Can you tell if a barrel has been "freshened" on the original Fergusons?

[4ster]

I have a reproduction Ferguson.  There has been quite a bit of discussion over the proper sized ball for the gun.  I think research by De Whit Bailey and others has made a very strong case that it originally shot the British carbine ball of the period - .615.  This ball barely kisses the lands of the reproduction barrel, the grooves are in the neighborhood of .65.  For those not familiar with the Fergie, it does not use a patch, just a bare ball.  To a modern eye a .615 ball seems woefully undersized for the bore.

There is a surviving letter written by Patrick Ferguson himself that pretty much states that he intended the ball to be undersized.   (This is in his letter describing his demonstration before the king.  Speaking to the king he says "...that to have the balls go with truth & force, they require to be smaller than the bore of the Gun...")  So I don't doubt that the ball should be undersized.

What I have not seen in my reading is any comment that the barrels of the model rifles used to create the reproductions are in their original "from the factory" state.  It would stand to reason that before the guns wound up on display or in the museum storerooms (shame on the Smithsonian), that the guns were used after the Revolutionary War.

With use it could follow that the barrels of the surviving rifles may have been freshened and a slightly larger ball may have then been used to compensate after the freshening.  There is a pattern rifle in the Tower that I would assume would not have been altered since it was made.  The Rifle Shoppe reproductions are made from measurements primarily taken from the Ferguson in the Milwaukee Public Museum.  I wonder if anyone has carefully measured the bores in both?

Can a knowledgeable person determine if a barrel has been freshened since it was first made?

Any Fergi buffs care to comment?

Steve

[James Wilson Everett]

Guys,

I do not believe that you can tell fs a barrel has been freshened, or not, by inspection.  Freshening would not have altered the rifled bore very much.  Check out the photos of freshening rods here:

http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=19962.0

Typically the freshening process would have enlarged the rifle bore by a very little amount, probably not measureable with anything but the most accurate instrument.  Bore enlargement would only come after many freshenings over many years - which I do believe was very common in the period.   As a best guess a 0.615 bore would become a 0.616 bore after one freshening, at least that is my experience.  So to take the 0.615 to a 0.650 would take many years of repeated freshenings.

Practically, it takes me about 6 hours to riflefrom  a smoothbore barrel with the agressive rifle head cutter - of course working only in the grooves to about 0.015 deep.  To cut both the grooves and lands with the more sedate freshening cutter would take a huge amount of time if a significant amount of metal was to be cut out.  I believe that the gunsmith would freshen the customer's barrel until the entire bore surface was cut clean and shiney - then stop.  This would entail the removal of only a tiny amount of metal and would not enlarge the bore to a significant amount.

Jim

[Bob Roller]

If you have a 50 caliber bore and a 5/16 rod and pipes,you can bet it has been recut,freshed or whatever quite a few times. I saw one that the bore was bigger than the breech plug.

Bob Roller

[Don Getz]

I am not lintimately familiar with the Ferguson rifle, but, don't they have a "chamber" which is larger in size than the bore
of the rifle.   You would have to lower the screw, drop a ball into the chamber, it would have to roll forward in order to
pour the powder charge into it.   I don't know the bore size, but, the ball would probably be closer to the "groove"
diameter of the barrel, and when fired, the ball would fill the grooves.    Am I correct in this thinking?........Don

[4ster]

I am not lintimately familiar with the Ferguson rifle, but, don't they have a "chamber" which is larger in size than the bore
of the rifle.   You would have to lower the screw, drop a ball into the chamber, it would have to roll forward in order to
pour the powder charge into it.   I don't know the bore size, but, the ball would probably be closer to the "groove"
diameter of the barrel, and when fired, the ball would fill the grooves.    Am I correct in this thinking?........Don

Yes, thats about right.  The only thing I am not sure of, since I can't see where the ball stops in the chamber, is what the chamber to barrel transition looks like.  Again, the ball is about .035 smaller than the bore of the gun (maximum diameter, groove to groove) with the ball just barely kissing the lands at the muzzle.  It does not fill into the groves of the rifling.  A recovered ball only shows slight marks from the lands.

