've taken at 25 yards or less, than those taken at 50 yards or more. I prefer my rifle if I'm out watching the far side of my beaver pond...one hundred yards.  i've shot one deer at that distance. Two in a field, approx 60 yards. All the rest were in the woods, inside 50 yds, and most of those were inside 25 yards. Thick underbrush, and lots of hills etc. My .75 smoothbore drops them faster than my rifle, and trailing deer in this stuff is a chore. Also, if they cross the fence line, there are usually other "hunters"  ready to scoop it up. Under these conditions, I honestly do not see any advantage to a rifle, or I'd use one. One more thing about a smoothbore- you can shoot a large ball ie .75 , and have a reasonable weight barrel. The necessary thickness needed to add rifling to my .75 would make for a very heavy gun

[tg]

Smoothbores may not be economicaly reasonable to use but there is no doubt that they were used and almost exclusively untill the first quarter or even half of the 18th century, the French hunting guns  and trade guns were smooth and untill rifleing took hold this is what was used, after the rev war I would suspect the use of smoothbores probably begain a decline, but this would be dependant upon location ,I have not seen anyone shooting 200 yds with one, I find them very usefull for my hunting needs, .58 fusil with ball for deer and shot for squirrls and such, and I rarely use more than 90 gr of powder, I am not certain we can determine what they did or how they did something based on the economics of lead and powder, we will never know how many guns were made smooth to start that have the rifle features associated with the smoothrifle  but most of the top gun historians seem to feel they were not uncommon built smooth to start. Rifles are undoubtedly better for longer range shooting but when that is not an option the smoothbore vcan be a versitile tool for those who find such a gun usefull, this can and has been stated by many of todays smoothbore shooters and many are doing quiote well, how many did so in the past we will never know but the fact that there were  people doing so cannot be ignored.

[Clark Badgett]

While growing up I found .410 to be quite handy for quirrels and wabbits. I wasn't that great a shot, and I'm sure others in the past may have been in a similar boat.

[rich pierce]

It is funny to me that we argue a lot about which is better- the smoothbore or the rifle- as though we can change history with reasoning or our personal preferences.  There is essentially no history of rifle use in the French regions of North America before the Revolutionary War, and little in what is now Canada before 1800.  There is no history of rifle use by any Native Americans before 1740.  I know that Native American culture and numbers declined during those eras but I don't think it was because they lacked the rifle.

This discussion was started as, "how many of the smoothbored rifle-built guns in RCA volume 1 were likely smoothbored when made?"

Our reasoning about what WE think is better adds no value to that discussion.

I would lean toward believing that any round-barreled RCA gun which is now smoothbored, was always smoothbored.  It is likely that the vast majority of octagon to round barreled RCA smoothbored guns were always smoothbored.  It is the octagonal-barreled ones that are the most difficult to attribute, and among those, there is a large percentage of smoothbored rifle-built guns that came out of the Allentown or Bucks County and we can't reason why they would have been rifled and worn out or bored out more than guns from other schools.  So it seems reasonable that many of them were smoothbores originally.

[T*O*F]

This discussion was started as, "how many of the smoothbored rifle-built guns in RCA volume 1 were likely smoothbored when made?"

Our reasoning about what WE think is better adds no value to that discussion.

Thanks for the reply, Rich
I was mulling it over and deduced anything I wrote would probably get me censored.  There are bullheaded individuals who seek to bring forth their own agendas based on 20th century references and mindset which have absolutely nothing to do with the historical construction and use.  This their whole argument is based in anecdotal evidence and opinion of no real value.

Most are "gun nuts" and have the usual retinue of "gun books" in their libraries which they use as their primary sources.  Many of these only compound previous errors made by the authors of previous works used as their references, as much information is taken out of context.

A researcher needs to work his way back to original primary and secondary sources on a variety of subjects to put everything together in an historical context and this includes works outside of their main interest.  Only a few will do this as it is time consuming and often costly.

[Dphariss]

This discussion was started as, "how many of the smoothbored rifle-built guns in RCA volume 1 were likely smoothbored when made?"

Our reasoning about what WE think is better adds no value to that discussion.

Thanks for the reply, Rich
I was mulling it over and deduced anything I wrote would probably get me censored.  There are bullheaded individuals who seek to bring forth their own agendas based on 20th century references and mindset which have absolutely nothing to do with the historical construction and use.  This their whole argument is based in anecdotal evidence and opinion of no real value.

