Author Topic: Swamped look? (Read 11063 times)

cmac · « **on:** May 04, 2011, 10:48:07 PM »

A customer has an Armstrong kit he is going to have me put together. It has a straight 37"32 caliber barrel. This is preinletted. He was wondering if the barrel could be filed(just on the top 3 flats) to make it look swamped. Most of these straight barrels have plenty of metal so I don't see why it couldn't be done. I guess its more of a question of if it is worth the effort, and will it have the desired look and feel when completed. Any one done this or seen an example? Is it a waste of time? Nuts?

Acer Saccharum · « **Reply #1 on:** May 04, 2011, 11:01:57 PM »

Not sure if it would improve the looks. Lotta work for little gain.

You might consider that you are removing metal from one side, and not the other. If your barrel has been completely stress relieved, this might be OK. If the barrel has slightly stressed steel, and you remove metal from one side only, the barrel will curve.

You can fix this on the next gun.

An alternative would be to get a heavier profile swamped, and inlet it into the stock.

Tom

Tom Cooper · « **Reply #2 on:** May 04, 2011, 11:07:18 PM »

You might just do an exaggerated flair at the muzzle, me thinks it would give the desired effect.

G-Man · « **Reply #3 on:** May 04, 2011, 11:08:13 PM »

I am sure others may have different opinions, but I would not do it. Part of the visual appeal of the shaping of a swamped barrel is the tapering/slimming effect it has on the forestock. If you were only to do the top 3 flats, the forend will still be straight, and I think would look odd alongside the taper and flare of the top 3 flats. I know some originals tended to not have as pronounced taper and flare of the barrel and wood along the barrel but on a slim gun like this, I think it might stand out like a sore thumb.

I have only seen a couple of original Armstrongs in person - I don't know if they had straight barrels or swamped - they might have been swamped - but on the other hand I never noticed any easily detectable taper and flare to the barrel - they looked pretty slim all the way back. So I see nothing wrong with a straight barrel for your build.

Some folks will recommend filing the lock bolster to "kick the tail out" and give a flaring effect to the lock panel and wrist, but be aware - if you do this, you are also "pulling in" - things like the frizzen, the mainspring, and the nose of the lock - all of which can cause you problems with clearance, fit and shaping on a slender gun.

Good luck

Guy

heinz · « **Reply #4 on:** May 04, 2011, 11:21:38 PM »

I have never done this but I think it would be too much work for the effort. The customer could probably sell the Armstrong stock and current barrel for some one to make into a 32 cal squirrel gun. Then buy a swamped barrel and stock to fit and go from there. As Guy pointed out I do not think going with the current configuation and not messing with a swamp would be too far astray for this style of rifle given that it has a relatively short barrel..

Don Getz · « **Reply #5 on:** May 04, 2011, 11:26:27 PM »

I would stick with the straight sided barrel, it's more correct for an Armstrong. You will accomplish nothing by trying to swamp the top flats only...........Don

bama · « **Reply #6 on:** May 04, 2011, 11:34:25 PM »

You did not say what the width of the barrel is. If it is a small OD then leave it straight and make I nice slim rifle. As long as the rifle has good architecture you will not notice the straight barrel.

shortbarrel · « **Reply #7 on:** May 05, 2011, 12:13:49 AM »

Think about it folks, no way it would work at all, and make a presentable rifle.

bgf · « **Reply #8 on:** May 05, 2011, 12:14:10 AM »

I agree that the straight barrel is probably more correct than any of the standard swamped profiles for a John Armstrong. I looked quickly in Kentucky Rifles and Pistols 1750-1850, and there is one Armstrong listed with "octagon-straight" barrel. Sometimes in that book it means the barrel really is a straight barrel, sometimes just that there is no visually detectable swamp. At least one is noted as "octagon swamped", but it is hard to see any swamp in the picture. Another has no note on the barrel profile, but it is at least not radically swamped visually. Incidentally, some of the Maryland rifles are described as using tapered barrels, which would be another sign to me that a swamped barrel with a pronounced flare at the muzzle might be going in the wrong direction. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to look at these rifles yourself and if you agree that straight is probably the best option, show them to your customer and gently advise him to stick with the straight profile. The one problem I can foresee is that a modern .32 is likely 13/16, which may be on the slim side even for Maryland at the breech depending on the other components?

cmac · « **Reply #9 on:** May 05, 2011, 12:52:15 AM »

I'm pretty much in agreement here. I think filing just the top 3 is not going to give the desired effect and possibly mess up how the thing shoots. I would say go on with the straight barreled build and if the customer isn't happy with it he can sell it and get another one built as desired. As always it is great getting so many opinions so fast. Years ago it would have taken a whole summer of sitting around the camp fire bsin to get this many views. Another wonderful thing about the ALR

DFHicks · « **Reply #10 on:** May 05, 2011, 01:03:33 AM »

For whatever it is worth the old gunsmith Hacker Martin told me years ago that he never made or used a swamped barrel. He said he would just draw file the top three flats of a straight barrel. Of course swamped barrels were not readily available then as now. It only means that's what Hacker did. I would be concerned about the barrel warping too although I have never seen it done.

cmac · « **Reply #11 on:** May 05, 2011, 01:25:03 AM »

Thats interesting. Hacker did some fine work. If the Armstrong guns commonly had straight barrels though it may be appropriate to stick with it. Any good examples of the Armstrong rifles?Plain with some carving? Have both RCA books

Fullstock longrifle · « **Reply #12 on:** May 05, 2011, 01:46:04 AM »

I've seen and handled a number of original Armstrong rifles, they all have had straight barrels. I think a swamped barrel would be wrong for an Armstrong. My two cents.

