RCA volume 1

[chuck-ia]

Thumbing through this book I notice a lot, (maybe half) of these rifles are smooth bore. Not big bores, a lot of them are under 50 cal. I just can't imagine the rifling being shot out of these barrels, that would take a whole lot of shooting. Was it easier to make a smooth barrel, (and cheaper)? I talked to a barrel manufacturer the other day and he said it was harder to make a smooth barrel (properly) than a rifled barrel. If they were made to shoot shot, why did they have sights, and made like a regular rifle? It just seems to me if one wanted a gun to shoot shot, for one thing a bigger bore, a rear sight would not be needed, maybe leave out the cheek piece. What am I missing? chuck

[Karl Kunkel]

I am sure the more learned members will chime in soon.  I believe you are refering to "smooth rifles".  A smooth barrel stocked as a rifle, also known as "Buck-n ball" rifles.  After the true frontier moved to the west, and all of the big game was gone in the east, smooth rifles became more dominant.  They could be used on deer sized game with a patched round ball, or small game and turkey with bck shot.

Another school of thought is the rifling was shot out, or corroded and the barrel was "freshened" to smooth bore.

Two cents from a novice.

[smallpatch]

Another school of thought.

This is just my opinion......

The average Joe in 18th century America, could most likely only afford (1) gun.
   With that gun, he had to feed and protect that family.  With a smoothbore, what ever the gage or caliber, he could load shot for small game and birds, ball for larger game, and of course both would be good for personal protection.

Like in most anything else....necessity is the mother of invention.
 
Again, just my opinion.

[Dphariss]

Thumbing through this book I notice a lot, (maybe half) of these rifles are smooth bore. Not big bores, a lot of them are under 50 cal. I just can't imagine the rifling being shot out of these barrels, that would take a whole lot of shooting. Was it easier to make a smooth barrel, (and cheaper)? I talked to a barrel manufacturer the other day and he said it was harder to make a smooth barrel (properly) than a rifled barrel. If they were made to shoot shot, why did they have sights, and made like a regular rifle? It just seems to me if one wanted a gun to shoot shot, for one thing a bigger bore, a rear sight would not be needed, maybe leave out the cheek piece. What am I missing? chuck

Perhaps the bores were more like 42-44-46 rifled when new. Many 1770s rifles, based on slightly used specimens, were under 50 caliber and one early Resor rifle shown in Steel Canvas is reported as a 42 caliber and could pre-date 1770. The rifle JJ Henry mentions in his journal (enroute to Quebec with Arnold) was 45 to the pound (155 grain ball) and short barreled.
Look at the inventory of barrels for the Moravian shop at Christian Springs. Most are listed as rifle barrels.

There are references to rifle stocked smoothbores (not called smooth rifles) but the reputation of the American rifleman was not made with a smoothbore.

Some could have been bored to hunt with at a time when a 50+- caliber rifle was not really useful for small game. That the rifles were subject to wear and corrosion and were recut/rebored as often as needed is irrefutable based on surviving documents. To clear the pits and get the bore to uniform dimensions will require enlarging it 1 to 2 calibers from what I have been told.  Rifles used a lot or neglected would need need recutting/freshing fairly often.
Look at Reedy's account books.
Perhaps the bore was worn/recut to the point that recutting grooves was not reasonable so it was left smooth bored after the rifling or pitting was cleaned up.
So far as how difficult it is to make a good smoothbore I look at this with some skepticism. Using a straight bit reamer a pass or 2 will make a very good finish that is slightly larger at the breech than the muzzle. To get a good finish for the lands in a rifle it must be reamed in this manner as well. Then it takes some hours to cut the grooves. So saying a smooth bore is harder to make than a rifle ridiculous.
It is likely, certain in fact, that some "smooth rifles" were made but there is no point in using a smooth barrel for shooting round balls unless the shooter never shoots past 50 yards. Even then as a fellow rifleman stated in a conversation, "if you can hit a target with a ball from a smoothbore you can hit it better with a rifle".
This is not refutable.
The shooting reportedly performed by the rifle companies in demonstrations early in the Revolution indicates that they had grooved barrels... They were not called "smooth riflemen".The idea that a great many rifles were made smooth is simply silly.

