Hi,
I was always wandering why the traditional barrels are having more thick walls than modern guns.Thanks Mike.
Quality of material would be the simple answer. But there is no simple answer to this.
1830 Steel/iron making was pretty crude by even 1870s standards 1770 was even worse. Any good steel or iron will stand BP pressures. But then quality and suitability gets into the mix. Good iron properly made is virtually unburstable with BP with the load properly seated unless very very thin at the breech.
But. There are many rifles back to the colonial era with barrels that are fairly light weight.
But. We than have to ask what the original bore size was and were the barrels of rifles made a little more thick walled for safety and to leave enough to "fresh" the rifle several times and still have a reasonable wall thickness.
Iron was the standard for Springfield barrels till the end of the Civil War. All the Springfield rifle musket barrels 660000 or so, were skelp welded iron then rolled and stretched to length and rough diameter. These barrels still have an excellent reputation.
IIRC they were proved with 280 grains of musket powder and a minie ball spaced 2" off the powder.
BUT the barrels made by civilians were not always made of as good a material as the Gov't used. The British/European export barrels going to trade guns and such were really bad from all accounts. W Greener was complaining about this circa 1830.
THEN came better powder, then in the late 1820s or early 30s came the picket bullet.
The better powder and heavier for the bore size bullets both jumped the pressure and steepened the pressure curve.
Then we have the "cast steel" barrels of questionable alloy and quality, due to the primitive steel making of the time. Inclusions and flaws in the material were very difficult to determine back in the day but by making the barrels heavier they will flex less when fired, and with some alloys this is a major plus.
This wall barrels like shotguns operate at lower pressure but are very thin. The strength issue was, to some extent, countered by using Damascus barrels on the better grade guns. Why would damascus be better? Its more refined. The iron and steel are layered in relatively small strips and then welded and twisted and welded some more. All this heating and hammering and welding PURIFIED the metal and removed flaws and inclusions IF the workers
are skilled and conscientious. This makes a very good barrel when done right and even in the late 19th Century best grade damascus was as strong as "fluid" or "Whitworth" steel in British tests. BUT the low end stuff was "low end" and marginally safe. The masses of cheap "twist" and "damascus" shotguns imported to the US and sold for 2 to 5 dollars each gave damascus a bad name when smokeless came into use in shotguns.
Oh yes, percussion ignitionsteepens the pressure curve over flint and some shotguns converted to percussion, in England anyway, burst when used as percussion guns. Even though the guns had passed proof when made. So the percussion era guns often had very heavy barrels, better powder, perhaps brittle alloys, bullets instead of round balls = high pressure. Many rifles in the east were dual use and shot round balls and used pickets either for hunting or target. The picket bullet, based on my experience and that of others requires about 2/5ths more powder than a RB in the same rifle to shoot well. The heavier projectile, the better powder, the percussion ignition, steel barrels that may well be brittle due to manufacturing or unknown alloy means you need a heavier barrel for the bore size.
So its not possible to say they made the barrels heavy because, because they didn't always make them heavy. But the "I don't want this thing blowing my head off" explanation is the best for heavy barrels other than match rifles and people who like heavy rifles or light ones.
Modern guns like the various factory mades that flooded the market back from the late 1960s to present were made for the person who decided he wanted a ML but did not want it to be to different in weight and length from his model 70 Win. So barrels were lighter and shorter etc etc.
Dan
