Barrel Weight and Profile

[Cory Joe Stewart]

Hello all,

The gun I am wanting to build in RCA no. 42.  The butt height is 5 inches and the width is around 2 ish.  So it will have the meat that earlier rifles had to it.  The original barrel was 45inches, I am wanting to do a standard 42 inch or 44.  Also, like the original I want it in .50 caliber. 

Now to my question.  In all of the vast experience present on this website, what profile and weight barrell be best?  I am looking at Colerains B or C in 42 or 44.  Also, Buckeye barrels does a C and D in 42 which is used on Chambers VA rifle? 

Any suggestions?

Coryjoe

[Swampwalker]

While I don't have RCA with me at the moment, Schumway gives breech diameters for most of the guns in his books.  I would try to match the breech width of the original as closely as possible.  Probably the 'C' profile at least.  I would also get the longer barrel.  Of course, this will make into a heavier rifle, so your use will have a bearing on your choice.

[Cory Joe Stewart]

I do not own a copy either.  Could someone tell me which lettered measurement is the breech???

Coryjoe

[Longknife]

The answer is "D"

[rich pierce]

I think Wallace led a bunch of folks in re-creating RCA 42 and had some custom barrels made that duplicated the original.  In a bench copy you'd want as close a copy of the barrel as possible.  But I try to keep in mind that the maker probably made quite a few rifles that year, and they likely varied a bit.  For pre-1775 I like D weight barrels; they lend themselves to a robust architecture.  The original rifle is heavier than you might think; maybe 9.5 pounds IIRC.  A C weight would lessen that a bit in .50 caliber.

[Mike Brooks]

Thes days we tend to build rifles that are too light and fowling guns that are too heavy...

[Jim Kibler]

Contact Ed Rayl.  He will make a barrel that closely replicates the original.  There may be a chance that he has one on hand.  I returned a #42 barrel last summer or early fall in order to obtain one with a faster twist.

[Dphariss]

Thes days we tend to build rifles that are too light and fowling guns that are too heavy...

Too much swamp in the rifle barrels I think.

Dan

[Cory Joe Stewart]

Thanks everyone.  I am looking a two of the Barrels that Buckeye barrels sells that are very similar to the measurements of the original. 

Thanks again

Coryjoe

[Jim Kibler]

Very similar surely is a relative term.  Don't believe you are going to find a commercial barrel that is close.  Of course nothing wrong with this approach, however.  I've got the original barrel dimensions around here somewhere.  Let me know if you need them.

[Cory Joe Stewart]

Thanks Jim,

I have the info in RCA about the breech area.  I am not too worried about making an exact copy, for one I was not going to get a barrel as long as the original.  Also, I do not think my skills would permit me to make an exact copy. 

I would love to see images of the one you made if you have any. Thanks for your help.

Coryjoe

[Jim Kibler]

Coryjoe,

I didn't get any pictures of the rifle I built based on #42 before delivering it to the customer.  I've been wanting to get some professional photography done on it, but it hasn't been arranged yet.  I expect that I'll get some photos this summer.  If you have any questions on the original just ask.  In making a "copy" I am pretty familiar with most every detail of the rifle.

Jim

[Cory Joe Stewart]

Jim,

I am curious about the patchbox.   RCA states that the patchbox on it could be a replacement for the original.  What did you do for your patchbox?

Coryjoe

[rich pierce]

Wallace Gusler wrote some articles in Muzzle Blasts detailing the patchbox.  There's a lot of great information and photos there.  Most folks now think the patchbox is original to the rifle. There's no indication there was ever a sliding wooden patchbox- no dovetail repair in the buttplate.

[keweenaw]

Wallace is absolutely convinced the patch box is original and I've held the rifle and looked at the PB in great detail and agree with Wallace.  You'll be much happier spending the few extra dollars and getting the correct barrel for this rifle as Jim suggests.  The original barrel has far less swamp in it than a Colerain C or D and with the large butt the rifle balances perfectly. 

Tom

[Cory Joe Stewart]

The good folks at Muzzleblasts are sending me those back issues with those articles.  I should get them soon.  I am going to the Harrisonburg show this weekend and a friend said Rayl is usually there, so I may talk to him about the barrel.

As for the patchbox it is interesting decision to make as well.  I am not focusing on an exact copy so I may go for a wooden one just out or personal preference.  But I am drawn to that unique shape of the brass one to.

Plently of time to decide that.

Coryjoe

[Jim Kibler]

As others have suggested, I feel certain the brass box is original to the rifle.  It is a bit different, but once you get accustomed to the look, I think it has appeal.   I will say that the design including the kick open spring and catch work very well.  It was somewhat of a pain to make ithough. 

[chris laubach]

I am curious about the patchbox. 

C. Laubach