I have not noted any powder leaking by the ball, but I have not really checked that.  Next time I have the gun out I will gently tap the muzzle on a board covered with a white piece of paper and see if any powder falls past the ball.  I'll also get a mirror or inspection scope in there to see what the transition area looks like.

Your comment makes a good point.  The chamber transition area might give some clues about the gunsmithing history of the model gun and should be looked at.

Steve

[Dphariss]

To know if the bore was freshed it would be necessary to know what the dimensions were originally.
So far as ball fit goes....
If the ball does not fill the grooves its going the gas cut and surely lead the bore as a result unless there is a wad behind the ball that will prevent this.
Not all 18th-19th century ideas on internal and external ballistics are valid or even workable.
Unless the chamber is significantly larger than the ball the ball will not fit when there is fouling present. The system Ferguson used was in use for 100 years at least by the time be did an "impovement" on it by by cutting grooves in the breech threads and putting the screw behind the firing chamber IIRC. Valid improvements but it was still not a success.

Dan

PS
Actually most of the "improvements" were present by about 1720.  This leads De Witt Bailey to wonder just what Furguson's patent was.

[FlintFan]

I use a waxed .615 ball in my Ferguson I made from Rifle Shoppe parts.  At 100 yards the balls will all touch when I use 3F Swiss.  3F Goex prints a foot lower at 100 yards, and the pattern open ups slightly.  I notice no leading or unusually large amounts of fouling.  The waxed ball most certainly helps with this. 

[4ster]

My reason for starting this thread was to poise the thought that the reproductions *MAY* not have the original bore size, and that and that the gun might shoot closer to an original if the ball is slightly larger than the ball the original Fergusons used.  I'm trying to figure out how to determine that.  Understand that I can't play with patch thickness, patch lube and powder charge like a normal ML shooter.  The only variables I can experiment with are ball size and the quality of the powder behind the ball in my search for the best load for my gun.

For some reason fouling does not seem to build up in the breach, at least in my experience.  I've probably shot about 30 rounds maximum before cleaning the gun, the authors of the recent book about the Ferguson have shot over 60 with no reduction in function or accuracy due to fouling.  I'd say that aspect of the gun's performance was a success.

This is really off topic but since you mentioned it: As to the grooves on the breach threads.  I don't think that they are really that effective.  The improvement was that the breach screw is really a threaded morse tapered shaft.  It shuts tight in battery but quickly becomes loose as it is unscrewed.  That was a major design advance over previous designs.

There are other reasons why the design wasn't really practical at the time it was tried.  We wouldn't be shooting flintlock ML if practicality was the only benchmark today.

[4ster]

I use a waxed .615 ball in my Ferguson I made from Rifle Shoppe parts.  At 100 yards the balls will all touch when I use 3F Swiss.  3F Goex prints a foot lower at 100 yards, and the pattern open ups slightly.  I notice no leading or unusually large amounts of fouling.  The waxed ball most certainly helps with this. 

I use the same as far as load, but the results are not quite that good.  Probably the skill of the shooter is the determining factor.  That gives me a goal to work toward, mine does not shoot that way yet.

Steve

[Dphariss]

Guys,

I do not believe that you can tell fs a barrel has been freshened, or not, by inspection.  Freshening would not have altered the rifled bore very much.  Check out the photos of freshening rods here:

http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=19962.0

Typically the freshening process would have enlarged the rifle bore by a very little amount, probably not measureable with anything but the most accurate instrument.  Bore enlargement would only come after many freshenings over many years - which I do believe was very common in the period.   As a best guess a 0.615 bore would become a 0.616 bore after one freshening, at least that is my experience.  So to take the 0.615 to a 0.650 would take many years of repeated freshenings.

