The large bore Kentucky, over 54, is a hare's breath from a fantasy gun IMO.
I am glad you included the "IMO" rather than simply stating it as fact. It is simply not true, there are PLENTY of existing original longrifles in calibers larger than .54. While I have not recorded the caliber of every longrifle I've ever handled I can say that it is not at all out of the ordinary to see them with big bores. If you own the RCA books, take a look. I realize that just pulling numbers out of a book or two doesn't really prove my point, however it should prove to you that the bigger bores were far more common than you may think, certainly no fantasy. Even if you exclude the European guns and military arms, $#*! even if you exclude smoothbore guns I think you'll be suprised.
In reality I would not be surprised. I have surveyed a considerable number rifles for bore size and even did averages and in one case a bar graph. In doing this one is at the mercy of the people checking the bores and sometimes the same rifle may be listed as 40 in one book and 42 in another for example....
Last night put the calibers of RCA 18 thru 142 in a spreadsheet.
The average caliber of the American rifled bore arms in RCA numbers 18 through 142 with calibers listed is 52.1. This not including the 90 caliber wall gun.
If we drop the two variant rifles #141 & 142 we get an average size of 51.4. There are only 49 American rifles in the two books with a bore size listed. Yes, there are large bore rifles. We do see that 22 are under 51 caliber, there are only 4 over 60 caliber including 141 & 142 so 62 caliber would be very rare I think. This does not include the many smooth rifles ranging from about 42 caliber up. It does include a certified Rev War rifle used in battle. The 47 caliber "Thomas Rifle" it was taken to England as a trophy and its probably very close to its original caliber though it did have barrel work done, including straightening and "leading" by Durs Egg. I find this rifles story interesting but its outside the scope of the post.
There are other sources there is a circa 1770 Resor rifle in near new condition shown in "Steel Canvas" listed as 42 caliber.
Now lets look at the "
rest of the story". Some of these rifles were is service for 60-70 years perhaps longer. The Albrecht has been converted to percussion and was likely at least 50 years old when this was done. Its 48 caliber.
Rifles were obviously freshed, its possible to find 1803 Harpers Ferry military rifles that are now 58-60 caliber rifled. They were not made this way. Many original rifles show vise tracks on the barrels and wrench distorted breechplugs. Evidence the plug was removed at least once by someone with little regard to the condition of the parts when he was done. This was surely to do some work on the interior of the barrel.
There is ample documentation for both freshing AND making new breech plugs which would have been needed in many cases since many original guns have breech plugs that are only slightly larger than the groove dimension of the barrel. This tends to refute the idea that freshing did not greatly increase bore size.
So its safe to assume that some, possibly most, of these rifles were smaller and perhaps even significantly smaller when they were made. So its not only possible, its LIKELY that the average would have been under 50 when these rifles were new.
Here is a similar study I did 10-15 years ago of rifles in the "Kentucky Rifle a True American Heritage" and "Kentucky Rifles and Pistols 1750-1850" its only flintlocks or obvious conversions to percussion and include rifle stocked smooth bores with full oct barrels even though they skew the numbers higher the average is still under about 50.
Note that about 150 of the 195 are 44 to 50 caliber. The perfect, practical size range for all around use in the East. So if we look at effectiveness what do we find. We find the 50 caliber is very effective on Deer sized animals, capable or breaking a shoulder blade a 60 yards, for example, and still passing through. We find that even the 45 will kill deer to 120-150 yards.
How about the use against people? Many wonder if Fraser was actually killed at 300 yards. Some wonder if a typical rifle ball would be accurate enough or carry enough velocity to kill a man at this distance. I shot 3 shots at 300 yards at a man silhouette with a 50 caliber rifle using 75 gr of powder at 285 yards (laser). I found that in three shots I could hit the man silhouette, and from one of the misses that it certainly would kill a man at this distance. So for the uses of the time I state that a rifle over 50 caliber, while it might be more suitable for specific things, is not necessary.
The 67 caliber JP Beck is interesting. However, it was not likely a hunters rifle (nor 141 & 142). If anyone wants an illustration of why order 60-80 .662 balls from Track of the Wolf (J.J. Henry had 70 balls in his pouch in 1775) and put them in a pouch with a horn with enough powder to shoot them, enough patching, enough tow to wipe the bore.... Then carry it around all day, preferably walking 8-20 miles. Perhaps swimming a river with it (JJ Henry lost his rifle in a river but kept his horn and pouch). Then do the same exercise with 60-80 rounds of .445 round balls. I have a 67 caliber rifle, not a Kentucky though. It has some advantages but they are out weighed by the weight of the ammo for practical use where I live. The Beck rifle and #s 141-142 would have been useful as light wall guns but they are a liability unless hunting something big, hairy and dangerous. The 67-68-72 caliber rifle is very close to Forsthe’s 14 bore (with #15 ball) rifle that would shoot through an Indian Elephants head from side to side.
Why would a long hunter want a large caliber rifle? We have an account of Boone having a 66 caliber rifle. Its possible and we have no choice but to accept this. Though it was not direct from Boone. However, Boone was poor for most of his life and was hounded by creditors. Why would he want a a 16-18 to the pound rifle that used more of everything when 38-50 to the pound rifle would work just as well from the hunters perspective and be far cheaper to shoot? Assuming Boone had a rifle this large I would doubt he kept it long. For one thing when poaching and trying to avoid what was essentially the "Game Warden" in Kentucky (except modern Game Wardens are not likely the brain the violator with a hatchet) why would I want a rifle that produces a loud report?
The Haymaker could be considered a long hunter rifle I suppose, though it’a larger than I would want being listed as 52 and was used for years after Taylor's death and could easily have been recut at least once or twice. However, being a pre-rev war rifle it should be larger than 52 if we believe the dogma I heard in the 1960s.
http://www.kentuckylongrifles.com/html/hancock_taylor.html tells the story of Hancock Taylor.
Frankly I dislike averages, they are often misleading. I suppose some math whiz might come up with a better way to figure what caliber Kentucky was used in the Rev-War period for example. However, this will still not change the statements from the past that indicate that the rifle was under 50 caliber in the majority of cases.
So a 62 caliber Kentucky, while not impossible, would be rare based on surviving examples and accounts from the time. Based on this I consider large bore rifles MADE as large bore rifles, over 52-54, to be an anomoly, increasingly so as the caliber exceeds 58.
One other thing, a great many original rifles are "freed" at the muzzle and for people using crude methods of measurement this can increase the listed caliber by 1-2 calibers.
Dan
