poor farmers and burst barrels

[mlbrant]

I never have been one to believe that "canoe guns" are historically correct, However, I have always wondered what happened to a rifle or smoothbore , belonging to a very poor backwoodsman, when the barrel may have burst about 18"-24" from the breech. Would this hard scrabble backwoodsman just have thrown the barrel away or just cut it back and used it the best he could(any ideas for what)? Remember, this individual could not afford another weapon probably not even able to rake the $ together to restock it or buy another barrel. Thanks for all your input ahead of time !  

[galamb]

I have no doubt they were cut down due to damage.

Here's a pic of a Hawken rifle that I refer to as the "stubby Hawken".

It's a J&S with (now) a 27 1/2" barrel. It probably started life at least 10 inches longer. That's cut back a little more than would have been necessary due to simple "muzzle damage" (unless the muzzle was damaged "many times").

Can only guess "why?" - obstruction that damaged a good chunk at the end? - tried to use it as a crowbar and bent the end?

So yes, I'm sure they cut them down. This would have been a relatively "expensive rifle" back when it was bought new - it was salvaged at some point during it's life to continue service.

[Bob Roller]

That's called a "Rocky Mountain Feldstutzer".

Bob Roller

[brooktrout]

I'm also on the side of "cutting down" or doing whatever had to be done to make it still able to be useful.  Also seems to me that somewhere along the line somebody had to come to realize that you did not necessarily need a 44 inch or longer barrel, thus MAYBE these cut down guns were a reality impacting the "development" of changes in gun making styles.  Not only could they still function, they would be  easier to make, cost less, take less time, be lighter and is certain situations be "better" than a gun with a long barrel.  So somewhere out in the woods of the wild frontier a poor but resourceful guy discovered/made the very first "carbine"!

[Hungry Horse]

 In the Lewis and Clark journals they mention cutting down a Harpers Ferry because of a burst barrel. I'm not sure they actually say how short it was when finished, but, they do say, they were pleasantly surprise at its accuracy with the shortened barrel. They gave it as a reward to one of their indian guides. I think it was the only gun they gave away.

                   Hungry Horse

[louieparker]

Some of the shortened rifles were no doubt due to a damaged barrel . But I would bet that most were due to " This thing is just to darn heavy,"................LP

[sloe bear]

 I have the opinion that many long rifles were cut down so the frontiersman could carry it easier when on horse back. Ran into a old journal that stated  just that the long rifle carried across the saddle could easily become wedged in the trees on a narrow trail.So the rifles carried into the west were often cut down for the ease of handling.

[SuperCracker]

I have the opinion that many long rifles were cut down so the frontiersman could carry it easier when on horse back. Ran into a old journal that stated  just that the long rifle carried across the saddle could easily become wedged in the trees on a narrow trail.So the rifles carried into the west were often cut down for the ease of handling.

Not to mention how difficult it would be to reload a 44" barrel while mounted. Especially if you're in any kind of a hurry.

[brooktrout]

Considering geography and terrain only, it seems more logical to have a long rifle in the "plains" and a short rifle in the "woods", but when you introduce the horse then there is no doubt why barrels got shorter.  But they had horses in the east AND trees so seems to me the "long rifle" should have never been so long to begin with.  I think it simply falls into the realm of what was the thinking at the time.  Seem to recall reading once that in the beginning days of firearms, longer barrels were seen as more accurate.  Military rifles were also viewed as needing to be long for that reason AND  to make a bayonet a more effective aspect of fighting.  Such "traditions" are hard to break and it takes a rather good imagination to come to the conclusion that shorter is, or may be, better.  I have often wondered about the "style" of the long rifle.  Long and heavy?  YES.  But thin delicate and even fragile in the stocks.  Had to be driven by weight considerations. 

