How good were long rifles of first half of 18th c.?

[vashu1]

I wonder how different were the rifles made before industrial revolution. No cheap melted steel, no precision machinery. I did some searching on forum and google books but couldn't find anything.

Mostly interested in how quickly barrel of early rifles wore out and what was the difference between barrels of wrought iron and damascus in terms of wear.

I guess a good modern reconstruction would suffice as well. Any links to good sources would be highly appreciated.

[vashu1]

I know HOW it was done. I wonder how wear-resistant it was. Is there any number in sources that you recommend? If so, can you please recite it?

I found numbers for smoothbores of the end of 18th - from 10 to 25 thousands of shots. I saw numbers like 3 thousands shots for a rifle on this forum but it was not specified when rifle was made.

The problem is that even data of modern reconstruction may be inadequate because modern raw materials were used(which are way better than ones of preindustrial times).

[Dphariss]

I wonder how different were the rifles made before industrial revolution. No cheap melted steel, no precision machinery. I did some searching on forum and google books but couldn't find anything.

Mostly interested in how quickly barrel of early rifles wore out and what was the difference between barrels of wrought iron and damascus in terms of wear.

I guess a good modern reconstruction would suffice as well. Any links to good sources would be highly appreciated.

Damascus wore longer according to Forsythe who lived in India in the 1850s and wanted harder barrels to stand the wear better since he was "remote".
How good the rifles were was entirely in the hands of the workmen. However, there were few duds in the European guilds since they had to pass a trial period just to be accepted as an apprentice.

Dan

[vashu1]

"Wore longer" is a little vague. 2 times longer or 10? And what do we know about durability of non-damascus ones?

It's just that the only source with a number that I found(in Russian, so I won't bother giving a link) has claimed that early military rifles were good for as much as 100 shots. That seems ridiculous to me since hunters wouldn't be able to afford using rifles in this case but I can't find anything definite. 

[Dphariss]

 All I can put in is what the writer in the past wrote down at the time, given that all Damascus was not the same how would one know the exact round count any way? It would only be valid for ONE BARREL or barrels made in a given time frame by a given maker. If this is too vague call on Forsythe and ask him. But shout loud he has been dead a long time.

You are asking a NEBULOUS QUESTION about events perhaps 300 years PAST. We do the best we can.
I had typed in a list of books but deleted it and put this post in instead after reading that my answer was "a little vague" and did not suit your needs. So start looking for old gun books on your own. I can tell you I have NEVER found a round count for a rifle that I remember. When the accuracy started to fail they had them freshed. Thats about all you will find.
The Russian Rifles? How were they rifled? How tight was the patching? Did they use patching? Were the bores leaded? You see the data is USELESS unless you know these DETAILS.
DID THE PEOPLE DOING THE TESTING SKEW THE TEST because they did not like rifles or did not know how to use them? These things have happened at far later dates with far more modern and consistent weapons.
The Warner-Lowe papers from the 19th c tell us that a smooth bore barrel scratch rifled with "coarse emery" would shoot "almost as good as a rifle" for about 100 shots. Yeah too vague again. But Warner and Lowe and Nicandor Kendall (who did the scratch rifling) are all dead too....
If you want absolutes add 2+2 it should come out the same every time.
Dan

[Daryl]

With that barrel 'freshing' in mind, know that Lewis and Clark's gun smith 'freshed' Lewis's long rifle while on the trip. Go figure!

[vashu1]

All I can put in is what the writer in the past wrote down at the time, given that all Damascus was not the same how would one know the exact round count any way? It would only be valid for ONE BARREL or barrels made in a given time frame by a given maker. If this is too vague call on Forsythe and ask him. But shout loud he has been dead a long time.

You are asking a NEBULOUS QUESTION about events perhaps 300 years PAST. We do the best we can.
I had typed in a list of books but deleted it and put this post in instead after reading that my answer was "a little vague" and did not suit your needs. So start looking for old gun books on your own. I can tell you I have NEVER found a round count for a rifle that I remember. When the accuracy started to fail they had them freshed. Thats about all you will find.
The Russian Rifles? How were they rifled? How tight was the patching? Did they use patching? Were the bores leaded? You see the data is USELESS unless you know these DETAILS.
DID THE PEOPLE DOING THE TESTING SKEW THE TEST because they did not like rifles or did not know how to use them? These things have happened at far later dates with far more modern and consistent weapons.
The Warner-Lowe papers from the 19th c tell us that a smooth bore barrel scratch rifled with "coarse emery" would shoot "almost as good as a rifle" for about 100 shots. Yeah too vague again. But Warner and Lowe and Nicandor Kendall (who did the scratch rifling) are all dead too....
If you want absolutes add 2+2 it should come out the same every time.
Dan

Sorry if I offended you. No need to get capslock emotional.