FK

Kermit · « **Reply #13 on:** May 05, 2011, 03:32:21 AM »

You can get a kinda sorta swamped look by shaping the forestock with a slight crown along the length of the side flats. You expose less of the side flats at center and slightly forward by tapering off a bit more at the breech and muzzle ends. Am I making any sense?

I have one flinter with a 7/8" straight barrel that was done this way. I've never said a word when some observers comment on the swamped barrel.

louieparker · « **Reply #14 on:** May 05, 2011, 03:47:13 AM »

I agree completely with fullstock . Also if you file on the top flat all you will accomplish is distortion of the side flat . Look in the museum, there is at least one Armstrong there ..Louie Parker

Nate McKenzie · « **Reply #15 on:** May 05, 2011, 06:30:52 AM »

Like Kermit says above.

Captchee · « **Reply #16 on:** May 05, 2011, 04:15:49 PM »

As I recall , did not Hacker also state that he brought his barrels to dead soft . To the point they could be drawn with a knife edge ?
If so then he didn’t have to deal with stresses in the barrels .
I would also agree with the strait barrels being proper for the Armstrong .
If you take care , they will be slim and still balance well .
Well at least the strait 50 cal, 42 inch barreled assemblies I have put together for a couple folks did .
If your customer wants a swamped barrel then I would start with that .

Filing the top 3 flats isn’t going to change anything concerning the contour of the barrel channel itself . So the only effect it would give is when viewed from the side .
As was stated , you could work the forestock shape and give even a more pronounced profile . But you still will have the strait barrel channel in the stock when viewed from the top . There is no way around that
I cant help but wonder . By the time you file the barrel down to get your flats even in width , then configure the forestock , wouldn’t you have been far ahead to just have started with a swamped barrel ?
Myself , I wouldn’t do that work for = to or less then the difference in cost between a swamped and strait barrel .
Also if you do end up inducing stress into the barrel and the gun doesn’t shoot well , your name is associated with that gun . It will be forgotten that what you did is what the customer ask for . So that would be something to think about as well .

Hawken62_flint · « **Reply #17 on:** May 05, 2011, 09:45:10 PM »

As Kermit said above. Shape the forestock, making it flare at least the last 2 to 4 inches. I did my very first rifle that way and it looks pretty sweet--at least I like it, and it does give it the swamped effect without the swamped barrel.

JTR · « **Reply #18 on:** May 06, 2011, 03:29:42 PM »

Quote from: cmac on May 05, 2011, 01:25:03 AM

Plain with some carving?

Here's the link to the Armstrong in the Library. As you'll see, plain with some carving, doesn't really describe the mans work, although he did make a few.
Plus he had several personal 'touches' like the steel bit in the heel of the butt plate. I'd recomend some studying before you build it, if you're going to make something that you could actually call an Armstrong.
There's plenty of Armstrong rifles in the books, so finding examples is pretty easy.
I agree with the others on using a straight barrel.

On the question of swamping a barrel by filing only some of the flats, never say never! I have an original barrel that has the flats filed on the 5 top flats (2 sides and 3 tops) with a pronounced swamp. The 3 bottom flats are as straight as can be. The barrel is signed in his usual way, J Dickert.

John

http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=5565.0

cmac · « **Reply #19 on:** May 06, 2011, 03:57:05 PM »

The Armstrong rifle in the archives is a very interesting piece. One thing I have never seen is the piece of steel set into the top of the brass butt plate as it is on this rifle. Neat! Don't know if that was for added flair or what? The engraving on this is nice as well

louieparker · « **Reply #20 on:** May 06, 2011, 08:04:21 PM »

Most Armstrongs, but not all have the steel insert ..I have seen one that did not. As I remember the steel is not just dove tailed in . Its a stud that goes completely through the plate and pinged on the back side . Louie Parker

gusd · « **Reply #21 on:** May 06, 2011, 09:17:05 PM »

cmac, I have seen it done! Looked good ,I believe it was on a rifle by Freddie
Harrison. If at Dixon's this year ask to see it.
I have swamped 2 barrels with a file, never again in this life!!!!
Gus D.

cmac · « **Reply #22 on:** May 07, 2011, 03:15:37 AM »

How does the steel insert dovetail in and have a stud? It would have to be two pieces wouldn't it?

Fullstock longrifle · « **Reply #23 on:** May 07, 2011, 03:43:58 AM »

Like Louie, I've seen them both with the insert and without. I've been told that Armstrong did this to reduce wear at the heel of the butt plate, it makes sense to me.

FK

T*O*F · « **Reply #24 on:** May 07, 2011, 05:04:14 AM »

News:

Author Topic: Swamped look? (Read 11063 times)

DFHicks