Hooked breeches less accurate ???

[Skychief]

While talking with a friend about the merits of different rifle designs, he made an interesting comment.   He claims that the hooked breech designs are inherently LESS accurate that a NON-hooked breech.   He explained that the hooked breech design can rarely be as "tight" as conventional breech/tang arrangements.   I wanted to build a rifle with a hooked breech (think T/C Hawken, Seneca like), mainly for ease of getting the barrel off with the removal of a wedge or two for a qiuick and thorough "bucket cleaning".    Please give me your opinion about the claims of my friend.   

Are hooked breeches inherently less accurate than other arrangements?

[jmforge]

While talking with a friend about the merits of different rifle designs, he made an interesting comment.   He claims that the hooked breech designs are inherently LESS accurate that a NON-hooked breech.   He explained that the hooked breech design can rarely be as "tight" as conventional breech/tang arrangements.   I wanted to build a rifle with a hooked breech (think T/C Hawken, Seneca like), mainly for ease of getting the barrel off with the removal of a wedge or two for a qiuick and thorough "bucket cleaning".    Please give me your opinion about the claims of my friend.   

Are hooked breeches inherently less accurate than other arrangements?

Unless I am misinformed, the 1000 yard English target rifles from folks like Gibbs, Henry, Rigby, etc. all had hooked patent breaches.  You don't
 get much more accurate than those in a ML'er!

[roundball]

Personal Opinion.

I've never seen any scientific test results supporting that they are less accurate.
I think the occasional individual will get the idea that "uhmmm, if I remove the barrel, then reinstall it, it might be sitting an eyelash off from the previous position, therefore it would be inaccurate".

The problem with that thinking is that both sights are on the barrel where they always remain in alignment no matter how many times the barrel is removed and reinstalled.
Its the same principle as Remington's successful cantilever rifled shotgun deer barrels...the scope mount is on the barrel, not on the receiver, so no matter how many times the barrel is removed from the receiver for cleaning the bore & scope relationship never changes.

[Ben I. Voss]

Skychief, go for the hooked breech if that's what you want - properly fitted-up you'll never know the difference in accuracy. That's been my experience, anyway.

[rsells]

All my life I have been able to shoot Hawken rifles more accurately than any other type of rifle I have built and have never felt I was at a disadvantage.  I have never been able to figure out the reason unless it is the weight and balance of that type of rifle.  The last Hawken I made for myself, I sold it before working up a load.  The customer asked me to work up a load and sight it in for him.  As to date, it is the most accurate rifle I have ever made.  It was a .50 cal. bore and had an H&H straight taper barrel, 1 turn in 48 rifling, and would shoot groups that were one elongated hole at fifty yards off a rest with open sights and my old eyes.  What a bummer!! I should have shot this one before I let a customer talk me out of it.  I can't say that hooked breeches make rifles less accurate.  I am sure there could be issues if things aren't assembled correctly and the barrel and breech are not inlet properly.  However, there could be issues with standard breeches as well.
                                                            Roger Sells
                             

[Swampwalker]

I remember reading many years ago (like the late 70's) an article by one of the gun writers of the time, perhaps Charmical (sp?) about his experiences with a TC muzzleloader which of course had a hooked breech - he was using a tang sight, and could not get consistent results until he soldered the hook breech to the standing breech.  My interpretation was that this was caused by a poor fitting breech not providing repeatable alighnment with the standing breech & tang to which was mounted the tang sight. 

[caliber45]

I build "carbines" with 21-inch barrels (get two out of a single GM 42-incher that way). I tell people they're "grandkids rifles," which they are in my case: So far, four grandkids have them and there are more on the way. In actuality, I build small, light rifles because I'm too lazy to carry around 10 pounds of shooting iron when five pounds will do almost as well. All are hooked breech style. One of my more recent ones, from a rest at 50 yards, managed four holes touching and a fifth about an inch out. Tells me "it" will do that every time that I do my part. Short barrel, hooked breech. Go for it.

[Dphariss]

If they are fitted right they should be OK. I built a rifle with a lock screw in the breech but don't know if the guy that owns it has tried it both ways.
Will ask tomorrow if I remember.

There are other factors too.
But in theory at least the fixed breech should be more accurate.
In real life??

