Added barrel length = more danger???

[msmith]

I am always surprised by people wanting to shoot antique one of a kind firearms....I was just thinking many of these fine looking long barrel " Kentucky Rifles" had some of their barrels hacked off over time, and many of them have had these subtracted lengths and even more added back for cosmetic purpose etc......I think this has added even a greater danger of having part of your face as well as other body parts removed or seriously damaged, if you choose to fire them...Some of the weld jobs especailly after skilled  cover ups are hard to detect...I think when one has their existing barrel length increased to enhance the beauty and vaule of his or her Longrifle they are not considering firing it, but the next owner might...I just think this is another good reason not to ever fire a antique muzzle loading gun...I am sure someone will argue that a properly welded barrel  is as strong as another, but unless it is tested you do not know if it is good or not...

[Fullstock longrifle]

Excellent point, I would venture to say that 60 to 70 percent of all antique longrifles with forearm wood added/repaired have had the barrel stretched.  Some of the work is excellent, but many are simple butt joints with very little weld.

FK

[JTR]

Well that's true, and I agree to a point.
However if you take into consideration the cost (probably a couple thousand bucks) of adding on a chunk of barrel and the additional wood forearm, it quickly becomes evident that this work isn't generally carried out on inexpensive rifles.

Plus, I expect that you'd probably want to run a patch through that old, or mostly old, barrel before shooting it, and for the most part the extension barrel pieces aren't rifled, so I'm guessing the guy pushing the patch would notice that.
If you buy a gun with a top quality barrel stretching done chances are the barrel addition might rifled to match the original rifling, which would make it harder to tell.

And then you gotta wonder that if you bought a gun for 5 or 10 thousand bucks, do you really want to shoot it no matter the apparent condition, given that the barrel isn't necessarily the only weak point.

So I guess in the end, the best old one to shoot would be one that's obviously had the barrel cut back, and is in good condition otherwise.

John

[Fullstock longrifle]

Your absolutely right John, because of the cost involved, it usually is the higher end guns that have been stretched, it's not normally cost effective on the lesser guns (unless you do your own work).  But you just never know.  By the way, Nord posted some pictures of a nice Henry Carlisle that was shot by somebody until the 1980's, pretty nice gun to be fired just for the heck of it.

FK

[Lucky R A]

       Many, if not most of the barrel stretch jobs involve adding a piece from a donor barrel that is not necessarily of the same caliber.    This type of work is done to enhance the value and restore a rifle to its original condition and appearance.   Since this is the case the time labor and money is usually expended on the exterior and not the interior of the barrel.  If the donor piece is added to the muzzle of the gun, and the piece is short more care to match the original barrel is taken.  A piece added to the breech is is usually welded in and blended and aged, there is no effort ($$) expended on the interior.   If Rick (at Pawn Stars) or others attempted to load and fire the gun, the addition of a barrel piece would be evident.   I have seen some thin walled fowler barrels that were stretched that had a solid piece welded into place at the juncture to provide additional support.   I wonder if it might be a good idea to plug all barrels that are stretched to prevent future problems.....

[nord]

Rather than worry too much about rifling or cosmetics I'd probably look at where the barrel is stressed the most and the least. Assuming the bore size of both old and new components is close and that the barrel can be properly charged (load firmly seated on the powder), then the peak pressure point will be at the breach end of the gun with lesser pressures toward the muzzle. This is the reason that barrel length past a certain point makes no sense as no further energy can be added to the projectile.

Should a gun have been lengthened at the breach end I'd be very concerned about a closely matching bore diameter. Too large and there's the risk of the patch and ball slipping forward. Too small and there's the risk of an improperly seated load. In either case a potentially catastrophic event made worse should the weld be anything but perfect.

The muzzle end concerns me less as long as the addition is bored to closely match the old barrel.  This assumes the load can be properly seated on the charge without any undue problem. When fired the pressures will have tapered off considerably by the time the patch and ball reach the repair point.

While a catastrophic failure could well occur at the muzzle end, the point is that it would happen quite far from the shooter's face and hands. I wouldn't expect a blown barrel in the conventional sense either. More a catastrophic failure of the weld and associated stock and muzzle damage.

Which begs the question... Why in the world would anyone take an expensive antique rifle, add several inches to the barrel at considerable expense, then subject old, new, and untested components to a deliberate explosion?

Believe it or not one can purchase for a reasonable sum a nice Thompson Center muzzlestuffer that will safely digest just about any abuse a man could think of. For the price one can do all sorts of stupid things with very little chance of damage to either the gun or shooter.

Or if it's that important, have a contemporary maker build a copy of the antique. New wood, new metal, and much less expensive than a ruined antique rifle! As a bonus no mutilated hands and an undamaged face with two intact eyes.