[Levy]

Working for the State of Florida as a conservator, I remember working on two pieces that were probably cut down.  One was a shortened Brown Bess barrel found near the gates of St. Augustine.  I don't remember the length, but definitely shorter and had a load of clipped up pieces of lead strips in it for projectiles.  No other parts found.  The fact that it was near the gate and loaded like that was interesting.  The second one was an R*W (Wilson) Type C Carolina gun that was recovered from the Apalachicola River in 2002.  The signed lock was still attached to the barrel and the barrel was complete at 28".  It was finished out with the same type of front sight as the longer pieces found.  Shortened or made short, I don't know.

James Levy 

[Shreckmeister]

    What was the primary way a longrifle was carried on horseback when the barrels were long?    I can't imagine a rifle with 42-44" barrel being put down a scabbard.  Nobody has arms long enough for that.
If carried in one hand it would be very tiring.  So I imagine many rifles were shorter so that they could be slid into a scabbard in one motion.  The trend toward shorter barrels went on for a long time, so I also wonder if as rifling and loads became more accurate, did they cut the barrels and rerifle them to get the same performance from a shorter barrel?

[JCKelly]

It is my understanding that one reason 19th century barrels were shorter than in the 18th century because the gunpowder was better.

Used to NEED that log barrel to get enough  velocity. My 12ga single barreled fowling pieces has a 54" barrel (@!*% awkward in the briers of Southern Delaware). Powder got better & double barrel flint shotguns appeared.

Long barrels are heavy & a nuisance in the woods. But it took better powder for them to become practical. Oh, yeah, German jaeger rifles were rather short . . . was hoping no one would bring that up. Oh, well.

[Sequatchie Rifle]

I've heard that the shortening of rifle barrels was quite common once areas were settled and folks began traveling locally by Wagon and buggy.

[Kermit]

Nobody has raised the question of WHO did the shortening. I'll venture that not many a backwoodsman packed a hacksaw in his kit, nor was he able to readily cut a fresh crown. Did the local 'smith perform the operation? In the case of a short gun having the same front sight, why not reuse the one that was just cut off?

Ahorse, I'd prefer a sling to balancing a piece in front of me. Not as handy, admittedly. Long barrel less of an issue that way.

But what do I know?

[bigbat]

I cut one down a few years ago to 28 inches for an Antelope rifle,  It was allot nicer to carry. Sadly someone really liked it and made me an offer I could not refuse.

[Bill Paton]

It is my understanding that one reason 19th century barrels were shorter than in the 18th century because the gunpowder was better.

Used to NEED that log barrel to get enough  velocity. My 12ga single barreled fowling pieces has a 54" barrel (@!*% awkward in the briers of Southern Delaware). Powder got better & double barrel flint shotguns appeared.

Long barrels are heavy & a nuisance in the woods. But it took better powder for them to become practical. Oh, yeah, German jaeger rifles were rather short . . . was hoping no one would bring that up. Oh, well.

Ernie Cowan (historic arms researcher and builder of Chambersburg, PA) notes that Rev War period American made powder was inferior and therefore long barrels were desirable for JCKelly's reasons. Ernie notes letters of the period telling Europeans to bring good powder for their German jaegers and English model 1776 short rifles, whose short barrels needed good powder which they wouldn't get from American sources. DuPont came to America in the early 1800's, powder gradually improved, and shorter American barrels began to appear which shot well with the new good powder. He also thinks some modern long rifle fouling problems may be related to using good fast powder in barrels overly long for its rapid burning.  Bill Paton

[rich pierce]

I have the opinion that many long rifles were cut down so the frontiersman could carry it easier when on horse back. Ran into a old journal that stated  just that the long rifle carried across the saddle could easily become wedged in the trees on a narrow trail.So the rifles carried into the west were often cut down for the ease of handling.

Yet the rifles made specifically for the western trade before 1840 had 40-44" barrels.  I'm no horseman but angling a rifle forward across the saddle is not that hard.