I also dispute the rifle as being useless in war. I would cite the performance of Morgan's rifleman at Saratoga and how they made it impossible for the smoothbore armed French and Indian British scouts to operate and hundreds of the survivors packed up and went home. Those who remained in the words of a somewhat peeved British Officer "could not be brought within sound of a rifle shot".

Walter Kline and others of his generation were buying up old rifles in the early 20th Century then freshing or re-boring and rifling them to larger calibers. For all we know some of the rifles in collections now were  bored smooth to get rid of modern rifling forms in the bores.
Considering all the factors thinking the bores in surviving rifles that saw much use are representative of what they were 250 years ago is in most cases simply not realistic. A rifle made in the 1770s that was converted to percussion and shows significant cap corrosion has seen maybe 80 years of use.May have seen 60-70 or more as a flintlock. Is it any wonder its bore is not what it was when new?
So far as the one gun theory. Some liked rifles some did not.When used on small game a small bore rifle 45 or under is more economical than a smoothbore of a gauge large enough to be worth much, about 28 bore.
So far as self protection the rifle is generally superior to the smoothbore unless engaged in linear tactics as was mandated by European warfare of the time. In the woods/frontier type warfare the rifle was better in the hands of someone who could use it. This was proven several times during the revolution.
Maybe more smooth bores survived because they hung on the wall more...
Dan

[jerrywh]

 I think all we can do on this subject is ask ourselves what would we do under the same circumstances.
 My guess is that for the most part Small patch has the right theory BUT one theory seldom accounts for all circumstances.  A smooth rifle is a superb survival gun in wooded country or even in the west back when game was not spooked out to 400 yds with modern rifles. 
  I think some were bored out just to make better survival  guns and some were worn out probably more by not being cleaned on a regular basis. A blacksmith farmer could bore out a rifle barrel with a spiral reamer but probably never had the know how or the tools to rifle one so he used it as is.
  Each smooth rifle had  it's own unique reason for being so. In my opinion Small patches explanation makes more sense in the majority of cases.

[don getz]

Chuck....someone who was not familiar with the methods of barrel making gave you some misinformation.  I can't figure
our how it would be more difficult to do a smoothbore than a rifled bore.  Any barrel that is made must first be reamed
smooth, regardless of calibre.   You can quit at that point and have a smoothbore, or you can continue and cut rifling into
that bore.  As for all of those old rifles having what appears to be a smoothbore, they could have started out as rifles.
That old wrought iron was soft, and the rifling did wear down rather quickly.  I can recall a local sale when I was much
younger, and they sold an over/under, rifle-shotgun that this old gent used throughout his life.  Also sold along with his
gun was a whole handful of "freshing" sticks, which still had the poured lead slug on the end to hold a cutter.  He must
have shot the gun a lot and "freshed" it many times as it word down............Don

[northmn]

One of the other things was that it seems smooth rifles were more common in the Allentown area than in the Lancaster area for instance.  A smooth rifle with sights is effective at more than 50 yards if properly loaded and you would not want  a good shot to shoot at you at a 100 with one. Considering things I wonder if most wanted to shoot over any distance anyway.  We hear stories of the great shooting done in the early days, but I question how many could really shoot. A few with natural talent yes but not as many as one would think percentage wise.  Today we start out with BB guns, move to 22's and so forth.  We expend far more ammo than they every did.  Most stories lose nothing in the telling.  One British officer referred to seeing the rifleman get into the prone position, a favored position according to him,  which imples that they did a lot of resting when they shot.  They also likely took closer shots. Go to a modern BP shoot and see how many shooters can actually shoot well at 100 yards.  You hear lots of $#@* about how they can't hit a target but can nail a running whitetail at 250 yards.  Smooth rifles might make more sense to those honest with themselves.  They were made in later years for large game in Africa as they were easier to clean, and could hit an elephant or other large animals at a reasonable range.  Up close yes, but for some close is about as good as you are.  As to effectiveness of small bores with shot.  If you post shoot everything, even a 410 today is surprisingly effective.

