Long vs. shorter barrels

[Daryl]

Spot-on, old duff!

[Eric Laird]

Like a lot of folks, I started out with a short-barreled halfstock percussion gun in the '70s. I then moved on to a longer barrel (Dixie Tennessee) for the looks. Over the course of time I converted it to flint and finally built a rifle using a swamped barrel - and haven't looked back since! For me, a flintlock and a long swamped barrel holds better, looks better and shoots better, but that's just for me. I've never had any problem with a longer barrel in the field - if I were using it to clear a house, it would be a problem, but that's what modern guns are for. I've never lost a shot that I could have taken with a shorter barrel (or a modern gun for that matter), but again, that's in my experience. Under other conditions in other terrain there might be missed opportunities. Like tg said, unless your choice is being dictated by PC/HC considerations, it's a personal choice. Just my two cents!

Hey, I finally have a post on the new site!

Eric

[Daryl]

The first 'custom' barrel I ever bought replaced the 28", .50 cal. Bauska barrel on my TC's modified stock (got rid ofsome of it's more nasty features). That barrel was 44" to start - looked it a bit strange for sure, but eventually got shortened to 32", the perfect length for a slim 1/2 stock,I think.
: My second 'custom' barrel was another Bauska, 7/8" X 42" and .45 cal. This was the one with .028" deep rifling in which I used .457" balls.  It eventually was shortened to 34" and slimmer and the perfect length -  was put on my first hand made ML 1/2 stock rifle - what a shooter it was.

[northmn]

Never could quite see a reason for barrel length other than some thought they "shot harder"  or were more accurate (longer sighting plane)  Horseback rifles like the plains rifles tended to be shorter more or less.  Rifles like the Appalachian rifles and Pennsylvania rifles were used in more wooded areas,  possibly carried more walking?  Earlier trade muskets were longer.  Germans and the English liked shorter barrels for hunting rifles.  Don't know about the French.  The longrifle is often credited with being an American thing.  As far as being practical, I tend to lean toward the shorter barreled rifles, understanding that a 32-36 inch barrel is considered "short".

DP

[Candle Snuffer]

Just a quick little note.  I read (and I don't remember where) that one purpose of the longer barrel was the quality "burn" of the powder back in the day when black powder was as I understand it, not the quality it is today.

This doesn't explain the shorter Plains Rifle Barrel, or the Jaeger's shorter barrel length, but I do expect that European powder was probably a better quality then what was available here in the U.S. before - say - the 1830's?

Like everything, there are transitions in technology.  We usually don't pay any attention to these transitions when we're living through these periods, but when we can look back in history and see the transitions, we then recognize them, and ask why?

[tg]

I suspect the German builders learned that a long barrel was not absolutely needed, I believe that the early trend in long barrels in trade guns and rifleswas somewhat of a carry over from the mind set and developement of naval cannon and artiliary
 of the time when the basic ballistic concept was that longer equalled greater range

[northmn]

There is the old statement about form following function, such that there may have been beliefs, whether correct or not, that made the long barrel popular.  However, fashion or the style of the times is also a motivator.  Look at pictures of some of the longrifles, you will see that some were made with barrels of 50" or more and many over 42".  Somewhere, someone said longer is better and and others felt that longer yet is ideal.  The "transitional" guns had shorter barrels.  Whether it was to burn inferior powder as C. Jas mentioned, one I have also heard, or accuracy it was done that way.  The British also thought the barrel weight was a little overdone also.  The minivan was designed to be the perfect family vehicle. urban moms decided they did not want the "minivan" look and opted for SUV's which are inferior for that purpose.  Style is a strong motivator.

DP

[Daryl]

By 1850, the English noted (Forsyth) that the larger the bore, the shorter the barrels could be.

[Dphariss]

Never could quite see a reason for barrel length other than some thought they "shot harder"  or were more accurate (longer sighting plane)  Horseback rifles like the plains rifles tended to be shorter more or less.  Rifles like the Appalachian rifles and Pennsylvania rifles were used in more wooded areas,  possibly carried more walking?  Earlier trade muskets were longer.  Germans and the English liked shorter barrels for hunting rifles.  Don't know about the French.  The longrifle is often credited with being an American thing.  As far as being practical, I tend to lean toward the shorter barreled rifles, understanding that a 32-36 inch barrel is considered "short".

DP

This another unanswerable question.
It was somewhat powder quality related.  The export powder was not always as good as the higher priced powders and the stuff made in North America was pretty grim until after 1800.
Once the powder improved the barrels got somewhat heavier in cross section and they shortened up.
Just one possible factor but the barrels DO follow the powder quality.
But then there were shorter rifles made in Pre-Rev War America just not very common it would seem.
I really like my 16 bore with a 30" barrel but longer barrels are easier to shoot well off hand.

Dan

[Long John]

There are a lot of variables that all contribute to whether some one is able to shoot a given rifle accurately.  Many of you have made note of particular rifles that you are able to shoot most accurately, but the major variable is the shooter.  Those rifles are probably the ones that fit you best.

From my vantage point it is a trade-off between weight and accuracy.  Being a COF, I get kind of tired carrying around a 10 or 12 pound rifle all day.  If all you have to do is carry it from a loading bench to a firing line then a heavy rifle will be easier to shoot accurately.  But if you have to carry that rifle over several miles of country before getting a shot then a lighter rifle will be desired.