We want reasons to have shorter guns.  It's that simple. We were raised, most of us, on short light centerfire or rim fire guns, were told in endless outdoor life articles that shorter and lighter was better, yet we get confronted with long heavy originals, and it doesn't compute to us.  This is why TC, CVA, and countless other BP rifle manufacturers featured models with at most 32" barrels and not over 7.5 or 8 pounds in weight.  So your average cartridge gun user could make the transition.

[Shreckmeister]

"I'm no horseman but angling a rifle forward across the saddle is not that hard."
    I think most horsemen would prefer to have both hands free when traveling.

[Hungry Horse]

 Both hands free might be good today, but when your life might depend on how fast you can get that smoke pole into action, is factored in, across the saddle sounds pretty good to me. I can't recall how many guns I've seen with the forearm worn through to the ramrod channel, from being carried this way. One such gun was a Ballard Pacific, built long after scabbards, and shorter barrels, were common. But, grizzlies were still around in California at that time as well.

                 Hungry Horse

[Dphariss]

Both hands free might be good today, but when your life might depend on how fast you can get that smoke pole into action, is factored in, across the saddle sounds pretty good to me. I can't recall how many guns I've seen with the forearm worn through to the ramrod channel, from being carried this way. One such gun was a Ballard Pacific, built long after scabbards, and shorter barrels, were common. But, grizzlies were still around in California at that time as well.

                 Hungry Horse

Most rifles with severe wear to the wood are the result of WAGONS not saddles, wagons and horse drawn vehicles are REALLY hard on guns, the only safe way is to hold the gun in your hands. I would also point out that if in the timber across the saddle carry will not work. Nor will the gun likely stay in place if the horse tries to pitch you off. Its also tough to carry a rifle across the saddle with the reins in one hand and a lead rope in the other. Better to have it muzzle down in a "sling". The difference in getting it into action is minimal since it should be in the a cover anyway unless the weather is really nice.
The shortened Hawken was likely done to lighten it. This is seen in many heavy guns from the 19th c. 16 pound Sharps used by the commercial Buffalo hunters were sometimes cut to 20"+- to bring the weight down. Anything is possible of course. Trade guns often had very poor quality barrels for example.

Dan

[Shreckmeister]

Both hands free might be good today, but when your life might depend on how fast you can get that smoke pole into action, is factored in, across the saddle sounds pretty good to me. I can't recall how many guns I've seen with the forearm worn through to the ramrod channel, from being carried this way. One such gun was a Ballard Pacific, built long after scabbards, and shorter barrels, were common. But, grizzlies were still around in California at that time as well.

                 Hungry Horse

     I'm thinking in the day much like today, threat's didn't come out of nowhere.  Unless your actively hunting or fighting I don't see a need to carry the rifle in hand.  A well placed scabbard would only cost you a second and save a lot of strain or your body.  I haven't seen a policeman walking around with gun in hand all day.   I think gun across the saddle makes good Hollywood sense.
But... I would like to see that Ballard and it could sure tell a few stories.

[James Rogers]

Anyone have any pics of 18th century long gun scabbards for horse use?

[bigbat]

anyone here ever carried a rifle on horseback without a scabbard?  I have to a limited amount. Theres a chap I know that goes on many wilderness rides. He has worn the for end of several rifles almost through to the barrel and damaged his saddle as badly as the rifle.  I ride a Tennesse Walker (known for their smooth ride) and its difficult at best carrying a rifle without a scabbard. The "chap" rides a mustang, its brutal carrying a rifle on a horse day in and day out. Of course that was in the day when men were men

[bigbat]

James, I have seen 18th century rifle scabbards.  BUT they were made of Brain tanned leather, embroidered , clearly Indian made

[Buck]

Rob,
I would think if you were right handed you would have the rifle holstered on the left side. This extra distance would help accommodate for the extra long pull from the holster. With that said you could also position the holster with your foot while extracting the weapon to help in the maneuver. My last thought is they probably just centered it on the saddle horizontally, hence the wear plate that became functionally fashionable towards the end of the Golden Age.
Just a thought.
Noel