Virginia profile .54 caliber barrel

[Dennis Glazener]

I have been wanting to build an early VA rifle but didn't want it to weigh a ton so I ordered a Rice VA profile barrel. It is 1.10" at the breech, .950 13" from breech, 27" out its .840, 36" out its still .840 and 42" out at the muzzle its .880. My scales are not calibrated and old but the barrel seems to weighs a little over 6 lbs.

I really like this barrel and will use it on my early VA rifle even if its not as large a barrel as it should be for a early VA rifle built on the lines of RCA #124. But just for curiosity sake I wonder if any of you have seen late 1700's VA rifles using a similiar profile barrel? By the way, I waited close to a year for this barrel but Jason made others and I know he has at least 1 round bottomed rifled barrel like this in stock, or did Monday. Its a really neat looking barrel in my mind.
Dennis

[Mike Brooks]

MOst all the old barrels had little swamp and were heavy compared to today's "modern" swamped barrels. Of course you already new that...... Build it as you like, I doubt anyone will ding you on that barrel choice.

[Mark Elliott]

I prefer  a 44" C54 for my favorite early VA and as far as I am concerned, it is close enough to the original.   It isn't like they were making the barrels on a pattern.   In my opinion, as long as the wrist and lock panels look right for the period,  that is good enough.   I have never understood the folks that think they must copy an original barrel exactly.   I am pretty sure the guys that made those original barrels would think we were nuts; for that an many other reasons.

[Dennis Glazener]

I have never understood the folks that think they must copy an original barrel exactly.   I am pretty sure the guys that made those original barrels would think we were nuts; for that an many other reasons. Grin

Don't expect to have exact barrel dimensions but I do like them to be in the ball park. I just tried to look up the dimensions on RCA #124 and only the breech diameter is given @ 1 1/8" which is 1.125 versus mine at 1.10 which is close enough in my book.

Dennis

[rich pierce]

RCA 124 is a favorite of mine.  Will you use the early Ketland lock?  With or without the bridle?

[Dennis Glazener]

I have a Early Ketland with pan bridle that I had Al Edge engrave per the lock on #124. Al did a fantastic job. I have been saving it for several years till I got around to building the rifle. I have a nice qtr sawn, straight grain piece of VA black walnut for the stock and a set of Reaves VA tg/bp. Will make the rest. I don't think I want the wooden patch box, probably will make a simple early style brass box for it. Only need to finish two other projects before I can start on this one.

Nor will I copy the incised carving, even though its probably like something I would do!
Dennis

[bgf]

Dennis,
I think that barrel is a reasonable facsimile for barrel of that era; the extra 10% verisimilitude will add 5 pounds and 4 inches .  What bothers me is the really quick tapered, small-waisted ones that make the fore-end look like a toothpick.  Of the standard modern barrel profiles, "D-weight" (which this may be? it is otherwise rare, esp. in longer lengths) is closest to some originals where I've paid attention, but hardly anyone uses a D-weight in .40 or even .50 cal. these days, as they pretty much did back then.  C-weights that I've seen are not bad visually, either, with some visual "heft" but a lot lighter. 

For what it is worth, the slightly thinner breech should work to make the taper look less drastic, more like some of the old ones, where you can't really see much change in the first foot or so at all. Sometimes they are so subtle that the look like straight barrels with a flare at the muzzle.

[Dennis Glazener]

Of the standard modern barrel profiles, "D-weight" (which this may be?)

Rice's "VA" profile falls between a "C" and "D" profile. Its offered in 32 all the way up to 58 caliber.
Dennis

[bgf]

Of the standard modern barrel profiles, "D-weight" (which this may be?)

Rice's "VA" profile falls between a "C" and "D" profile. Its offered in 32 all the way up to 58 caliber.
Dennis

Dennis,
Thanks, I've never seen that one (maybe I missed it on their website) -- sounds like a good barrel profile for antique looks and modern weight preferences.

[Acer Saccharum]

As to Mark E's comments, I doubt the makers would spend any time over the barrel contours. Number of balls per pound and barrel length may have been specified by the customer.

One thing you need to concern yourself with is lock size and breech size. Too small a lock on a big barrel means the touch hole may have to be located low on the bbl. On a small barrel with a big lock, the fence could end up higher than the side flat, and proportions would be off for general good breech area stock design.

But that said, you'll see antique guns with every situation explored. Huge barrels with small locks(and large sections of barrel chiseled out to accommodate the mainspring).

[richard97]

Dennis
 could you call me at 201-489-9348
 thank you
Richard westerfield

[Dennis Glazener]

Dennis,
Thanks, I've never seen that one (maybe I missed it on their website) -- sounds like a good barrel profile for antique looks and modern weight preferences.

Take a look here http://www.ricebarrels.com/chart.html scroll down to the Golden Age/York 42" barrels and you will see the "VA" profile dimensions listed.
Dennis

[Mark Elliott]

I was rearranging my file cabinet and found the data sheet for the early (1775?) Rockbridge County rifle documented in JHAT II.   For anyone interested, the barrel dimensions are as follows:

Breech:  1 1/16" = 1.063"
12" form Breech:  31/32" = .969"
Waist: 13/16" = .813"
Muzzle: 15/16" = .938

barrel is 43 3/4" long,  57 caliber,  rifled, 7 furrows

first barrel tenon 14 3/16" from breech

I did the decimal conversions for you, rounded up to the nearest thousandth.