DP 

[Dphariss]

I believe the smoothbore as a survival tool is a myth. A rifle of similar caliber will generally kill more meat on less powder and lead. Try shooting 180 grains of shot and 30 grains of powder at pattern boards with a 50 caliber smoothbore. With a ball my 50 smoothbore is useless at 25 yards for small game with a solid ball. A rifle will kill small game with 30 grains of powder and no/minimal meat loss. BTDT.
As I previously tried to point out the forest of early colonial times is NOT the forest of today in a great many areas since in the east and the west the natives modified the environment with fire. They burned out the underbrush. This is documented.
Before waxing eloquent on how wonderful a smooth bore of 45-50 caliber is people might want to build one and test it.
Did it never occur that these smooth gun may have seen little use? That they were built so that someone could have a fancy gun at the lowest possible cost?? Smoothbores were far cheaper than rifles.
And finally if they were so wonderful why did they DIE OUT?? Why are they virtually unknown in later periods?? The closest thing you see is combination guns one rifled, one barrel smooth and often of larger caliber.

My problem with them is INACCURACY.
They ALWAYS pitch fliers and I have owned 4-5 smooth bores some with sights some without. The trouble with hunting with them is Murphy's law states they will through a flier at the worst possible time and I can personally attest to this. BTDT.
Rather than go ga-ga over the "survival tool" ask yourself which you would prefer if your LIFE depended on it and you had limited funds for ammunition. What will kill the most game with the least powder and lead and still work on people. Its the rifle every time.
Because this is the bottom line.
Then get one of these small SB guns and TEST IT AS USED AT THE TIME.
I can't control people not being able to shoot worth a hoot. Maybe its genetic. Or they never bother to learn.

Dan

[Dphariss]

Chuck....someone who was not familiar with the methods of barrel making gave you some misinformation.  I can't figure
our how it would be more difficult to do a smoothbore than a rifled bore.  Any barrel that is made must first be reamed
smooth, regardless of calibre.   You can quit at that point and have a smoothbore, or you can continue and cut rifling into
that bore.  As for all of those old rifles having what appears to be a smoothbore, they could have started out as rifles.
That old wrought iron was soft, and the rifling did wear down rather quickly.  I can recall a local sale when I was much
younger, and they sold an over/under, rifle-shotgun that this old gent used throughout his life.  Also sold along with his
gun was a whole handful of "freshing" sticks, which still had the poured lead slug on the end to hold a cutter.  He must
have shot the gun a lot and "freshed" it many times as it word down............Don

Thank you Don.

Dan

[Tom Currie]

Dan, I just have a  thought regarding your comments. I've always bought into the idea that as the big game was depleted by market hunters and early settlers that a smoothbore made more sense as a general purpose firearm. Now I agree that a SB does not deliver a round ball with the accuracy of a rifle but isn't the main purpose of a SB to be a buck'n ball gun or to fire small shot at birds or running rabbits, or possums or whatever you could put in a pot. Your comment " And finally if they were so wonderful why did they DIE OUT?? " didn't they just evolve into shotguns ? Isn't that really what the SB is ? Most hunters I grew up with started with a shotgun for versatility. I know this is a different time but the concept of a versatile gun is the same.

[George F.]

Okay, help educate the ignorant... What does BTDT mean. If it can't be printed send me a message. I can't even begin to guess....Thanks, Geo.

[Dphariss]

Dan, I just have a  thought regarding your comments. I've always bought into the idea that as the big game was depleted by market hunters and early settlers that a smoothbore made more sense as a general purpose firearm. Now I agree that a SB does not deliver a round ball with the accuracy of a rifle but isn't the main purpose of a SB to be a buck'n ball gun or to fire small shot at birds or running rabbits, or possums or whatever you could put in a pot. Your comment " And finally if they were so wonderful why did they DIE OUT?? " didn't they just evolve into shotguns ? Isn't that really what the SB is ? Most hunters I grew up with started with a shotgun for versatility. I know this is a different time but the concept of a versatile gun is the same.

