Isaac Haines barrel question

[moleeyes36]

While reading about Isaac Haines rifles in Dave Hansen's truly tremendous new book An Intimate Look At The American Longrifle Its Art and Evolution , he shows one gun by Haines. 

In Rifles of Colonial America, Shumway shows four of Haines' guns as RCA numbers 78, 79, 80, and 81.  Number 78 appears to be the one shown in Hansen's book.  Only one of these four guns (no. 79) has a 38 inch barrel.  The other guns shown have significantly longer barrels (no. 78 is 44 inches and no. 80 is 47 inches.  Shumway doesn't provide any dimensions for no. 81 but the barrel appears to be a good deal longer than 38 inches.  Unless there are several more guns out there that can be attributed to Isaac Haines that have 38 inch barrels, that barrel length appears to be considerably shorter than he normally used.

Now after all that background, here's my question.  If 38 inch barrels weren't common on Haines' guns, why do the kit (component set) makers sell kits they call Isaac Haines Rifles that only have 38 inch barrels and the barrel makers sell barrels called Isaac Haines and they're only 38 inches long?  I don't see why they've decided to make this the de-facto standard barrel length.  It seems that longer barrels would be closer to historically correct and not misleading to new builders.

[jerrywh]

The gunmakers of the 18Th century were not unlike the professional gunmakers of today.
 They never had one fixed pattern for the most part. When a customer came to them and ordered a gun the customer had his own specs the same as now.  I suspect that most of them had a few finished guns on hand for sale made to what they thought were the most desired type just as some of us do now.  To think that each gunmaker had one exact pattern he always made to me is an error in perception of what is [HC]. Kits are made to what the makers think is the most desired pattern for the market. They are semi mass production. If you want exactly what you want you must either make it from scratch or have someone else do so. In conclusion anything Haynes made or any other gunmaker  of the period is HC.

[moleeyes36]

The gunmakers of the 18Th century were not unlike the professional gunmakers of today.
 They never had one fixed pattern for the most part. When a customer came to them and ordered a gun the customer had his own specs the same as now.  I suspect that most of them had a few finished guns on hand for sale made to what they thought were the most desired type just as some of us do now.  To think that each gunmaker had one exact pattern he always made to me is an error in perception of what is [HC]. Kits are made to what the makers think is the most desired pattern for the market. They are semi mass production. If you want exactly what you want you must either make it from scratch or have someone else do so. In conclusion anything Haynes made or any other gunmaker  of the period is HC.

Jerry,

I certainly agree with you that for the most part gun makers didn't have one fixed pattern.  Just one place that is illustrated is in the large variations in the guns produced by the Hawken brothers.  I recently saw an original Beck rifle that was typical Beck from the wrist forward but had a very non typical buttstock as was probably requested by his client. 

I didn't suggest that Haines, or any gun maker, made cookie cutter guns as is shown by his guns in RCA.  Quite the opposite, I'm pointing out the kit and barrel makers of today give that impression by most of them making 38 inch barrels the de-facto barrel length for an Isaac Haines gun.

Of course anything made in any given period is historically correct for that period.  For clarity, I probably should have said that based on surviving examples of Haines' guns, barrels longer than 38 inches would seem to be more representative.

Certainly kit, barrel, and parts makers need to make products that ring the cash register to stay in business; it's unfortunate that so many of their products aren't more representative of what they're billed to be.  That's just my view of the matter and anyone is welcome to disagree.     

[jerrywh]

 I don't worry about it . I haven't done a kit since 1963 but a lot of guys wouldn't have a muzzle loader if it weren't for them.

[Gaeckle]

Same reason why when folks are buying a "kit" they are buying what somebody else decides is going to be the "kit" and the buyer is stuck with a "kit". A good example is TOW's Classic Southern style "kit" it comes complete with a small or large Siler lock.

The "kit" should have a differnt lock or differnt choices for the builder, but the dealer has made the decision, and if a pre-carve is used and it is one of those 90% inlet jobs, the lock panel is cut to basically fit a Siler......again, the stock and it's proportions have been manufactured by somebody and your decisions have been made for you.

To eliminate that, one needs to start with study, and a blank, choose the barrel you want, choose the lock you want and make as much of the other items you can by hand........that's just my opinion.

[moleeyes36]

....one needs to start with study, and a blank, choose the barrel you want, choose the lock you want and make as much of the other items you can by hand........that's just my opinion.

I don't worry about it . I haven't done a kit since 1963 but a lot of guys wouldn't have a muzzle loader if it weren't for them.

I quite agree with both of you.  But as Jerry said, a lot of guys wouldn't have a muzzle loader if it weren't for the availability of kits.  This is particularly the case now that the in-line craze has caused the demise of most of the mass produced traditional muzzle loaders that people just getting into muzzle loading bought as their first gun.  Let's face it, most of us old goats that have been shooting black powder for many decades got into it with a entry level, massed produced gun (Dixie, TC, CVA, Lyman, etc.) and progressed from there.  That's not always the case, but I'm sure that's the case with most of us.  For someone thinking about getting into muzzle loading or for those just getting started, a kit for all it's warts, is an affordable and practical option.  A scratch built gun is unarguably the ultimate goal, very few people with little or no exposure to muzzle loading can start out by making one.  Particularly if they don't have a mentor available.

[Robert Wolfe]

If my memory is correct (no sure bet), I believe Don Getz was involved in the creation of that kit and told the story of it in a thread on this site in year's past. I think he talked about barrel length. Perhaps he will chime in or you can find the old thread.