Some of us tend to forget that there is such a thing as honorable retirement. Many of the hands that made our rifles belonged to men who were either part of the Revolution or were born to fathers who served. To stupidly destroy a work of art that has somehow survived over time goes against our purpose of preserving history it would seem to me.

[Dphariss]

I have shot some original rifles, I even got to shoot an original Hawken, once. I am far more cautious.

But in general shooting antique guns is a bad idea. The old iron and even the steels of the late 19th century are often of poor ro questionable quality. The barrels of the 18th century are FAR worse. Scary is the proper term. Look at the sections of trade gun barrels in "Colonial Frontier Guns" by Hamilton. Loaded with "greys".
Inclusions are one reason that the good damascus barrels were so prized. All the forging and welding burnt and beat out a lot of the impurities making a stronger barrel.
I have often read that horseshoe nail stubs were used for gun barrels and in fact were highly prized. I thought it was BS until I read relevant parts of W. Greener's "The Gun" (not to be confused with W.W. Greener) who detailed the process. The small bits of iron when formed into  bloom in a small furnace would have resulted in much purer iron.

But I digress. I do not like shooting old barrels and would NEVER shoot a barrel that had been stretched UNLESS it has a modern steel liner.
Shooting an old barrel is scary enough, shooting a barrel that has had a piece welded on to that old iron?

DUCK and COVER!

Dan

[shortbarrel]

After everyone is scared to death about adding length to a  wrought iron barrels. Let me state my case. Forget adding anything to the breech end. Sometimes I might do a new build with a WR barrel and all the rest WR. 3" or 4" added to the muzzle end is very safe procedure. It has nothing to do with welding. It has to do with machine work and a short piece of old barrel. The barrel is proof tested to the the extreme. If you want to know more mail-me. I'm talking about a shooting rifle here.

[Dphariss]

After everyone is scared to death about adding length to a  wrought iron barrels. Let me state my case. Forget adding anything to the breech end. Sometimes I might do a new build with a WR barrel and all the rest WR. 3" or 4" added to the muzzle end is very safe procedure. It has nothing to do with welding. It has to do with machine work and a short piece of old barrel. The barrel is proof tested to the the extreme. If you want to know more mail-me. I'm talking about a shooting rifle here.

The question would be:
"Why bother?"
While I can see adding to the barrel by threading ect and this being little different tha a patent breech and there have been barrels repaired at the breech in a similar manner.
I can see stretching or repairing a barrel to restore a rifle to its original length.
I don't see the point of using old barrels for actual shooting.
While I have issues with the contour of many modern swamp contours this is not enough to have me using a old iron barrel that I really have no idea of the quality of material.
I had a phone discussion with a fellow poster here who makes barrels, rifles and also does restoration work.
The subject of inclusions came up and we both agreed that the old barrels have serious problems with inclusions.
"Frontier Colonial Guns" has sectioned barrels from trade guns of various types. Its scary.
Reading W Greener from 1832 he complains of the poor quality of the iron export barrels. He points out the guns bursting in service in England prove that the proof method is faulty and then goes on to use what is now laughable ideas for improving the proof house. Not understanding  the failures were a result of the metallurgy  of time and that its impossible to prove a barrel is safe by its surviving proof.
Inclusions are a prime cause of barrel failures and were something that a prospective gun buyer was warned about "back in the day". "Greys" in damascus barrels were a problem. Inclusions is gun parts even to the late 1860s is really scary. Repair/rebuilt work on Civil War era guns and even later is made far more difficult by the poor quality of the material.
Even the steel barrels of the late 19th century have inclusions, that in their old age, show alarmingly in the bore and on the exterior. This really did not disappear until the widespread us a smokeless bringing about the use of better steels and closer attention the making and where necessary the forging and heat treating of parts. I would cite the "low number" 1903 Springfields as a problem of this sort that involved over a million US service rifles that are now considered to be unsafe and specifically are banned from most if not all modern day service rifle competitions.
Are all old barrels/firearms unsafe or weak? Of course not. But there is no way to really determine a good barrel from a bad one. If its rebored and seems to be good with no obvious hard spots etc it may very well be as good as a modern barrel.
But there simply is no way to really determine this other than some laboratory that specializes in metallurgy and even then the determination may require destroying parts of the barrel.
So, in general, I would decline to resurrect an old  ML barrel unless it was lined with a modern liner.

I don't really like shooting pre-Civil War or even 1880s barrels but I have with a knowledge that its a risk. A chance to shoot an original Hawken rifle, for example is not something I wanted to let pass by. I have shot other original barrels including an original 1814 "Common Rifle".  But I understand the risks and in some cases choose to accept them. In most cases I decline.
From a professional standpoint I tell anyone that old barrels are not safe and if they shoot them they do so at their own risk.

Dan