The smooth rifle DID NOT turn into a shotgun. The shotgun was already there.
If the shotgun is better why did the small bore rifle come to the front for small game? What is cheaper to shoot squirrels with a 22 rifle or a 12 gauge?? or a 20 for that matter. Go down to the gun store and look at prices. Same then as now even a 45 caliber ML rifle is FAR cheaper to shoot than a 58-62 caliber be it smooth or otherwise.
Shooting running rabbits is generally silly. If you stomp through the brush scaring the $#*! out of everything it might be a valid concept. If you HUNT you can see them setting and head shoot them. Running is a cottontail rabbits last resort.
For other than flying birds or the ability to shoot large numbers of birds ON THE GROUND OR WATER the shotgun has no advantage. Since this practice will quickly kill off ground birds like grouse or quail this leaves seasonal water fowl if you have an area where they congregate. Other than this the shotgun is a waste of powder and lead. It would be useful for the skunk or raccoon raiding the chicken house...
Bottom line is the subsistence is going to be small game. For this an EFFECTIVE shotgun simply uses too much powder and lead. As a result the small rifle took over.
In the late 19th century Ned Roberts as a boy was hunting bears and other game in New England. The range was very short in most cases THEY USED ML RIFLES not shotguns, not smooth rifles. They used rifles. Even though on the one trip he wrote about one bear was killed so close that the hair was scorched.
At the start of the American Revolution the United States had more RIFLE companies than they would use. Where did they come from if the smooth bore was so wonderful and filled every need??? Why did the people on the frontiers have so many rifles??? These were often to poorest people yet they had RIFLES. I guess they were just too dumb to realize they were terribly handicapped by not having the "ideal survival weapon". If I were faced with a REAL survival situation where I was unlikely to have firefights with other humans and I had to have just ONE firearm I would have a very hard time leaving my long barreled 22 pistol home. I KNOW I can feed myself with it. Its light and the ammo is too.
If I were going to Kentucky on a long hunt in 1768 to kill deer for their hides would I take a rifle that was 50-60 to the pound or a smoothbore of the same size. Would I prefer a rifle or smoothbore of 30 or 20 to the pound when 50-60 will do the same job and use far less powder as well. The small bore also produces less noise. They can be a key survival issue.
Why would I take a smooth rifle on such a mission? There is no reason at all for this in this context.  What if all the man had was a 54-58-62?? I contend he would not have had a bore this large in the first place.

This love of the SB has been carried on to the point of ignoring common sense.

Then we have the butt kick factor effecting accuracy. You send the kid out with a gun, the most economical if at all possible, to kill something for supper. You hear 3-4 shots, you expecting to eat pretty well tonight. In reality he kills one rabbit/turkey/squirrel. You kick his butt for 5 minutes for wasting ammuntion. You think he will miss next time? You think this didn't happen you are delusional.
The kid learned not to miss.
There are reasons for the smooth "rifle". Bad eyesight is valid reason for not shooting well so a smooth bore is as good as any. The neighbor has a fancy rifle so you need one too, since you won't, don't or cannot shoot worth a darn why pay for a rifled barrel when a smooth looks just the same? But saying its a better firearm for the majority of uses is simply not supportable.

Finally how does one have a rifle match with a smoothbore??

These folks shot at marks and MEASURED the distance from center. Just hitting the board or paper did not count for much.
Shoots at many "re-enactments" have degenerated into novelty matches with large targets so people will not feel bad if they miss. Then games are played so the good shots have little chance to win, drawing cards etc. If you shoot too well they change the rules. etc etc. Even at this the smoothbores don't do so well.

Dan

[Dphariss]

Okay, help educate the ignorant... What does BTDT mean. If it can't be printed send me a message. I can't even begin to guess....Thanks, Geo.

Been there, done that.