Most are "gun nuts" and have the usual retinue of "gun books" in their libraries which they use as their primary sources.  Many of these only compound previous errors made by the authors of previous works used as their references, as much information is taken out of context.

A researcher needs to work his way back to original primary and secondary sources on a variety of subjects to put everything together in an historical context and this includes works outside of their main interest.  Only a few will do this as it is time consuming and often costly.

Where I live finding "primary sources" for F&I and Rev War is pretty tough.
The problem here as I see it is that have bought into the smoothbore to the point of ignoring things such as the various quotes from period sources in DeWitt Baileys British Military  Flintlock Rifles which documents rifles in New York in the 1680s and considerable rifle use by natives from the 1740s on. Did they all use them of course not. But they DID use them and they KNEW how. By the 1760s some British officers were concerned about this because the rifle was very effective when used in the native mode of making war.
I post things of this sort and some here attack the credibility of the writers in the 18th century!!!!
Does this make sense?? It tells me some people with a 20th century opinion about the use of the smoothbore don't want be bothered with the period writings that interfere with the things they have "learned" or want to believe. And you call ME bullheaded??
Sir William Johnson, various British army officers and traders do not want rifles in the hands of the natives. One because of the "problem" with war and another that THEY USE LESS POWDER AND LEAD and hurt trade.
I mention these things because I would like to find out why someone would pay for all the bells and whistles of high end American Rifle and then have it made SMOOTH BORED. When a fowler with a rear sight would do the same thing at 1/2 price?
I ask again if everyone was using smooth rifles where did all the rifle companies come from at the start of the Revolution?? If we look at Kindigs book we find a LOT of smoothbored rifles. From this percentage it would seem that rifles were rare. But the historical writings do not bear this out.

Dan

[rich pierce]

Dan, from what I can see, this topic is not about whether rifles were important or not, whether they were used in the Revolutionary War or French and Indian War, whether rifles are superior or inferior to smoothbores, whether the role of rifles has been overlooked, whether rifles are more accurate, whether smoothbores are inferior for hunting or survival.  Those topics are interesting and you are passionate about them, but what does any of that have to do with the original question?  How does that help us discern which originals that are now smoothbored, were that way originally?  It doesn't.  We can't reason it out except to note that (I am repeating myself):

1) Round barreled rifles are extremely rare in the period from 1750-1810, so if we see a rifle-built gun from that period with a round barrel and it is now smooth, it is reasonable to surmise it was always smoothbored.

2) Octagon to round barrels were commonly fowler barrels and smoothbored, so guns with octagon to round barrels from this era that are smooth now were likely smooth to begin with.

3) Among octagon-barreled rifle-built guns of the period there is a preponderence which are now smoothbored from certain geographical regions, so it is likely that many were smoothbored to begin with.

I am not trying to insult, but your arguments seem to be self-defeating.  See if you agree with this logic (I am using your position in A, and an undisputable fact in B):

A) Rifles are superior in every way to smoothbored guns and the later the date, the more people realized this
   1) They save on powder and lead by being smaller bored
    2) Are more accurate and kill game better

B) Many rifle-built guns from 1750-1810 are now smoothbored

Therefore:
C) They must have been smoothbored to begin with, because a guy would have to be an idiot to make a useless smoothbore out of a rifle. In fact, it's not clear why they were not converted to rifled bores.  Somebody wasn't thinking straight.

[Dphariss]

1-2-3 are correct.
I consider 1/2 oct barrels to be smooth though SOME were rifled.
I don't consider full round barrels to be smooth rifles really, if you get my meaning.
Though I have seen one apparent colonial era rifle that was stocked as a fowler back in the 1970s that was smooth bored for about 4" at the muzzle. Very low rifle sights. Would have passed as a SB on the battlefield.

Rifles are not superior for every use, read my posts. The smoothbore is actually more specialized, however.
Claims to the contrary the rifle can be used for anything but flying birds.
I have never said the smoothbore was useless for every purpose. But it is only superior when shooting small shot.
Then we have the problem of powder quality etc etc at the time. This makes it more difficult to make pronouncements without adding this as a factor.
But this does not change the fact that period writings seem to indicate the the rifle was more popular on the frontier where it really was a survival weapon.
We have people citing smooth this and smooth that. Individuals said all sorts of things about weapons at the time of the revolution. Some thought that the rifle should have been used exclusively by the US Army at the time. So there was a WIDE variety of opinions even then.
The rifle could have been used in large numbers by the Army but they would have had to have used their tactics on their chosen battle ground and not tried to fight the British as the British wanted to be fought. How this would have worked we cannot know. We do know that when properly employed they were very effective.
We are told that the rifle was unknown in New England at the time of the Revolution. But we have the Governor of NY mentioning rifles as part of his military force in 1680. Then we have the heavy casualties among the British officers and senior NCOs at Breeds Hill. This is the hallmark of the rifle.
I see a well intentioned people here who are so attached to the smoothbore that they overlook a lot of valid points that are part of the writings of the time.
It is impossible for any of us to say "my experience during the American Revolution" so we must use our "modern" experience and the writings of the time as a guide.  As a result there will be assumptions or guesswork involved.