You cannot give definite answer for a lot of things but you can give educated guess. Say, if you are talking about cars and somebody cannot tell how long can a car go without minor repair - 100 miles or 100 000 then he obviously don't know much about cars. One cannot name exact number but most would agree on something like 1000-10 000 - an order of magnitude range. That's what our knowlege gives us.

So if someone wants to refuse to give any estimates and still poses as someone knowlegable and demand gratitude for advice ... well, it's a free country.

You might try a google search on the term 'freshing out a barrel'.   When a barrel became worn to where the owner was dissatisfied with it, the barrel would be 'freshed out' with a reamer to smooth the bore's lands and grooves (and making it a slightly larger caliber).   It wasn't a big deal  or a big expense.

How often that operation would be felt necessary would depend on variables like barrel material (soft iron, wrought iron, etc) , how often the gun was fired, and cleaning regimen.  Some guns were delivered with a freshing out tool so the owner would be prepared when the time came. 

Suppose that a barrel only lasted 200 shots before the bore needed freshing out.  I doubt many colonials fired their rifles more than a couple of times a month to harvest a deer or hog (unless they got into a pitched battle with raiding Indians  at which time the issue of barrel maintenance probably transferred over to the Iroquois or Cherokees).   At that rate, every 100 months/8 years the gun would go in for freshing. 

A google search on 'freshing out a gun barrel'  might turn up some specific examples you could use.  Good luck.  SCL

A, thank you. I've already looked into it but an extra search gave something useful.

http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=19962.0
>> even refined wrought iron has a higher surface porosity than steel due to the slag streak inclusions throughout
>> Freshening was the process used to recut the entire interior surface of the barrel.  I believe that this was done frequently, perhaps every year.  I surmise that each freshening would enlarge the bore by a few thousanths of an inch.
>> Blackpowder and lead bullets simply produces no wear.

My main worry was bad uniformity of preindustial wrougth iron - that it would speed up erosion. I thought that modern smiths use modern raw materials but I guess I underestimated them. If slag is mentioned then I guess iron was made the old-fashioned way, so there is little difference in terms of uniformity.

[Artificer]

With that barrel 'freshing' in mind, know that Lewis and Clark's gun smith 'freshed' Lewis's long rifle while on the trip. Go figure!

Wow, does that mean their gunsmith dragged a rifling bench and rods and cutters along with them on the journey, or does it mean he lapped the barrel to freshen it?  Or does it mean it was done in a gunsmith's shop along the way?  
Gus

[smylee grouch]

Someplace in this discusion a 200 shot (aprox) life was mentioned. I would be very disapointed if that was a norm and I was on a long hunt. It takes me that many shots to get a good load worked up if I try alot of variables,powder-powder charge-powder brand-patch and patch thickness-ball diamiter,etc.

[Artificer]

I think SCLoyalist made a good case for how many shots an average Colonial made per year, though it may have been a few more for occasional target practice.  

This seems to suggest that Longhunters, who fired many more shots to harvest deer hides, MAY have had their barrels freshed out every time they got back from a long hunt and before going out again for their next long hunt, because they would have fired a lot more than the average Colonial?  

The Muzzleloading Community lost a fine man when Gary Brumfeld passed away last year.  With great respect and admiration for him, I found this quote on the subject:

"I have only know(n) of one wrought iron barrel in modern times to wear to the point where it began to through larger groups. It was shot a bunch with PRB and the ball and patch combo was on he side of "thick patch and small ball" as I personally believe many hunting rifles were in the flint period.

 When the groups opened up to about 2 inches at 50 yards we unbreeched the rifle and found that the rifling was very slick but had a sort of rounded over look to the corners of the lands. We cast a freshening slug and cut both the lands and groves about .002". Accuracy was completely restored.

 The only time freshening a barrel needs to remove more than a few thousandths is when there has been neglect and rust pitting. No doubt there were cases on neglect in the period especially in cases were a rifle was fired, reloaded and hung on the wall until the next hunt without cleaning."
http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/224297/

Finally, I wonder if all the rods and cutters that James Wilson Everett mentioned that belonged to the Fry family of gunsmiths was possibly a result of handing them down through the family over different generations and because they may/probably worked on a wider range of caliber rifles?  This is purely speculation on my part, but I have always thought that in the 18th century when the cost of a rifle was so much, most people only owned one gun per person.  If that's true, then it wasn't it more likely they owned a rifle in a caliber large enough for deer and then shot squirrels with it, rather than owning a squirrel caliber size rifle as well?  Wasn't it true that smaller calibers came into more common use in the 19th century?  If this is all true, it would explain having so many rods and cutters by the 1850's, so they could fresh out any rifle that came their way to be refreshed?  

