Just how thin were barrels; fowler and military?

[Salkehatchie]

OK.  Two part question maybe.

How thin were fowler barrels at the muzzle?  And same question for military guns?  Covers a wide range I am sure, but...

Fowlers probably shot mostly shot, military could have but also would have used RB predominantly.

I have seen some pictures of some very thin muzzles for both!


Thank you!

[mattdog]

I mic'd the barrel wall at the muzzle of an 18th century trade gun that came up .028".  It was scary thin.  The whole gun with a 48" barrel probably weighed 5#.

On a side note, that gun was missing the lock.  The owner asked me if i could put just the lock plate, hammer, frizzen and friz. spring so he could hang it up and have it look complete.  I gave him my retail prices and he had a fit.  Said,"I'm not going to shoot the thing, just look at it!!"  I tried to explain that those parts cost what they cost whether they were to be used to shoot it or just look at.  He never did get it.  Never got it fixed either.   

[E.vonAschwege]

I've seen some 18th century fowling barrels that were probably 15-20 thousands at the muzzle - could almost cut yourself on them!  These had been shot quite a bit and were worn thin.  Some early 19th century fowling barrels I've got here are about 30-50 thousands at the muzzle, and in good shape.  Got a late 18th century French fowler with about 80 thousands muzzle - lots of meat.  It definitely varies... and some of them are thinner on one side than the other. 
-Eric

[Michael]

If I remember correctly the Bumford trade gun in the collection in Williamsburg is about .030 thick at the muzzle or a little less.

[James Rogers]

The thicker barrels I have seen were more of the fusee type, having cylinder bore throughout and intended for ball or ball and shot. Other than that feature, they could not be distinguished from the fowling piece proper. The fowling piece barrels were quite thin and many were relieved at the muzzle creating a coned interior. I believe a mandrel was used for this operation. On average, the fowling barrels I have checked that had uncut muzzles measured between .050  to .062

[Salkehatchie]

Fuzee versus a "real" fowler kind of figured that is what is was.   I have been told the thin walls shot RB, but...

Thank you guys!

[airforcemajor]

Hi, I’m a new member here and am reading through as many threads as I can; I find this site fascinating.

I hope I can shed some light on the thickness of military musket barrels.

My primary interest is in 18^th century military muskets, primarily those of the French and British.  Volume 1 of Jean Boudriot’s “Arms A Feu Francaises Modeles Reglementaires 1717 to 1836” has a comparison of the barrels for the Infantry Models 1763, 66, 70, 71, 73 and 74. 

This comparison shows the diameter at the breech and muzzle, and at various points in between as well as other data.  The Model 1763 was a complete redesign of their Model 1754, one of the design objectives was to strengthen it; the result was a musket that was deemed to be too heavy therefore in 1766 they embarked on what we would call a weight improvement program.  This resulted in the Model 1766.  Evidently they went a bit too far, at least with the barrel, and in 1770 the increased the diameter slightly.  From 1770 to 1773 the barrel remained the same but in 1774 they reduced the breech diameter again by ½ a ligne, or about 0.044 of an inch.

Here is my interpretation of the data in Boudriot’s book:

Thickness of            Thickness of (Inch) Model       Breech Walls (Inch)         Muzzle Walls 1763         0.365            0.055 1766         0.277            0.077 1770/71         0.321         0.077 1773         0.321            0.077 1774         0.299            0.077

Hmm... can't seem to get the table to work properly, but I think you can get the idea.

Sandy

[pushboater]

Airforcemajor, welcome to the Forum!  That's some interesting information you've supplied.  Thanks for sharing.

Capt. David

[redheart]

Salkehatchie,

    An awesome reference for this question is the book "For Trade and Treaty"  Firearms of the American Indians 1600-1920  by Ryan R. Gale.
It gives accurate bore and exterior barrel dimensions for many different Fowlers and Trade Guns. He gives the barrel measurements in thousandths of an inch at the breech and at each tenon pin and often shows straight on pics. of the muzzle itself. It also has beautifully detailed color photos of every important feature of each piece. I better shut up now, I'm starting to sound like a @!*% salesman !   

[Majorjoel]

Another great source book with details on barrel wall thickness is Tom Grinslade's "Flintlock Fowlers The First Guns Made in America". He lists many useful measurements that can guide a builder.

[Old Bob]

Hi, I’m a new member here and am reading through as many threads as I can; I find this site fascinating.

I hope I can shed some light on the thickness of military musket barrels.

My primary interest is in 18^th century military muskets, primarily those of the French and British.  Volume 1 of Jean Boudriot’s “Arms A Feu Francaises Modeles Reglementaires 1717 to 1836” has a comparison of the barrels for the Infantry Models 1763, 66, 70, 71, 73 and 74. 

This comparison shows the diameter at the breech and muzzle, and at various points in between as well as other data.  The Model 1763 was a complete redesign of their Model 1754, one of the design objectives was to strengthen it; the result was a musket that was deemed to be too heavy therefore in 1766 they embarked on what we would call a weight improvement program.  This resulted in the Model 1766.  Evidently they went a bit too far, at least with the barrel, and in 1770 the increased the diameter slightly.  From 1770 to 1773 the barrel remained the same but in 1774 they reduced the breech diameter again by ½ a ligne, or about 0.044 of an inch.

Here is my interpretation of the data in Boudriot’s book:

Thickness of            Thickness of (Inch) Model       Breech Walls (Inch)         Muzzle Walls 1763         0.365            0.055 1766         0.277            0.077 1770/71         0.321         0.077 1773         0.321            0.077 1774         0.299            0.077

Hmm... can't seem to get the table to work properly, but I think you can get the idea.

Sandy

This table corresponds pretty close to the measurements of the US M1835 musket. The table showing the principle dimensions and weights of small arms in the Ordnance Manual for 1862 show the muzzle diameter to be .85". Subtract the bore; .69 and divide by 2 and you get a wall thickness of .080" which compares with the French musket. However, it is said that for this model as well as for the M1842, the barrel wall thickness had been increased by .30" with the view towards rifling at a later time. If we use that figure, earlier models (1795, 1808, 1812 and 1816) would have been no more than .82" at the muzzle. Using the same formula we see .065" as the wall thickness, considerably less than the French muskets. The only smoothbore breech measurement I have is for the M1835 which is shown as 1.25" across the flats which would make the wall thickness at that point .28". It would be thicker where the barrel is turned round.

As a comparison, the wall diameter at the muzzle on the M1855 Rifle Musket is .10" or .020" thicker than its smoothbore predecessor.