Dan

[T*O*F]

Now I agree that a SB does not deliver a round ball with the accuracy of a rifle but isn't the main purpose of a SB to be a buck'n ball gun or to fire small shot at birds or running rabbits, or possums or whatever you could put in a pot.

Tom,
You have hit on the crux of the situation.  The value of accuracy in hunting, self-defense and survival is always bandied about.  As civilization spread across the continent, various threats lasted only a short period.  As these areas were opened up for settlement, homesteaders moved in.  Towns grew and civilization followed.  There was no threat of war or Indians.

A homesteader's main use of a gun was subsistence hunting.  They worked hard every day to eke out a livng and had large families to help with the load.  A man often wore out 2 or 3 wives in the process.  They didn't have time to wander the woods.  This job usually fell to the youngest son to provide meat for the pot every day, regardless of what it was, and you are correct in that it was mostly small game and birds.  They could get their shot and lead the same place where they bought their powder.  About the only personal protection they had to worry about was the occasional panther or marauding bear.  These could be shot with whatever gun they had.  Animals were not as skitish as they are today, and most homesteaders also had one or more dogs around who joined in the fray.

At certain times of the year, several men might get together for a bear hunt hunt or whatever.  Bears were usually shot in their dens.  One shot kills were not the norm either.  It often took several shots from the party to kill a bear, who would have several dogs hanging off his arse.  There were also no hunting ethics.  If you only wounded an animal, you tracked it or let the dogs run it down until it could be killed.

Everybody seems to think in terms of the "first explorers" who had to worry about survival and protection.  By and large, it was the people who followed that set the trends.  The most common gun carried by those who headed west in wagon trains was not a rifle, but rather a double-barreled shotgun.

[Sean]

Geez, Dan.  You ain't opinionated about this topic or anything, are you?   

Be they 'useless' or for blind folk, smoothrifles were common just about anywhere north of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi for a heck of a long time.  In 1840, well after the rifle culture took hold in the US, James Henry of Boulton, PA wrote Ramsey Crooks who was in charge of procurements for the AFC:

Could you not succeed in introducing the common smoothbore rifle, made short and light with a large 6 inch lock & no box & otherwise made cheap and plain in lieu of the N. West gun.  I think they could be made for 6 50/100 or about that &would have the advantage over the shot gun by being adapted for both shot & ball...  The common smoothrifle in these parts as well as elsewhere in the States is superceding the shot gun from the circumstance of being adapted to both ball and shot.

That quote was first printed in John Parson's 'Gunmakers of AFC' in 1952.  It was at the tail end of the flint era and well into when percussion was common.  As a western hunter, I can understand your distrust of smoothbore guns for roundballs.  That opinion is no different than what was common among white trappers in the West.  They preferred rifles to smoothbore guns for their extended range because their lives depended on it in a much more open and dangerous system than you'd find in PA.  However, I would argue that the only thing that could have made the smoothrifle die out in the east is the advent of cartridge firearms and not even that succeeded.  Percussion and even flint smoothbores remained in use in the east and especially Canada well after cartridge firearm became common.  The introduction of the foster slug was a continuation of the smoothrifle ideal and its still going today.  Granted a smoothrifle is not the ideal for a 75-125 yard shot at an elk across a montane meadow, but they work well for a lot of people in their hunting and shooting needs, degenerated reenactments or not.

Sean

[Leatherbelly]

   I like shooting my smoothbore! I like shooting my rifle too but the smoothie just has something that keeps me coming back to it; the challenge. It takes more concentration,a steadier hold,a good stance and a better knowledge of your gun to shoot accurately. No matter to what purpose they were used then, I like the concept of a big fat round ball slapping the gong(or quarry) real hard! Just my 3 cents worth,though.

[rich pierce]

As was mentioned above, there is a higher percentage of smoothbores in surviving specimens from certain schools of Pennsylvania rifle-built guns.  I don't have the book at hand but there's a Schuler rifle-built gun with a round barrel and hooked breech.  I'd wager that was always smooth.

