Longrifle evolution over wartime

[saltland]

 How did the long rifle design/decor. evolve over the years from the F/I war/revolution and after?Besides rifling barrels for increased engagement distances etc.
 Scott

[rich pierce]

Wow, Saltland, that covers a lot of ground, from Pennsylvania to North Carolina, and across decades.  In very general terms:

The earlier the rifle, the wider the buttstock and the less curvature in the buttplate.

The earlier the rifle, the greater the likelihood it being .50 or greater the caliber.

The earlier the rifle, the greater the thickness of the breech, and the greater the taper and flare of the barrel ( more swamped).

The earlier the rifle, the greater the likelihood it had a sliding wooden patch box or a simple, 2 piece brass patch box.

The earlier the rifle, the fewer inlays it will have.

[saltland]

 I know...somebody could write a book just about this subject.Was the wider buttstock for more durability?
Scott

[Daryl]

Supposition only, but I suspect the wider butt plates were from the transition from earlier and continued military musket styling, to the slimming down of the rifle in all aspects, over time.

[rich pierce]

I know...somebody could write a book just about this subject.Was the wider buttstock for more durability?
Scott

Nobody from the period wrote down why styles changed from excellent shooters architecture to less excellent shooters architecture.

People have theories but like I said, no gunsmith journals say, "Going with the popular trend of skinny curved butt plates, dozens of inlays, and smaller calibers because x, y, and z."

[Lew wetzel]

I feel less lead a
nd powder was harder to come by in the more remote areas and decreasing caliber and making barrels longer you use less lead and powder and get more range and the thinner stocks just came naturally with longer thinner barrels..frontier life was hard and your rifle both protected and fed your family..the longrifles design was forged out of necessity. .

[SingleMalt]

I think Lew hit on something. Early gunsmiths built what they knew, large bore, heavily stocked weapons. Through experience, they learned that to achieve more complete burning of the charge, it has to be contained longer, therefore a longer barrel is in order. A longer, slimmer barrel doesn't need a heavy stock to support it.

Another point is the price of lead and powder in Europe as opposed to in the Colonies. For some reason the figure 300% comes to mind. So, if a pound of lead and a pound of powder cost $2 in Europe, it cost $6 in the Colonies.

Not to be left out, styles change, whether it be clothes, cars, or longrifles. 

[Darkhorse]

Those deeply curved skinny butt plates are shot from the upper bicep not the shoulder. I doubted this until I tried it on a Hawken I used to have and it made shooting a lot more comfortable. I have read that this style came about because you could hide most of your body behind a tree and still get aimed shots at an enemy.

[smart dog]

Hi,
You are right, several books were written about this topic and if you are serious about the subject, read the books.  A good place to start, but that has been updated over the years, is Kindig's "Thoughts on the Kentucky Rifle in its Golden Age".  These kinds of online discussions frequently stray off a logical path because folks often are loose with terms and dates.  What is early?  What is late?  Moreover, a lot of unsupported speculation often is added in as fact, and facts are often expressed as sound bites despite the fact that the true answers are much more complicated.    Before the AWI, most of the rifle gunsmiths of whom we know anything, were 1st generation European (largely Germanic) immigrants or their sons.  It is logical to assume they were steeped in European gunmaking traditions and methods, including decoration.  As years progressed through the AWI and later, and home grown generations took over, those connections faded to some degree.  Wide buttstocks, robust design, and larger bores were European traditions and their influence on long rifles was strong at first but faded over time.  Europeans often made guns with long barrels, even rifles, so the advantages of that feature were known.  I believe the short barrels on Germanic flintlock rifles was a carry over from the cheek stock used on Germanic wheellock rifles during the 16th - early 18th centuries.  Cheek stocks were not tucked into the shoulder, they were simply held against the cheek so a short barrel might handle better than a long heavy one. However, in contrast, the Silesian tschinkes were relatively long barreled and small-bored wheellock rifles with cheek stocks, so there were exceptions.  With respect to economies of powder and lead, and ballistics of long barrels, all that likely was known to European gunsmiths and I am sure powder was scarce during the AWI but there is no documentation of which I am aware that clearly states why long barrels and smaller bores became the norm in America. A plausible argument could be made that after the AWI and into the early 19th century, small bores became common not because they were more economical on the frontiers but back on the old farms there were no deer left to hunt.  The forests were gone.  Small game and target shooting was all that was left.  Anyway, there are some very good long rifle scholars on this forum and I am sure they will chime in. 

dave

[rich pierce]

Much of what most accept about "longrifle evolution" is deductjve reasoning that has been repeated and published in books and articles so many times it is considered fact now. As I said, there are no facts about why because nobody recorded the reasons. Just deductions. At the same time as rifles in the states were becoming skinnier and smaller caliber, smoothbote trade guns shooting pumpkin balls or swan shot were prevalent in Canada. For reasons not clear (because of lack of armed conflict?  Lack of deer hide trade?) the rifle did not catch on with Native Americans north of the border as it did in the states. Were market forces that different or was the French and British influence and lack of Germanic peoples to account for these differences?

We can make reasonable hypotheses but will never "know" to my satisfaction without period accounts.

[David R. Pennington]

After some experimental archeology on forge welding a gun barrel I can offer this observation to help solve (or cloud) the mystery. Our first attempt at welding up a tube started with 2  - 36" long pieces of wagon tire forge welded roadside to roadside to acheive the desireable thickness for a skelp. We ended up at this point with the material growing in length to over 4 feet. By the time we welded a tube from the middle out to one end we had a total length of nearly 5 feet, (and half the skelp still unwelded!). Albeit we were not experienced at this, it is nonetheless an inexact operation and one might assume that often the length and caliber of the barrel might simply be dictated by how the project worked out in the end. The mandrel the tube is welded around is a general basis to start the bore size, but one job might require more boring or reaming than the next and end up as a larger caliber. I would suppose unless the barrels were for a military contract and needed to be a specific caliber, the gunsmith might simply stop boring when he got a clear bore regardless of the caliber. Again he may be loath to cut off extra inches of a tube that took so much sweat and toil to produce.  ??

