Historic evidence of relieved muzzles

[Dan Fruth]

Relieved muzzles has been a hot topic here on ALR, so I did some research from "Moravian Gunmaking 2" and here are the findings.
   Rifled bores on pages 51,65,87,105,139 all had flared muzzles, without a chamfer.
   Rifle bore on page113 did not have a flared muzzle, and no chamfer.
   Smooth bores  on pages 127,173,187,193 all had flared muzzles and no chamfer.
   Smooth bore on page 159 did not have a flared muzzle
   
   The data points to relieved muzzles being the norm, and straight bored and no relief the exception. Only 1 rifle bore was relieved to the point where the rifling was removed at the muzzle. The rest had rifling at the muzzle, even though relieved. 

   Thanks to Bob Lienemann for his careful research

[Dan Fruth]

I was hoping for some feedback with this post.....Please chime in...Thanks....Dan

[smylee grouch]

This is interesting Dan, especially the ones where the relief did not take out the rifling at the muzzle. When I look at some of the modern coned muzzles the cone extends way down into the bore and it looks like a smooth bore at the muzzle.

[Goo]

Cant dispute the data.

[Hungry Horse]

Just one more piece of evidence, that supports the fact that smoothbores weren’t shot with a patched ball back then.

  Hungry Horse

[Dan Fruth]

Smylee, the flare I see in these details is only .020, which is .010 a side. Only 1 bore had the rifling removed. The book does not give rifling depth, but it did say rifling was filed at the muzzle. ...... The smooth bores that were relieved indicate to me evidence they were used to shoot round balls, as relieving the muzzle for grape or swan shot would make for a large pattern, not a tight pattern like a choked bore. I made a .562 bore fowler barrel for a fella in Tenn. and he said it shot like a modified choke tube.

[Dan Fruth]

I should add 1 more piece of data from existing fowler barrels. Ken Netting has had several original fowler barrels, and he found they all had flared muzzles. What he speculates from his study, is the end of the barrel  (outside diameter) was not tapered, and the bore was swaged while hot with a long tapered rod driven into the bore, both flaring the bore as well as the outside diameter of the barrel. He found them to be in the .020 range, which is consistent with the flared bores in "Moravian Gunmaking 2"

[James Rogers]

Smylee, the flare I see in these details is only .020, which is .010 a side. Only 1 bore had the rifling removed. The book does not give rifling depth, but it did say rifling was filed at the muzzle. ...... The smooth bores that were relieved indicate to me evidence they were used to shoot round balls, as relieving the muzzle for grape or swan shot would make for a large pattern, not a tight pattern like a choked bore. I made a .562 bore fowler barrel for a fella in Tenn. and he said it shot like a modified choke tube.

Relieving the bore at the muzzle along with sometimes "roughening" at the breech were early attempts to control shot patterns prior to choking coming on the scene. A relieved muzzle was used on barrels primarily designed for shot.  Smooth bored guns intended for ball were straight cylinder bore like a musket or fusee.

[Pukka Bundook]

Dan,

Just as James Rogers says.
I was about to reply and James' post showed up.
It was called "Friction and relief" boing and was very common in the late 18th & early 19th centuries.
Most barrels made by William Fullard (One of The best barrel makers in London)  for shot were bored this way.
They Did shoot harder and better patterns than many of out 'new' muzzleloaders.
Hawkers book "Instruction..."  has examples of patterns from his and other makers.
There were two ways to make the "friction part at the breech;
One, to enlarge the bore at the breech so as to build pressure, the other and poorer way, but better for shorter barrels, (not punt guns or wildfowling guns) was to roughen the breech to retard the charge.
The 'relief' at the muzzle, was to reduce muzzle pressure, which with heavy charges could blow the pattern.  As I said, these barrels could beat many modern barrels into a cocked hat when it came to long range and close shooting.

Very best,
Richard.

[rich pierce]

I’ve posted in another thread about freshing the rifling on 2 barrels from later percussion fullstock rifles. Both were relieved 0.020 or more at the muzzle, to a depth of about 2”.

For those who think this is “wear” I will tell you that cutting lands or grooves with a designed hardened steel cutter 0.002” deeper is real work. No mount of rubbing with a gritty stick could remove 0.001”.

[Elnathan]

I examined the muzzles of five rifles at the Cumberland show last February - the two Humble rifles (1780s) a rifle from around 1790 attributed to John Bull, and two 19th century rifles from Kentucky - and four of the five showed relieving at the muzzle with the rifling filed out as well. The one that didn't was the latest of the bunch, post 1820 IIRC. The relieving was pretty consistent at about .02" going back around 1/4-3/8" - the calipers I was using only go back around 1/2" or so, so if the relieving went back further than that I couldn't tel for sure, but I did get the impression, going by feel, that the relieving didn't go back all that far.

I have a barrel from around the middle of the 19th century that also shows that .02" funneling at the muzzle, with the rifling removed, but it also shows signs of rod wear with the muzzle slightly egg shaped to the tune of about .01." So I do think it is possible to wear away the muzzle, but it wouldn't be a nice even wear and a muzzle only .01" oblong is quite obvious.

[G_T]

Could the egg shaped pattern have been a deliberate attempt to correct the point of aim, instead of bending the barrel?