[Dphariss]

Based on actual homesteading experience most homesteaders would starve if some one was not there to feed them if they could not grow crops.
I am speaking of my fathers experience with the last homesteads that the Federal Gov't offered. This was in the 1980s in AK. He fed a lot of people... But not with a shotgun.
If you think that the homesteaders of the 1830s-1890s (or even later in some places as the frontier moved to AK and Canadian Yukon) only had to worry about animals  you have a distorted idea of the frontier at anytime. The criminals gravitated to the places where they could live with less chance of being hung. There was no law. PERIOD. People simply took care of things. If need be they banded together in groups. Citizens hung the SHERIFF at Virginia City, MT and took over law enforcement for a time because the Sheriff was the gang leader.

People just love the bring up trade guns when smoothbores are mentioned. The natives used trade guns for a couple of reasons.
The trade gun was just that. It was the cheapest thing possible to make that the natives would trade for. They had different needs and preferences.  Rifles required more maintenance and thus made them more dependent on whites. Had little to do with effectiveness. The fact that their was a concerted effort to keep rifles from native hands starting in the late 1750 or 1760s might also have been a factor. This is documented as well with British officers stating that natives with rifles could be very bad due to their method of waging war.

In the Great Lakes region you could feed whole parties with a smoothbore and fairly heavy shot shooting waterfowl. But this would not work year round in Kentucky or Tennessee.
I grew up in Iowa hunting small game. When I was a teenager you seldom saw deer. I cannot recall shooting a squirrel with a shotgun. It just wasn't done in my family. Using 1 to 1 1/8 ounces of shot to kill a rabbit was a waste of money not to mention biting into bird shot. Shotguns were for pheasants.

Shooting flying birds is SPORT, it is not subsistence. Shooting a raft of ducks of geese on the water is subsistence. But you have to live where this is possible.
My father's hunting gun in the great depression in which he market hunted rabbits at times was a single shot rifle chambered for 22 Short. Why BECAUSE THE AMMO WAS CHEAP. My Grandfather killed a large buck with a 22 short, surely a BP version, that was eating their garden. He shot at it just to scare it and his father told him he had hit it an he should track it. It was dead in the woods not that far away. This was in Arkansas. Yes they had shotguns but they were often used for politically incorrect taking of waterfowl.

Here is an exercise for someone with the time and access. How many smooth rifles are shown in old Leman and Henry lists. The bulk made cheap factory guns did they make very many. If they were popular these guys were making them. Reedy mentions one "Smooth Rifle" in his lists of work done. But what did this mean? Was it a smooth rifle as we know it or was it something else?  I could not warrant either way and neither can anyone else. Maybe the stock was uncarved?
I have never said there were no smooth rifles, I have never said people did not use shotguns. Parkman's companion on his western trip had a double shotgun for example.  I said they are not economically feasible for small game. This is simply not refutable if you consider powder and lead expended for pounds of meat acquired.
Someone points out that there is a historical that smooth rifles are replacing SHOTGUNS. It does not say they were replacing rifles.
Again, if the smooth rifle was so much more useful and so widely used where did the rifle armed military units come from during the Revolution and the War of 1812? Jackson's men were not singing: "what aim we take with our Kentucky buck and ball guns". They were singing about RIFLES.
Roberts fails to mention them at all in "The ML Caplock Rifle" aside from one mention of a guy killing deer with buckshot (presumably).
I don't think Cline mentions them much either. But then both these men were interested in accurate shooting.
I'm sorry I just don't care for the old "one went high, one went low, where the $#*! did other one go" method of shooting. Finally if the smoothbore is so wonderful at short range why are all the shotgun makers offering RIFLED BARRELS FOR SLUGS??? There is also a thriving after market in these barrels.

Dan

[timM]

I have also noted the frequency of original smooth rifles in pre 1800 long guns.  A smooth rifle being;  A rifle having a rear sight, cheek piece and probably a raised grip on the trigger guard. 

Personal observations, gained thru references and also handling originals, I sometimes wonder if half of the L-R production in this period wasn’t smooth?  Well, maybe not quite half.