[Jerry V Lape]

I haven't the answer to the question regarding transitions in longrifle construction.  However, the generally accepted notion that these came about because of a rational reason may be incorrect in itself.  Other changes in construction have come about in firearms which seem to have no rational basis.  In my life time barrel lengths in modern firearms have swung back and forth wildly based on insignificant reasons.  Similarly there seems to be an assumption that the changes in American longrifles started with an input from Europe and thereafter became uniquely American.  But there continued a flow of gunsmiths from Europe and other regions and thus there would have been a continued stream of outside influences for the changes.  Look at clothing of the period and see the European influence on style for examples.  Fashions alone had Ben Franklin and our western cowboys wearing high heels which made no sense at all. 

[smart dog]

After some experimental archeology on forge welding a gun barrel I can offer this observation to help solve (or cloud) the mystery. Our first attempt at welding up a tube started with 2  - 36" long pieces of wagon tire forge welded roadside to roadside to acheive the desireable thickness for a skelp. We ended up at this point with the material growing in length to over 4 feet. By the time we welded a tube from the middle out to one end we had a total length of nearly 5 feet, (and half the skelp still unwelded!). Albeit we were not experienced at this, it is nonetheless an inexact operation and one might assume that often the length and caliber of the barrel might simply be dictated by how the project worked out in the end. The mandrel the tube is welded around is a general basis to start the bore size, but one job might require more boring or reaming than the next and end up as a larger caliber. I would suppose unless the barrels were for a military contract and needed to be a specific caliber, the gunsmith might simply stop boring when he got a clear bore regardless of the caliber. Again he may be loath to cut off extra inches of a tube that took so much sweat and toil to produce.  ??

Why not just cut the 5' barrel in half and get 2 short barreled rifles from it?  My point is that assuming the original barrel makers grew their barrels likewise, unless there was an objective of a long barrel, why not get 2 for 1?  The Spanish made the best barrels in the world during the 18th century and they did it by forming individual sections of the octagon-round tube and then welding as many sections together as they required for the length.

dave   

[Daryl]

I haven't the answer to the question regarding transitions in longrifle construction.  However, the generally accepted notion that these came about because of a rational reason may be incorrect in itself.  Other changes in construction have come about in firearms which seem to have no rational basis.  In my life time barrel lengths in modern firearms have swung back and forth wildly based on insignificant reasons.  Similarly there seems to be an assumption that the changes in American longrifles started with an input from Europe and thereafter became uniquely American.  But there continued a flow of gunsmiths from Europe and other regions and thus there would have been a continued stream of outside influences for the changes.  Look at clothing of the period and see the European influence on style for examples.  Fashions alone had Ben Franklin and our western cowboys wearing high heels which made no sense at all.

The heels were to keep boots from slipping through the stirups, I'd always thought.  They were definitely not meant as walking shoes.

[David R. Pennington]

Dave, that is exactly what we did. We cut the project in half more or less. An experienced smith welding barrels in 18th century would know better how to account for 'growth', but my point being, as it is hand work, uniformity is almost impossible.
 I belive 'style' must explain alot of trends. In 200 years from now will someone be trying to figure out why men would wear pants they had to hold up with one hand?

[Clark Badgett]

The heels were to keep boots from slipping through the stirups, I'd always thought.  They were definitely not meant as walking shoes.

Daryl is correct about this. The sloped higher heel of the western boot allowed the wearer to more effectively stand in the stirrups while tending to work associated with cattle on the range. Farming work in the east was largely done on foot so the eastern boot/shoe retained the walking heel. The Colonial era higher heels were a fashion from Europe, most likely France.

[Turtle]

 They were slaves of impractical fashion just as we are sometimes. Anybody who has worn a tricorn hat a lot finds out how totally useless it is.                     
                                                        Turtle

[n stephenson]

Hey  David R, I agree about everything except the people wondering about" the men wearing pants they had to hold up with one hand" They`ll probably just chalk it up to STUPIDITY like we do now LOL!!!!!

[BOB HILL]

I always wondered how they get any work done when they have to use one hand to hold their pants up. It's hard enough for me with two hands...... Bob

[Frank]

I always wondered how they get any work done when they have to use one hand to hold their pants up. It's hard enough for me with two hands...... Bob

That is just it Bob. They don't work.

[Smoketown]

The heels were to keep boots from slipping through the stirups, I'd always thought.  They were definitely not meant as walking shoes.

Daryl is correct about this. The sloped higher heel of the western boot allowed the wearer to more effectively stand in the stirrups while tending to work associated with cattle on the range. Farming work in the east was largely done on foot so the eastern boot/shoe retained the walking heel. The Colonial era higher heels were a fashion from Europe, most likely France.

Almost everything 'cowboy' was taken from the Spanish who took it from the Moors.   

Tapaderos allow you to ride and rope in tennis shoes ...

Most all cavalry boots had/have low heels (like current police motorcycle boots) and, they had 'taps' on their stirrups.   

High heeled boots predated 'cowboys' by a few 100 years or so - 'Caballeros' (aka horsemen later bastardized to knight or gentleman) wore them.. (Renaissance period.)

I believe that it was Mr. Arnold Rojas who wrote that it was a 'mark of distinction' ... It meant you were 'mounted' and didn't have to walk.   


Cheers,
Smoketown