Gus

[Artificer]

One other thing and back to the original question of "How good were long rifles of first half of 18th c.? "

Maybe I'm completely mistaken, but if we are talking about the first half of the 18th century, how many LONG rifles were made then?  Again I may be mistaken, but isn't the earliest documentation of Longrifles in PA from about the late 1750's or 1760's?

Weren't rifles in the first half of the 18th century more likely to have had slightly shorter barrels and been of German Jaeger or English Sporting Rifle barrel length?

Gus

[galamb]

(warning - going to mention a CF rifle here to make a point).

I have a 257 Weatherby Mag. Because it shoots a very overbore cartridge it has an estimated barrel life of perhaps 2000-5000 rounds - the latter if you allow the barrel to cool sufficiently between rounds. And one could argue that the barrel steel on the rifle is amongst the best commonly used on a modern rifle.

This illustrates why it may be next to impossible to put some number on "how many rounds" before the barrel is worn out.

Simply by adjusting my shooting habits, even over the same number of years, the service life could be extended 2 and 1/2 times over the lower service life estimate.

20, quickly fired, rounds a day could leave me with a toasted barrel in less than a year. At the rate I shoot it, it will outlive my grandchildren and may see 10,000 rounds if only fired a dozen times a year.

This may be true for any rifle barrel, built in any century.

[Artificer]

I am not sure we can compare modern cartridge rifle barrels to ML and especially Iron barrels for a number of reasons. 

What is arguably the best modern rifle barrel, though there is no argument in my opinion, are Krieger SS Rifle Barrels as they are the most consistently highly accurate modern barrels made.  They are cut rifled and hand lapped.   They hold their "gilt" edge of accuracy to where one can win with them in National Competition against the Best High Master Shooters  pretty consistently to around 6,000 to 6,500 rounds and then they fall off from there.  This round count is not mere speculation, but well documented in the number of rounds fired and recorded in gun books for decades in .308 caliber.  We found you have to put about 60 rounds through them before you can begin the best accuracy testing and the average to be sure how the barrel will shoot is about 200 rounds fired when they hit their best accuracy.   Even though these barrels are consistently very high quality hand lapped, the barrels like those 200 rounds to "wear in" before they hit their top performance. 

As another documented example in .308 cal., Douglas Premium Chrome Moly Barrels will continue to give their best gilt edge of accuracy up to 4,000 to 4,500 rounds.  Again, this is not speculation, but well documented over decades.

I extremely doubt a forged iron barrel would give that many rounds of their best accuracy before needing refreshed, due not only to the inclusions that trap black powder gunk, but also because they are not as "tough" - metallurgically speaking.  Oh, and of course I realize a patched round ball is not nearly as tough on a barrel. 

Gus

[LH]

seems to me too that sights would make it very difficult to evaluate guns made 300 years ago.  The modern bench rest barrels are tested with custom made 32x Leupolds.  Compared to low mounted open sights, that's a whole different ball game.  For example,  when a bench rest gun goes from shooting .15" groups to .25",  its considered worn out.  That same gun tested only with open sights would appear to still retain the same level of accuracy.  So,  the old timers' guns had to be a lot more "wore out" than modern one's before it was noticed.  I wonder too how much research was done back then and how good their methods and record keeping were. 

[Artificer]

Great points, LH,

When we tested our NM and Sniper Rifle barrels, we did so in extremely expensive bench rest machines (with no optics) and the only thing the "shooter" did was pull the trigger though the use of a levered arm that took as much human error out of the equation as possible.  Then we measured the groups in the target that was 300 yards from the rifle muzzle.  Thus the main thing human error could do was not wait for the wind to be as calm or no value as possible when the rifle was fired.

The discernment of the loss of accuracy in a flintlock during the period would have come from how good of a rifle shot the person was and/or when they "felt or thought" the rifle was losing accuracy.  I have seen many times over the years that shooters convinced themselves a rifle would not shoot, even though it targeted well AND even after another shooter shot it and it performed far better than the original shooter could shoot it. 

I will never forget one hunter in PA who claimed how his Win. lever action .30-30 was THE most accurate rifle he ever owned or ever heard of because he had taken one shot kills on deer for over 30 years.  When the rifle was actually tested on a target at 100 yards, it held a 3 3/4" size three shot group.  Plenty accurate for deer hunting, but not a very impressive accuracy even for most ML rifles I've seen. 
Gus

[Dphariss]

I am not sure we can compare modern cartridge rifle barrels to ML and especially Iron barrels for a number of reasons. 