[kaintuck]

Just visited Gander Mtn store.....not a single side lock seen.....and when I asked the very nice lady at the counter about them....she had no idea. And although she quickly looked up on the web, TC site even they didn't show side locks......so I went to gunbroker to show her what I was asking for.......

Folks just seem to know what he's been shown to them in the past 2days......or so~
Of all the gun stores I visited in Huntsville Al, only one had a a flintlock up for sale.....it was a TVM poor boy~ and only one place sold black powder........so, turn back the clock 200yrs......I would say what the general public buys, is what is made for them........

Longrifles seemed to be the norm back then......38"? Probably a special order
Marc

[Mark Elliott]

I would like to suggest that the gun with the 38" barrel was an earlier gun made in a period when 38" was the norm.    If you look at colonial period guns,  you will see shorter barrels from a lot of makers.   As you move into the Golden Age, they get longer.   The fashion changed.    You will have to ask Don Getz, but I am assuming they went for the 38" barrel (the earlier style) for the kit because modern hunters generally prefer a shorter barreled gun because it is easier to carry around.   JMHO

[WKevinD]

I agree with most of this string but to me it spells out one of the joys of this hobby/ obsession/ therapy/ profession. There are layers of involvement to embrace, if you want a gun that goes bang, a target gun that shoots cloverleafs, a hunting companion, or a reproduction of an original arm, our amount and direction of our research and base knowledge (and learned skills)  reflect what we choose to build or buy.
Kits are meant to be a  for profit compromise on a number of levels when you understand the compromises
it's time to decide how big you want to commit.

[Jerry V Lape]

As I recall Don Getz said they went with the 38" barrel because at the time that was the longest he could manufacture with the equipment on hand.  I have one of the Chambers kits I cobbled together and it is not handicapped by the shorter barrel which is pretty nice length for a hunting rifle.  However, I agree there aren't many originals around that short barreled. 

[galamb]

I see the kits as trying to appeal to widest possible audience within a very small market to begin with.

Most muzzle loader owners start out with an off the shelf, sub-30"-barreled rifle. 36" seems "really long" and 42" just mind-boggling.

I think the 38" "Haines", while correct to "ONE" rifle, but perhaps "abnormal" for most of his work, was seen as something that would appeal to a "wider audience".

And now like other "kit lore" (Vincent has come to mean "all Ohio rifles"), you are "surprised" when you find that most Haines rifles had longer barrels.

The "exception" has become the "fact".

[Karl Kunkel]

Jerry,

I heard the same story from Don, 38 Inches was the limit of the machinery that could taper and flare a barrel at the time, so they developed the Transitional barrel around that length.  Subsequently they developed their "Isaac Haines" kit, and used that barrel.   I think this one one of the earliest swamped barrel kits.

[rich pierce]

If I recall the story correctly, they wanted to put together a shooter friendly Lancaster styled kit, rather than specifically copy an Isaac Haines.  They decided to go with the Isaac Haines name for the kit later in the process.

[flehto]

Again...as I recall Don Getz's explanation....the stock profiler couldn't cut for a bbl longer than 38".

This comes up repeatedly and although many other logical reasons are given for the introduction of  an Isaac Haines "kit" w/ a 38" bbl,  I think the above is Don Getz's reason. Hoipefully Don will respond.......Fred

[bama]

Seems like I heard somewhere that the Issac Haines "kit" evloved out of John Bivens Bi-Cenntenial rifle design. I know that the furniture that is sold with the "Haines kits" is the design used for the "Bi-Cenntenial rifle" I don't remember if those barrels were longer than 38". I am sure somebody on here knows though.

I do know that the "Haines kits" can produce a very nice rifle. I built a Sheetz style rifle around one a while back and I loved the way it handles and so does everyone that shoulders it.
Here is a piture of the patch box that I made for the rifle. I looked for the other pictures but I can not remember where I put them on the comupter.

[Curt Larsen]

The Haines kit was the first one I became aware of when I got reinterested in building before I retired.  I worked near Wayne Dunlap's shop and this is the "kit" he was selling.  Frankly, I liked the feel of the rifle.  I've built a couple more with 42" barrels and my current build, a southern rifle has a 42" barrel.  I love the feel of my recently completed jaeger, but will never fire it because I treasure the engraving.  Nonetheless, I prefer the feel of my Haines.  He may have built longer or shorted versions as others have said, but I just like the feel of the Haines I built.  I have a near completed stock with hardware that I picked up somewhere that was made for a 44" 7/8" barrel.  I will try to "rescue" that one and see how I like the longer barrel.  Right now, as I've said, my Haines feels comfortable. 
Curt

[JTR]

Seems like I heard somewhere that the Issac Haines "kit" evloved out of John Bivens Bi-Cenntenial rifle design. I know that the furniture that is sold with the "Haines kits" is the design used for the "Bi-Cenntenial rifle" I don't remember if those barrels were longer than 38". I am sure somebody on here knows though.

I do know that the "Haines kits" can produce a very nice rifle. I built a Sheetz style rifle around one a while back and I loved the way it handles and so does everyone that shoulders it.
Here is a piture of the patch box that I made for the rifle. I looked for the other pictures but I can not remember where I put them on the comupter.

Nice patchbox!
John

[Vomitus]

   A buddy has a "Haines" kit, an old one from Track. This is one of the nicest handling ML's I think I've ever shot. It's either a 42 or 44" C weight Getz in .54.