Practically, it takes me about 6 hours to riflefrom  a smoothbore barrel with the agressive rifle head cutter - of course working only in the grooves to about 0.015 deep.  To cut both the grooves and lands with the more sedate freshening cutter would take a huge amount of time if a significant amount of metal was to be cut out.  I believe that the gunsmith would freshen the customer's barrel until the entire bore surface was cut clean and shiney - then stop.  This would entail the removal of only a tiny amount of metal and would not enlarge the bore to a significant amount.

Jim

Kindig shows Reedy charging 2.25 to 1.75 for "cutting a rifle"
Boring a rifle was .25.
Cutting a barrel off a the breech, new vent and "screw" .56
Unfortunately we do not know what "cutting a rifle" really meant.
If its "freshing" as may be the case, then it was probably a days work at least based on the price.
"Cut out" was a term used for freshing I know.
Dan

[4ster]

I use a waxed .615 ball in my Ferguson I made from Rifle Shoppe parts.  At 100 yards the balls will all touch when I use 3F Swiss.  3F Goex prints a foot lower at 100 yards, and the pattern open ups slightly.  I notice no leading or unusually large amounts of fouling.  The waxed ball most certainly helps with this. 

Also, according to Brown and Roberts in "Every Insult and Indignity" their guns shoot about 4" low at 200 yards.  Period sources indicate that British guns of the period were sighted to zero at 200 yards.  A slightly larger ball *might* reduce the drop over that distance.

Steve

[FlintFan]

Also, according to Brown and Roberts in "Every Insult and Indignity" their guns shoot about 4" low at 200 yards.  Period sources indicate that British guns of the period were sighted to zero at 200 yards.  A slightly larger ball *might* reduce the drop over that distance.

Steve

That is a possibility, but I think other factors are more important.  The quality of the powder is the most important in my opinion.  British rifle companies were issued "superfine, double strength, powder", which was most probably "hotter" than what we have commonly available to us today.  This would explain the vast improvement I have found with the rifle with the use of the Swiss powder over the weaker Goex powder.  Some even have theorized that the British rifle powder could be more closely replicated by mixing 4F and 3F together (read Bailey's military flintlock rifles book).  Although I don't recommend someone doing that, it does indicate a need for a hotter powder to get these rifles to perform correctly. 

I first came across the powder issue when trying to get original breech loading British double rifles and shotguns to perform up to acceptable levels.  I have found that using the more powerful, fast burning, Swiss 3F powder is crucial in getting these old guns to regulate properly.  Most of the powders we have available to us today are not even close to the old sporting powders of centuries past. 

The other reason I don’t believe a larger ball was used, was simply due to the very conservative nature of the British military in general.  If there was new rifle being made, whether it’s a Ferguson or any other one, it must be made to pattern dictated by the Crown.  In that era, a rifle must be made to shoot a carbine ball (.615).  I can’t imagine the Crown allowing a new rifle (that they didn’t really want in the first place) to use an unique size of ammunition. 

Now if historic accuracy is not a concern, by all means experiment with different sized balls.  If finding the absolute best load combination is of utmost importance, playing around with loads is half the fun.  In my specific gun I cannot improve upon the results of using the .615 ball, but like all guns, each one can be different. 

[4ster]

Flintfan,

Agreed, the research pretty well establishes ORIGINAL Fergusons used standard British carbine ball of the period.  My question here is only do we know that the reproduction Fergies we are shooting today have the same bore as the originals.  Since no patch is used bore/ball size with the gun is critical. 

Thats all, I'm just ask'n.

Steve

[Dphariss]

Flintfan,

Agreed, the research pretty well establishes ORIGINAL Fergusons used standard British carbine ball of the period.  My question here is only do we know that the reproduction Fergies we are shooting today have the same bore as the originals.  Since no patch is used bore/ball size with the gun is critical. 

Thats all, I'm just ask'n.

Steve

De Witt Bailey shows them as .607 bore and .648 groove. One turn in 56". Grooves a  little narrower than the lands.
Balls were apparently carbine bore.

Dan