What is arguably the best modern rifle barrel, though there is no argument in my opinion, are Krieger SS Rifle Barrels as they are the most consistently highly accurate modern barrels made.  They are cut rifled and hand lapped.   They hold their "gilt" edge of accuracy to where one can win with them in National Competition against the Best High Master Shooters  pretty consistently to around 6,000 to 6,500 rounds and then they fall off from there.  This round count is not mere speculation, but well documented in the number of rounds fired and recorded in gun books for decades in .308 caliber.  We found you have to put about 60 rounds through them before you can begin the best accuracy testing and the average to be sure how the barrel will shoot is about 200 rounds fired when they hit their best accuracy.   Even though these barrels are consistently very high quality hand lapped, the barrels like those 200 rounds to "wear in" before they hit their top performance. 

As another documented example in .308 cal., Douglas Premium Chrome Moly Barrels will continue to give their best gilt edge of accuracy up to 4,000 to 4,500 rounds.  Again, this is not speculation, but well documented over decades.

I extremely doubt a forged iron barrel would give that many rounds of their best accuracy before needing refreshed, due not only to the inclusions that trap black powder gunk, but also because they are not as "tough" - metallurgically speaking.  Oh, and of course I realize a patched round ball is not nearly as tough on a barrel. 

Gus

I have been told that iron barrels erode faster than  steel barrels due to the fact that at the breech especially the heat and pressure carburizes a molecule or so thick layer of the iron creating a dissimilar crust that is easily removed. With subsequent shots, with the inevitable blowby,  this thin layer is scoured and replaced every shot. Now if this really happens and the source is not given to inaccurate info, this coupled with corrosion would require freshing when the ball size became too small for the now enlarged bore or too rough for the patch if corroded.
I suspect some metallurgist could perhaps give us some info on the carburizing idea.

In use and I suspect especially on the frontier,  the rifle would be fired, wiped with tallow on tow then reloaded.  This allowed some cleaning to be done without wetting the bore requiring careful drying before loading again. I suspect that the feather was a way to keep tallow out of the vent, clean it somewhat and keep the powder in.
While BP fouling cut off from contact with the air is largely inert I don't think this cleaning process is not protective enough and over time would result in some corrosion. We also have wear issues though I am not sure this is that critical compared to the other two with tallow for lube. But this too is supposition on my part.

Dan

[Chris Treichel]

James Forsythe...
196 The Barrels
I strongly recommend the barrels of all sporting guns and rifles being made of the best and hardest laminated steel A sporting battery has to go through a great deal of rough work and hard barrels will show the effects much less than soft As regards mere safety most rifle barrels are made so thick that any of the best mixtures may be sufficiently trusted on that score although shot guns when used with large charges for ball shooting are decidedly more safe when constructed of this metal.

[Artificer]

 

I have been told that iron barrels erode faster than  steel barrels due to the fact that at the breech especially the heat and pressure carburizes a molecule or so thick layer of the iron creating a dissimilar crust that is easily removed. With subsequent shots, with the inevitable blowby,  this thin layer is scoured and replaced every shot. Now if this really happens and the source is not given to inaccurate info, this coupled with corrosion would require freshing when the ball size became too small for the now enlarged bore or too rough for the patch if corroded.
I suspect some metallurgist could perhaps give us some info on the carburizing idea.

In use and I suspect especially on the frontier,  the rifle would be fired, wiped with tallow on tow then reloaded.  This allowed some cleaning to be done without wetting the bore requiring careful drying before loading again. I suspect that the feather was a way to keep tallow out of the vent, clean it somewhat and keep the powder in.
While BP fouling cut off from contact with the air is largely inert I don't think this cleaning process is not protective enough and over time would result in some corrosion. We also have wear issues though I am not sure this is that critical compared to the other two with tallow for lube. But this too is supposition on my part.

Dan

Good info on pressure carburizing!

Interesting speculation on frontier reloading that leads to a question as I do not have a lot of experience using tallow in a rifle bore.  Would running the tallow on the tow down the barrel cause the powder granules to stick along the bore and not load as uniformly (with some powder granules retaining tallow on them and not igniting as uniformly), thereby decreasing accuracy?  Of course I could be overthinking this as a patched ball run down the bore of a fired barrel doesn't lose much accuracy even though some of the powder granules get stuck in the residue of the shot before it.  