Gerald

[Dan Fruth]

Thanks James and Pukka for the info...Did not know that...So what do you consider appropriate amount of enlargement at the breech to achieve these results? Relieving the muzzle is no problem......

[Daryl]

Could the egg shaped pattern have been a deliberate attempt to correct the point of aim, instead of bending the barrel?

Gerald

Possible, However filing the sides of the barrel was used by Colt to "regulate" side bb side rifles to get them shooting together. I don't think making the bore oval would work as well, but do not know for sure.
I have worn a barrel badly, in the 70's with less than 200 shots.  I would cut 1/4" off the end of my barrel and re-crown it when groups opened form 1" to 2" at 100 yards. At 100 shots, they would start to open up form the 1" average.  I was using double apertures and that barrel was good for 1" groups, average in the choked Bauska barrel with 38" rifling. I was shooting a 400gr. bullet with 85F 2F.
The reason for the barrel wear, was one of the BRAND NEW on the market UNBREAKABLE FIBERGLASS Ram Rods.  The wear was evident. I do not know why I did not use a muzzle protector???

[blienemann]

Dan and all, here's a bit more detail.

The rifles and page numbers you list from MGII show that the two Oerter rifles that were taken to Germany or England ca 1776, and both observed by gentlemen from across the Pond are the straight bored examples, while all the other Oerter and unsigned rifles remaining here are relieved.  I have handled most of those in this country, and relied on others in some cases.  This split response is interesting.  Perhaps the English reviewers looked in a different way, the barrels are in fact relieved with the rifling refiled, and not obvious?  I tried to explain what we were looking for, but cannot say for sure. 

Those two Oerter long guns were probably taken or surrendered soon after they were made, and have been preserved with little shooting or wear - they remain in almost new condition.  All these that I have seen are relieved round, even and I don't believe result from ramrod wear at the muzzle.  On these and many later rifles it appears that the muzzle was reamed 1 to 2 inches deep until the rifling at the muzzle or up to 1/2" below the muzzle was removed, then rifling was refiled at the muzzle - for decoration?  This filing is often exaggerated and of a different form than the rifling grooves, sometimes with rings, dots or stars added on the muzzle face.  Rifles #43 and #52 in Shumway's RCA Vol I were rifled, were relieved at the muzzle this way but the rifling was not filed back, and without good light George thought both were smooth rifles.  The same may be true of others in his books, and the old KRA gunroom in Carlisle where he photographed and measured most rifles was notoriously dark!  Herb shows something similar in his recent Hawken post.  Jack Brooks showed this to me many years ago, and this is generally how we finish a rifle unless the owner prefers something different.

That's the info we have noted.  The relieving or funneling, often with rifling filed back at the muzzle and a flat face without modern crown are there.  Now we can argue who, how and when this came about.  Bob

[Dan Fruth]

Thanks Bob for chiming in...I was hoping you would.......Ed Rail will relieve any barrel you want, and does so in the lathe......Ken Netting has some of these and says they shoot better than he is capable of shooting off-hand.............I think this was a common practice, and the guns I have with relieved muzzle all seem to shoot well...I admit I have never tried a bench test with a before and after relief....Would be interesting to see the results....Dan

[rich pierce]

That's the info we have noted.  The relieving or funneling, often with rifling filed back at the muzzle and a flat face without modern crown are there.  Now we can argue who, how and when this came about.  Bob

Well, not much to argue when it comes to rifles clearly used for hunting. Seems this practice of filing back the muzzle was used in Germany by the mid 1700s at least if Schreit and Albrecht used it here.

Target shooters will be squeamish about this and well they should, but to declare that “They did not/could not have funneled  muzzles on many hunting rifles 1750-1850” seems unsupportable, as does the corollary, “They must have used short starters, because they did not funnel or file a relieved muzzle, and they shot with good accuracy, and one cannot load a tight, accurate load without a short starter in a non-relieved muzzle.”

This does not DQ anyone who wants to finish their muzzle however they want for their needs, or prevent them from loading however they wish.

[Wayne Holcombe]

When I worked for John Bivins he recommended relieving the muzzle unless it was a target rifle.

[45-110]

I mentioned this fact about a year ago that our gov't  relieved (removed) the rifling for  1 inch or so on the model 1819 Halls flint breech loading rifle. The "relief" was a straight counter bore to facilitate muzzle loading when needed, no soldier was issued a short starter. Maybe Jake Hawken witnessed the process when he worked there and figured a cone would do the same, and be easier to create.
kw

[Chowmi]

I wish I had this topic in mind 2 weeks ago.  I was just in the Military Museum in Paris, and they had a good example of coning, or relief at the muzzle.  I failed to take a picture. 

There was a rifle that had the length and architecture of a classic Jaeger.  The English portion of the description plate was insufficient to determine if it was German or French, and I didn't really look hard enough to see if I could tell German/French.  Not sure I have the expertise to determine anyway!

To get to the point, it had a relieved or coned muzzle just like the signed Oerter rifle in MG2 on page 116.  Rifling grooves filed round at the muzzle and all. 

Didn't get a date on the rifle, but it was in the section of the museum dated 1643-1870. 

I'll go back there in the next month or two and take some decent pictures. 

Anyway, if it's French, goes to show that this technique was used in several places. 

Cheers,
Norm