Their use and popularity is a “given” based on the surviving original specimens.  Even if you exclude the rifles that were reamed smooth in their working life.  Also take into account the original fowlers that got a retro fit rear sight.  I think double duty guns whose popularity can not be denied.  tim

[James Rogers]

 Finally if the smoothbore is so wonderful at short range why are all the shotgun makers offering RIFLED BARRELS FOR SLUGS??? There is also a thriving after market in these barrels.

Dan

Accuracy at further distance.  They are trying to make it shoot like a rifle. Same thing in today's ML world where the majority of smoothbored gun shooting occurs with a patched round ball.

When I am looking for that kind of accuracy I get my rifle.  I dont however bend to the crusade to discredit all smooth bored guns as being useless. There are certainly many "po folks" who did no kind of "sport" shooting but owned shotguns only. They put food on the table with shot and with punkin ball.

Whether certain rifle style guns were made smooth or not, one thing for sure is that some were used smooth.  Inside 50 yards most cant tell a difference.

[tg]

There is no sense in argueing wiyth Dan on this one, his mind is made up, not sure of what though...  there is at least one period refernce to "smoothrifle" when a trader was trying to sell them on the frontier he mentioned they were quite popular back east.

[chuck-ia]

Thanks for the replys, I would have to guess that most were made smooth bore, some more than likely got reamed out to smooth bore from neglect, I would bet not all took care of their rifles as we do today,  maybe some were shot so much the rifling wore out and had to be reamed smooth, even with the iron they used back then I would think it would take a bunch of shooting. Maybe I missunderstood the barrellmaker when he said making a smoothbore was difficult. I was under the impression that there was more to it than just reaming it smooth, don't know, never made a barrel before. This maker has allso been in business for many years. I did order a smooth barrel from him. chuck

[Paddlefoot]

I suspect that the terms smooth rifle and so on were not too important to the frontiersmen. Sort of similar to all handguns (more or less) being referred to as "pistols" before we started getting crazy with revolvers and semi-automatics and all the other more descriptive terms we throw around today to communicate more precisely.
I would just about bet money that they were made both ways because one person would think the smooth bore was accurate enough and might be faster to load which might just be what he needed to save his hair. The other guy bought the rifled gun so he could hit em a little further off and use the distance for reloading time...to each his own.

[Dphariss]

There is no sense in argueing wiyth Dan on this one, his mind is made up, not sure of what though...  there is at least one period refernce to "smoothrifle" when a trader was trying to sell them on the frontier he mentioned they were quite popular back east.

There are references to smooth guns of various types in lots of places. There is a citation in "British Military Flintlock rifles" of rifle stocked smoothbores ("very small bore" as I recall) and rifles in stock at a trading post circa 1750-55. Book is away from the computer. Bailey also points out the vexing tendency of writers of the time to use rifle and gun interchangeably not matter if the barrel is grooved or not.
I tend to get bent out of shape with the constant telling of things such as how someone shot wonderfully with a SB at 200 yards. Etc etc. If you like smoothbores or someone at the last shoot did good with one fine. But posting someone shooting well with one at 200 yards when the target is a pile of dirt is just silly.

I have been testing a 42" 50 cal smooth rifle. I shot it fairly extensively with various powder charges and 3 ball sizes and 2-3 patches. 25 and 50 to 60 yards.
Typical group at 25 benched.

In fact its about as good as it did with 490 and 495 balls and powder charges of 50-60-70-75 grains.
I expect the grooved barrel to do as well with 30-40 grains of powder perhaps even 20. I have shot grouse with a 50 with 20 grains of powder years ago.

This is 4 shots 16 bore 80" twist with 140gr of FFG same day shot while the smooth gun was cooling. Not really worth @!*% but better than the 50. I have done better with it at 50-60 yards. But it was a "control" of sorts. This gun is not a lot of fun off the bench.





100 gr of FFG Goex at about 55 yards with the smooth rifle. This is typical, close to the best but far from the worst with various ball sizes.


This is 3 - 3 shot groups with the 16 bore but on a different day.