If the tallow left over in the bore doesn't effect the powder any more than the gunk in a fired barrel, then a quick wipe with tallow on tow before a fast reload would certainly seem to be a good idea when one is in hostile country and one would never know how soon one might have to shoot again.

Gus    

[Chris Treichel]

As to proofs... from Chambers Encyclopedia 1888... a bit later than what is being looked for but has the information about laminated barrels.

Machinery has been comparatively slow in being applied to the manufacture of small arms, but during the last few years it has made giant strides and now the government manufactory at Enfield in which numerous ingenious machines have been introduced from the United States is fitted with every mechanical appliance and can turn out many thousand arms per annum each of which so exactly corresponds to pattern that all the constituent pieces are interchangeable. Barrels instead of being forged by the hand hammer are rolled at once with a uniform pressure and then welded at one heat. In the United States barrels are at present made of cast steel first formed in the solid and then bored by a succession of bores of increasing diameter. These cast steel barrels are rapidly superseding all others at least for sporting purposes in Great Britain France and America. Another favorite modern material for barrels is laminated steel.  Barrels well constructed of laminated steel resist a bursting pressure of 82,000 Ibs on the square inch one eighth of an inch thick whereas common twist barrels will only withstand about 34,000 Ibs. When the barrel is finished however made it is proofed under very heavy charges of powder. All non government barrels made in England must be proofed at the proofing houses of London or Birmingham government arms are tested at Enfield.

[ken]

You folks have to look at who own the gun and the care given to it , This is why the answer is hard to find . Even today some guns wear out faster thean others . Think of Roger Fisher with over 30000 shot thier his gun , all he did was keep going to the next ball size bigger    ken

[Habu]

Interesting speculation on frontier reloading that leads to a question as I do not have a lot of experience using tallow in a rifle bore.  Would running the tallow on the tow down the barrel cause the powder granules to stick along the bore and not load as uniformly (with some powder granules retaining tallow on them and not igniting as uniformly), thereby decreasing accuracy?  

Not to any extent I was able to determine with a chronograph.  Velocities were different, compared to other lubes/barrel treatments, but consistency of velocity was the same as when wiping between shots, and had a very slight but not significant advantage over loading without wiping.  

[Artificer]

Interesting speculation on frontier reloading that leads to a question as I do not have a lot of experience using tallow in a rifle bore.  Would running the tallow on the tow down the barrel cause the powder granules to stick along the bore and not load as uniformly (with some powder granules retaining tallow on them and not igniting as uniformly), thereby decreasing accuracy?  

Not to any extent I was able to determine with a chronograph.  Velocities were different, compared to other lubes/barrel treatments, but consistency of velocity was the same as when wiping between shots, and had a very slight but not significant advantage over loading without wiping.  

VERY interesting!  Thank you!!
Gus

[Habu]

Gus, as with benchrest, "the name of the game is the same."  Consistency in loading technique tends to result in consistent velocities and grouping.  Changing loading techniques often results in different velocities, but if you graph them, the velocities almost always cluster.  Most of the time, the velocity clusters from different loading techniques will overlap. 

[okawbow]

I've been shooting a 36 cal. halfstock with a wrought iron barrel. The gun was pretty busted up when I bought it for cheap, so I inlet some new wood into the old lock recess, installed a new oversize breechplug, and a new oversize drum. The bore was sharp and new looking when I got the gun. It had probably been freshed just before the gun was put away because the stock broke.

I've put at least 100 patched balls through it with no wear that I can detect. Shoots as close as I can hold it, with a .350 ball and .018 patch.


P7140375 by okawbow, on Flickr


P7140372 by okawbow, on Flickr


Picture 009 by okawbow, on Flickr

[vashu1]

I have been told that iron barrels erode faster than  steel barrels due to the fact that at the breech especially the heat and pressure carburizes a molecule or so thick layer of the iron creating a dissimilar crust that is easily removed. With subsequent shots, with the inevitable blowby,  this thin layer is scoured and replaced every shot. Now if this really happens and the source is not given to inaccurate info, this coupled with corrosion would require freshing when the ball size became too small for the now enlarged bore or too rough for the patch if corroded.
I suspect some metallurgist could perhaps give us some info on the carburizing idea.

Dan

Interesting. I've read about testing of smoothbore muzzleloader in the very beggining of 19th century. One musket was shot 14 and another 22 thousands times. At the breech part about 1/10 of inch of barrel was erroded. Length of erroded barrel was about 8 inches.

But I'm not sure about carburization explanation. Wrought iron on the suface of barrel takes up carbon and becomes more brittle? What makes modern rifles more resistant to that? Maybe simple mecanical explanation would suffice - simple wear and tear?