York style Rifle & swamp

[Ezra]

Guys,

I am in the planning stages of a long barreled York style rifle but have some questions about the degree of swamp to the barrel I'm thinking about.  Regarding the barrel, below are my thoughts.  Some may think it a bit heavy, but I feel todays barrels have too much swamp.  Your thoughts?  Thanks.

.50 caliber
48" long
Swamped octagon
Breech – 1.02”
Waist - .90”
Muzzle - .98”
Standard straight tang

Regards,

Ez

[Ric27]

I know what you mean about the severity of the swamp profile on most of the barrels I have handled compared to the limited samples of original rifles I have inspected. The modern machine shop has probably influenced this trend in that a mill can tapper a $#*! of a lot easier than a anvil and hammer. So I guess if a little is good a lot must be better. The balance and handling is enhanced with the modern profile but at times it is a bit much.   

[Robby]

I agree Ezra! However, I must say the modern ultra swamping sure makes it easier on this old body.
Robby

[Ryan McNabb]

If you start measuring and comparing large quantities of original barrels you'll see that they're all over the map.  Many of them are terribly irregular.  Most are heavier than we are used to today because we aren't travelling by horse and modern shooters are more concerned with light weight.  But as for profile, it varies widely.

"York style" isn't very specific information.  Your barrel idea is acceptable but I will say that it's going to be hard to have good lock and wrist architecture with that straight profile.  I suggest you take a look at Rice's Golden Age/York barrel which come 46" and 1" at the britchin, is a less tapered and flared barrel.  Straighter profile, more heft.  I think it's a very historically accurate profile, comparing it to lots of original rifles from various areas. 

[rich pierce]

Ezra, I think the time frame of the York rifle you're planning would most likely influence the barrel dimensions.  What are you aiming for?

[Ezra]

Hey Rich,

Very Early York style, late 1760's to 1770 or so.  From what I have referenced in RCA, my breech diameter is quite consistent, but there are no waist or muzzle diameters.  Thus, my questions.

Regards,

Ez

[EC121]

Rice barrels has a Shuler profile barrel that was copied from an original.  44" .50cal.  I believe it is a 15/16"  with a slow taper to the waist.  I almost ended up with it changed my mind.  Jason can fit a straight tang.

[Swampwalker]

The minimal swamp barrel you describe, which has less than 1/16" of swamp per flat, would be a heavy barrel.  What is the intended use of the rifle?  For target use with a muzzle rest it would be fine.

[Ezra]

Rice barrels has a Shuler profile barrel that was copied from an original.  44" .50cal.  I believe it is a 15/16"  with a slow taper to the waist.  I almost ended up with it changed my mind.  Jason can fit a straight tang.

I will check their website.  Thanks.


Ez

[EC121]

I believe this is a one time barrel.  I don't think it is on their website..  You'll have to call.

[Hungry Horse]

 I see all pain, and no gain, with such a small amount of swamp. You will be reducing the weight by a minuscule amount, and having all the pains of inletting a swamped barrel. Also virtually nobody is going to notice it is swamped. I just don't get it.

           Hungry Horse

[JTR]

Ezra, Your measurements are about right. Actually with a bit more taper at the waist than some of the originals.
Yes, early original rifles had heavier barrels than the slim jim's of today. Different time, different place, different muscle mass on the men,,, and women!
John

[Ric27]

Ezra,
That is about 50% of the swamp end to end than that of the Cwt 44"  Rice barrel I am working with right now. So with the extra 4" length you are going to see some weight increase. But as you say this is more in keeping with the original guns as far as profile is concerned. If you wanted to lighten the the rifle up some you could go to a 54 cal.