Rifle really does not like a wad of any kind under the ball Feltan bluestreak shotgun wads do the same thing.
Work since has shown that I can shoot 2" or less with this rifle at 50 yards reliably.
Why 60 yards? Because we no longer have an outdoor range here. So I shoot on BLM land. Thus my 50 yard is sometimes 52 or 55 or in this case 60 if I forget to take the laser out to set the target up.

The SB barrel will kill a deer every shot at probably 75 yards if you are shooting from the bench.
The problem lies in the shooting conditions. Now I know a lot of easterners shoot from stands and blinds and have chairs and rests and all that. Hunting "free style" means that the bullet does not always go where its pointed due to shooting position etc. thus shooter error that would make a slightly off shot with the rifle makes a "worse" off shot with the smoothbore if all the errors stack right.
Also note the powder charges. The SB likes a lot of powder 90-100 grs of FFG so far. The rifle barrel fitted to this gun will shoot smaller with less powder. Testing has been very limited with the rifle barrel right now but the sights are as identical between the 2 barrels as could be expected. I did shoot it at 300 awhile back to see if General Fraser could have been killed with a 50 cal at 300 yards. He could have. The only other  group I have photographed is of about 10 shots while moving the sights. I need to color the rear sight and then do more testing but its hunting season and the windy season as well...
I will likely lap/polish the SB barrel since I think its rough for the first 4-5 inches down from the muzzle and this could be a problem, or not.

I see accuracy as having the bullet hit where I have the sights when the trigger breaks. Inaccurate firearms are a disappointment.
From reports I am confidant that 20 bore smooth with buck and ball will take deer, maybe too many if they are grouped a little too close together. But I have just been burned too often. 3 times on game as I recall. One maybe me but others just from having the wrong tool for the job. I actually gave up on smoothbores for shooting a ball circa 1980. But twice since then I have "re-tried" the smoothbore. A 20 bore fowler a few years back and then buying the smooth barrel for this rifle just as I was getting it finished.
To go back to the "can kill a deer to maybe 75 yards" thing. I hate wounded game. As a result I want to know when I break the trigger that the ball is going to go where pointed if I do my part. Shooting a marginally accurate gun at game is not ethical. But then my "marginal" might be someone else's "great".
Survival weapons etc. The smoothbore loses here unless you can live on ducks and geese.  Takes too much powder and lead and lacks pinpoint accuracy for small game. Rifled bore is better. Frankly this is one use where I see the shotgun as borderline useless.
People here have indicated that they have references to late smooth rifles. But where are the surviving examples of say 1840s smooth rifles? I have never seen one that I recall. So far as smooth rifles/buck and ball guns etc. There is simply no way to know if a gun was originally made rifled or smooth. A smooth rifle could have been rifled at later date ala Cline or bored smooth for some reason at some later date.
This is why I keep pointing to economics. From the stand point of cost per shot and game killed the smoothbore will not match the rifle for an average. Are there other factors? People with no shooting skills etc etc sure. But this will not change the economics for the man that CAN shoot. I guess one could say that a pig farmer who cannot shoot worth a darn is better off with a shotgun of some sort. Good chance he can't hunt either and uses his gun to kill beef in the fall (they stuck pigs) Since he hardly ever shoots it ammo cost is not important. Someone who can shoot and knows how to hunt is better off with a rifle unless he eats a lot of waterfowl.
I have hunted since I was old enough to cock a BB gun. I have hunted a lot of different climates and terrain in several states. Other than for a few specific uses (birds or skunks in the henhouse) the rifle is superior to a shotgun anytime that a solid shot is used it makes no sense at all to use a smoothbore unless one simply wants the handicap.

Dan

[Michael]

Interisting topic to say the least!!!

In all this discussion where would a rifle that had STRAIGHT rifling fit into the picture?  The gunshop at Landis Valley, PA has on display two rifling machines,one twist and one straight. How common was straight rifling in the 18th century? I am guessing that a straight rifle could handle shot, buck shot and a patched ball as well as a smooth bore could. Just my 2pence worth.

Michael