But what really makes for a steady rifle is not weight, it is rotational inertia perpendicular to the axis of the bore.  A rifle with high rotational inertia will be steady through the shooting process while one with lower inertia requires less force to accelerate away from the line of sight and hence be less steady and ultimately harder to shoot accurately.  Rotational inertia is the product of weight multiplied by length.  Thus a designer of a rifle can achieve the same rotational inertia by either increasing length or increasing weight.  A long rifle does not have to be as heavy in order to achieve the same rotational inertial and hence holding accuracy as a shorter rifle.  Consequently, if you have to carry that rifle in your hand over several mountians before you get a shot you will probably end up choosing a longer but lighter rifle. 

My .54 has a 47 inch barrel and weighs 9 pounds.  It does its job very well, indeed.  Because I am getting old and tired of carrying a 9 pound rifle I am building is a new .54 that will weigh in at about 8 pounds despite its 47 inch barrel.  I expect it will shoot as accurately as any 12 pound 32 inch rifle because it has the equivalent rotational inertia inspite of its much reduced weight.

I suspect the evolution of rifle design is the artifact of their use.  Most jaegers were built for European-style hunting by nobles and target matches.  The guns were short, heavy and of large bore.  The cost of lead was a non-issue.  When American gun makers began making rifles for American use, where they were taken afield by individual hunters usually hunting on foot, a rifle that was lighter was preferable.  If it was to be lighter it had to be longer to be as accurate.  Lead was also very expensive.  Consequently smaller bores were more cost-effective.  Once the primary use for hunting rifles extended to the west where foot travel was uncommon, rifles could be made shorter but heavier.

What works best for us depends on how we plan to use it.  For me, long and light is right.

Those are my thoughts on the matter.

Best Regards,

John Cholin

[northmn]

John, I think I know what you were saying, maybe.  When we were talking about off-hand rifles, most liked shorter barrels.  The thing is that a long barrel can catch the wind and blow easier off target, trust me on that as I used to shoot a lighter Pennsylvania and had see the breeze blow it like a sail.  That longer barrel works like a longer lever.  The issue of sight radius is likely one of decreasing return.  Mathematically it may work in theory,  but the ability to align may stop at a certain distance.  I know that I used to be able to shoot shorter barrels as well if not better than long ones.  There were several very good shots I knew that liked the 1X36 inch configuration depending on caliber.  As to light we can both agree on that one.  Even when I was younger I noticed a fatigue factor in too heavy of barrels for bulleye shooting.  While you can work out to a certain point, a heavy barrel is relative to the shooter.  My wife could outshoot a lot of men with a 32 inch by 7/8 inch 45.  For her it was a heavier barrel, held well and was plenty long.  One could create a new theory of relativity for shooting.

DP

[Dphariss]

There are a LOT of variables. I shoot long barrels better and I live where the wind blows. Wind could care less if the barrel is a little longer.

Long barrels do have a disadvantage. Barrel time. Heavy recoiling guns with long barrel times can cause recoil induced problems since the gun moves more under recoil before the ball clears than if the barrel was shorter.
While it makes a lot more recoil than the typical RB gun my 15 pound 45-100 Sharps (530 gr PP at 1370 fps 32" barrel) is prone to this and MUST be held very consistently. Errors in holding , watching the wind to close and not putting adequate attention to hold will cause fliers of several feet at 400-1000 yards and with practice one can tell by the recoil and know its going to be off before the  target is examined or the dust cloud of a miss appears. I can tell by the way the gun recoils. Not as much a factor in offhand but sitting x-sticks it gets really finicky.
So when people start to talk about very light RB guns with long barrels this comes to mind. But I can still shot a 38-42" barrel better than a 30" if the barrel is heavy enough.
Everything is a trade off...
When one thing is gained another is lost.
Long barrels can be more cumbersome, short barrels lose sight radius and tend to move off target easier. Light guns are fun to carry but not as efficient, for me at least, when actually shooting them.
Dan

[Daryl]

The 'drive' towards short, light guns is detrimental to good shooting as you indicated, Dan. Too many times I've seen (or heard of) very light guns being needed for mountain use, but when the time came for the 'shot' the gun was so light, it was all over the place and couldn't be held accurately.  Yes, it's a trade-off - light, slim and short, or accurate due to barrel weight and length. I've always been able to hold a heavy gun better when winded, than a light gun when winded.

[northmn]

While you can go pretty light in a ML most of the heavier calibers do not permit too light unless you get one of the 13/16 50s I read about and saw the barrel down to 24 inches or some other combination.  Use of a 15/16 or 1 inch barrel in a 50 or 54 at normal lengths of about 32 -36 inches are really not all that light nor is 32 inches all that short.  Even some of the swamped barrels have a breech heavier than 1" in larger bores.  Again it is mostly relative to the individual.  Bullseye shooting where one had 20 minutes to shoot 5 shots is different than the single shot "primitive" events and does have a fatigue factor.  I would still prefer a slightly lighter rifle than something like the Tryon with a 1 3/16 inch by 35 inch barrel.  That is my personal definition of a pig that would want a horse to carry it and sticks to shoot it off.

DP

[Daryl]

The Tryon sounds heavy for sure, but then, the ones I've seen didn't appeal to me  :Pso there's no chance of my buying one.  There were Hawkens to 14 pounds, but again, I'd not own one (unless an original someone gave me).  I did have one that seemed close to 12 pounds, with a 34" 1 1/8" barrel in .58.  It wouldn't shoot less than 140gr. of 2f and the butt plate points hurt like H----  :'(so I sold it. Wish I hadn't now, for sure . Could have put a great big red rubber ventalated recoil pad on it! 

[long carabine]

 Longer burns powder better. Also the longer barrells...42 and up, look better than a 38 inch. Just my opinion. Tim