Roberts has an account of a man hunting with a smoothbore in his younger days. Page 185 of my copy. No idea what size it was but from the account he was likely using buckshot. I am not going to reproduce the quotes here. If anyone shoots a ML rifle and does not have "The ML Caplock Rifle" its on the them.

People used smoothbores everyone knows this. My complaint is people waxing eloquent as to how wonderful the smoothbore is. In fact it is only superior to the rifle when using small shot this is simply not refutable. Period. Now what someone wants to use is and was his business but this it the bottom line and its not possible to squirm out of it unless you are determined to promote the smoothbore and all else be darned.
I have outlined, several times, the points where a SB is superior. I have pointed out that the Eastern forests of NA in 1750-1770 were NOT the forests of 1850 or 2008. The natives BURNED THE FOREST OFF IN THE FALL TO CLEAR THE UNDER BRUSH. I don't have the original citation for this but read 1491 by Mann, mostly about South America but it DOES include NA as well. Gives a far different view of the Americas before Europeans arrived in force than we have been taught.

People talk of killing deer and such at 25 yards with a 75 caliber SB. I KNOW it will work great. I know the deer will not get far. But at 25-50 yards I can head shoot a deer with a 32-40 caliber round ball and 30 grains of powder and drop it in its tracks no trailing at all. Saving something like an ounce of lead per shot and something in the realm of 60-100 grains of powder. I would not hunt deer with a 32 but its fully equal or superior to the 22LR to 50 yards and the 22 WILL kill deer reliably or so I am told.
Writings of the time indicate that for frontier warfare the rifle is superior to the smoothbore. There are other quotes that say otherwise. But shooting your enemy at 150 yards is far better than 15 yards "swan shot" be !@*%&@. You will only kill one man anyway at close range and probably none at any distance... Someone that catches the edge of the pattern at 15-20 yards with 1-2 shot in the leg or belly or even chest will still come over an split your skull before he dies.

I am simply amazed that people cannot see this. Its even more wasteful when shooting small game with a shotgun. I guess I could try patterning the 50 smooth with 180 grs of shot at see how it fares.
I am sure I have overlooked things in reference to the smooth rifle. but I feel a lot of people have gone out of their way to ignore things about the rifle as well.

Dan

[Mike R]

Smoothrifles have always been a curiosity to me. Personally I think alot of them were meant for quick loading in militia situations rather than convenience in hunting--although I am sure that they were also used for hunting.  Even very late longrifle usage in the east is documented and regionally rifles predominated over smoothbores--the southern highlands, for example, where deer and bear continued to be hunted, were rifle areas.  A traveling geologist in the early 1800s in the MO-ARK Ozark region was chided by the locals he met for carrying a smoothbore gun--which they thought was useless --and he said all were armed with rifles. 

[rich pierce]

Dan,
I don't think that many folks deny the superiority of the rifle.  Your points are all good.  Some folks just want to replicate different types of original guns- and smooth rifles are one of them, that's all.  They want to replicate them because they existed, not because they think they are superior.

I am actually leaning the other way, and am building RCA 19 with an octagon to round .54 rifled Getz barrel, although the original is now smooth and may always have been that way.  It will be for consignment, and I figured a .54 rifle seems to be the most popular gun nowadays as it is great for most big game.

[Dphariss]

Dan,
I don't think that many folks deny the superiority of the rifle.  Your points are all good.  Some folks just want to replicate different types of original guns- and smooth rifles are one of them, that's all.  They want to replicate them because they existed, not because they think they are superior.

I am actually leaning the other way, and am building RCA 19 with an octagon to round .54 rifled Getz barrel, although the original is now smooth and may always have been that way.  It will be for consignment, and I figured a .54 rifle seems to be the most popular gun nowadays as it is great for most big game.

