Should a shortened barrel be stretched?

[Hurricane ( of Virginia)]

Should a shortened barrel be stretched? And if so, from what length to what length and why? Some have said that a barrel less than 40 inches is less desirable unless original. Do you agree and why?
Hurricane

[Dphariss]

Is there anyway to tell how long the original barrel was?
Is it s professional shortening or a hack job?
If its a nice job I would not bother.
If its hacked off and needs a stock repair then it falls into a different category.
But the more I think of this, and I have been off and on for some weeks now, the less enamored I am with this level of "restoration".

Dan

[Majorjoel]

I would choose to leave barrel lengths alone. I have learned to accept the fact that looking at an antique longrifle, it is what it is. During it's long coarse of history, sh__  happens. That's the Forrest Gump definition of history itself.   There is really nothing we can do to change that that will make any sort of positive difference. The 40 inch barrel rule has no meaning to me as long as a piece has the right stuff to begin with. Which is the reason I would choose a particular rifle to add to my collective stewardship in the first place.

[don getz]

Fred......interesting question.  I have noticed that a lot of old guns had shortened barrels....most have been shortened at the
breech.  Did you ever think about that very much.  It probably came about because they left them loaded all the time and it
created a lot of rust down in the breech area, ate the steel away, they just had to chop it off.  As for stretching them back to
original length, it would kind of depend on how well it was done when they shortened it.  You can usually determine, at least
pretty close, the original length, just by studying the ramrod pipe locations, and the underlug locations, and holes in the stock.
I guess it all amounts to how much you would want to spend to get it back to original shape, and is it worth doing..........Don

[JTR]

This is an interesting question, as is Tim’s question regarding restorations in general.
In answering these questions, I think you need to consider the reason people collect them in the first place.
I’ll speak for myself, but I also believe that my thought’s are generally in line with the general majority of collectors of Kentucky’s, and just what makes a Kentucky a Kentucky.
From my point of view it’s a long barreled full stocked rifle, usually made as a flintlock, and for me, that’s what makes it a beautiful graceful rifle.
A short barreled half stocked percussion rifle just doesn’t fit the bill. If I wanted to collect that description of a rifle, I’d be collecting Plains Rifles.
Now whether to take a cut down stub of a Kentucky and stretch it back out to its original length and configuration and/or restore it is a question where not everyone will agree.
Needless to say, lot’s of old gun have been cut down, half stocked and percussinized, and whether to do it or not also depends on the particular rifle.
If the rifle has documented proof that Buffalo Bill killed a buffalo with it in the cut down percussion configuration, or some other such history, then leave it as is.
If it doesn’t, and most guns have no history at all, if the rifle has sufficient merit, then stretch it back out and re-convert it.
I mention sufficient merit, because getting a proper and well done stretch, flint conversion and restoration is not an inexpensive undertaking, but lot’s of collectors have had it done none the less.
So Why do it?
Because then the rifle will look like a Kentucky again, and if well done, can regain its beauty and original gracefulness again.
Generally speaking, it’ll also be worth more when it comes time to sell. The old ‘Ah yeah, make a buck’ mentality of some might find fault with this so the statement can be a bit of a sticky wicket, but spending a buck to make a buck and a quarter isn’t anything new either. 
Also, and again generally speaking, a good and proper restoration will also give the gun a better chance of remaining in someone’s collection for many long years, and not be just thrown out in the trash by some uncaring heir down the road. 
Needless to say, I don’t subscribe to adding patchboxes to guns that never had one, adding carving or inlays, making flinters out of original percussion guns, or refinishing guns to make them look new, however I see nothing wrong, and actually appreciate a well done sympathetic restoration.
John
   

[timM]

John's comments pretty well sum up my point of view (although I could never say it so well) as wether to stretch a barrel back to an original length.  I also want my longrifles to be long, and I also think that most barrels can be restored with minimum impact to the rest of the rifle.  The reference books we all enjoy show some great rifles that have restored barrels, so much more pleasing in their stretched form.  I am also in agreement that this work needs to be discernible, something short of X-ray.

Mr. Getz also makes some excellent points on determining what has been done to a barrel.  Between un-restored examples and a little sleuth work on what remains I believe an intelligent restoration can be made.  tim

[keweenaw]

This discussion can go lots of directions.  Many original rifles were not all that long.  I have one original barrel that dates to the late 1760's that is only 38"long.  It's been shortened, if at all only about an inch and that was from the muzzle.  Not all those original rifles had long barrels!!  Should a barrel that's currently 41" long, having been set back 3" at the breech, be lengthened back to 44" if the forestock is sound?  I would say no.  Should a lock be reconverted to flint?  Don't those germanic locks that were reconverted with inappropriate English parts just look dandy?  Any of course there are many, many "reconverted" flinters on the market that were originally built as percussion.

My general idea is that if it was badly done and needs lots of stock work, or was drastically shortened, it's ok to do it.  If not, leave it alone.

Tom

[doug]

In answering these questions, I think you need to consider the reason people collect them in the first place.

      I collect guns in part to shoot them and in part in an appreciation of the workmanship that went into them.  With that in mind it is hard to see how stretching a barrel is likely to be done in a manner that maintains the remaining accuracy nor duplicates the original length with certainty.  On the other hand I am far more likely to accept pieces of missing wood added or severe cracks and breaks repaired, than many on the list.  In the case of british rifles and shotguns with damascus barrels, I see nothing wrong with refinishing the damascus to bring its pattern back out.

cheers Doug