I have never disagreed that with smoothbore use. Its well documented.
Its the seeming magical image that some seem to place on them that simply cannot be reconciled with the facts.
I have said this before but will repeat it.
If you are inside a stockade in 1777 in Western VA or anyplace on the frontier and everyone is armed with a smoothbore how do you deal with natives who stay out in the woods or climb trees to shoot into the stockade from 150-300 yards out with rifles? Just a few rifles can make the situation "difficult" unless you have rifles or artillery as a counter. Look at the site of Boonesborough. A good shot with a rifle could easily shoot into the stockade from across the river. See Col. Hangers account of being fired on from 400 yards by a rifleman if this is seen as impossible to anyone.
The rifle use on the frontier must be viewed with this in mind. They were not a luxury or a hinderance, they had to have them. Never mind the economics or speed of loading, shooting birds etc etc. It was basic self-defense.

I UNDERSTAND making smoothrifles, fowlers and muskets today. I have made 2 and owned a few more. I just get cranky when people wax eloquent on the superiority of the smooth bore for general use when in reality this is not the case. I see their "versatility" as  as limitations in most situations.
There are nearly endless modifiers to this discussion that can effect the utility of one or the other. Place, time, intended use, powder quality etc etc.

Dan

[tg]

"The rifle use on the frontier must be viewed with this in mind. They were not a luxury or a hinderance, they had to have them. '


once again I will asked the question of  how did they get by before the rifle became commonly available?  and I am not saying a smoothbore is better but it did then and does now suit the needs of quite a few people, and it evidently did ok before it became a common item in the colonies.

[Dphariss]

"The rifle use on the frontier must be viewed with this in mind. They were not a luxury or a hinderance, they had to have them. '


once again I will asked the question of  how did they get by before the rifle became commonly available?  and I am not saying a smoothbore is better but it did then and does now suit the needs of quite a few people, and it evidently did ok before it became a common item in the colonies.

You need to read the whole post. Lots of things are nonsensical taken out of context.

Dan

[Pete G.]

I think that one thing we tend to overlook today is a scarcity of money in colonial times. We are used to buying what we need, but few families in colonial America had much money. A shot out/rusted out rifle could be rather simply bored out by almost anyone whereas a gunsmith would be required to rifle a bore, which obviously would be more expensive. I cannot imagine someone paying the price for an ornate gun that was not rifled, so I think the carved smooth rifles were probably re bores. Possibly some barn guns could have been made smooth and sufficed for utility work. A deer or bear is really a pretty large target after all, especially at a relatively close range. These would be the equivalent of a single barrel shotgun today (maybe). In the end though, economics drives the world and pretty much always has ever since the first cave man found out that he could swap a mastodon roast for a wife.

[Sean]

I think that one thing we tend to overlook today is a scarcity of money in colonial times. We are used to buying what we need, but few families in colonial America had much money. A shot out/rusted out rifle could be rather simply bored out by almost anyone whereas a gunsmith would be required to rifle a bore, which obviously would be more expensive. I cannot imagine someone paying the price for an ornate gun that was not rifled, so I think the carved smooth rifles were probably re bores. Possibly some barn guns could have been made smooth and sufficed for utility work. A deer or bear is really a pretty large target after all, especially at a relatively close range. These would be the equivalent of a single barrel shotgun today (maybe). In the end though, economics drives the world and pretty much always has ever since the first cave man found out that he could swap a mastodon roast for a wife.

Like stated above it was easier to fresh out a rifled bore than to bore it out.  So it makes little sense to turn a rifled gun into a smoothbore.  Its my opinion that smoothrifles come down to economics but not this way, and not in terms of ammunition or efficiency as Dan states above.  It comes down to being able to afford one gun that would do it all, albeit not perfectly.

Sean
   

[tg]

"I mention these things because I would like to find out why someone would pay for all the bells and whistles of high end American Rifle and then have it made SMOOTH BORED. When a fowler with a rear sight would do the same thing at 1/2 price?"

Typicaly they would not be the same thing the smoothrifle with the cheek piece, architecture and griprail would lend itself toward aimng rather than pointing, I believe that most often the smoothrifle barrels were stouter to take heavier loads ,and the fact is they did exist and people did use them, if you cannot determine why by your approach then so be it, most who use them do so because they do fill a purpose that is not like the rifle or the smoothbore but something else, that they find usefull for their situation , and it does not bode well to classify something you cannot answer as nonsensical, the smoothbore was sufficient though not equal to the rifle in range or accuracy to do the job untill the era of the rifle came to be and obviously even after for many.