Dan

[BrownBear]

I'm in the steady process of putting tang sights on most of my hunting rifles for older eyes.  I've never had accuracy problems that I could detect were the result of hooked breech barrels mounted with both sights.  But I'm prepared to rebed the tang and rear of the barrel if any give me problems once I remove the rear sight and switch to tang peeps.  That's based upon my experience (sometimes miserable) with using peeps on break action air rifles.  But so far that hasn't happened in changing sights on half a dozen muzzleloaders.  I've removed and remounted the barrels lots, and experienced no change in POI or loss of accuracy that I can detect so far.

[Skychief]

Thanks guys.   I have been watching the replies and appreciate them!

[Daryl]

Hooked breeches have the 'potential' for being less accurate than a fixed breech.  The more moving parts, the bigger the chance of the barrel moving shot to shot and therefore changing the recoil patterns of the barrel/stock fit. Properly breeched, as many do, there isn't a bit of trouble with them.  I doubt anyone would see the difference if a gun was made and tested both ways, first fixed, then hooked later after working up it's best loads.

How many spend the time to work up a rifle's best loads in the first place, rather than simply merely picking a load and using it?

My 14 bore rifle still shoots into 1 1/2" or smaller at 100 meters and it's hooked, built by Taylor 23 years ago.  I've been unable to shoot that well with the fixed breeched guns I have - does that mean the hooked breech is more accurate than fixed? No - just that so far, that rifle is more accurate, or I am able to shoot it more accurately or that I've spent longer finding it's accuracy loads.

[northmn]

Hooked breeches are not as inherently inaccurate as the fixed sights they are generally used with.  Unless a very sloppy fit the ranges would have to be extreme to note the differences.  As noted English long range rifle were made with hooked breeches and had sights installed on the tang and the back of the butt.  While I personally do not use them, due to cost and style preferences, I would not hesitate to do so if my fancy ran to a proper repoduction of a rifle that did use them.

DP

[Daryl]

good point DP - I'd like nothing better for a long range match rifle, than a Rigby copy as used by the "Irish' team in the international 1000 yard contests.

[Dan]

If they are fitted right they should be OK. I built a rifle with a lock screw in the breech but don't know if the guy that owns it has tried it both ways.
Will ask tomorrow if I remember.

There are other factors too.
But in theory at least the fixed breech should be more accurate.
In real life??

Dan

I agree about the theory.  In real life I've owned a hooked breech rifle that was more accurate than most I've had, including smokeless CF rifles.  It shot better than me I'm sure.  Thinking in the final analysis that quality provides its own reward, regardless of the platform, and wonder how important the distinction might be for field work. Probably not too much.

[Dphariss]

If they are fitted right they should be OK. I built a rifle with a lock screw in the breech but don't know if the guy that owns it has tried it both ways.
Will ask tomorrow if I remember.

There are other factors too.
But in theory at least the fixed breech should be more accurate.
In real life??

Dan

I agree about the theory.  In real life I've owned a hooked breech rifle that was more accurate than most I've had, including smokeless CF rifles.  It shot better than me I'm sure.  Thinking in the final analysis that quality provides its own reward, regardless of the platform, and wonder how important the distinction might be for field work. Probably not too much.

I remembered
The rifle shoots significantly better with the breech "locked" with the screw. Owner claims significantly better.
He just shot a 3.8" (IIRC) 10 shot string with it in a 60 yard "chunk gun" match. This is an average distance from center of .38.
Green Mountain 45 caliber barrel.

Dan

[northmn]

Dan, did the lock screw turn it into a fixed breech or permit hooked barrel removal?  Another point in the issue may be that a fixed breech might change impact if the barrel is removed for cleaning.  Getting the tang screw back to the same tension may be important.

DP

[Daryl]

Dan, did the lock screw turn it into a fixed breech or permit hooked barrel removal?  Another point in the issue may be that a fixed breech might change impact if the barrel is removed for cleaning.  Getting the tang screw back to the same tension may be important.

DP

Every aspect of 'moving' the barrel becomes very important - consistancy is everything in accuracy.  Exactly the same recoil pulse is needed for accuracy and cannot be achieved with a barrel or stock that moves or changes shot to shot, or shoot to shoot.

[Dphariss]

Dan, did the lock screw turn it into a fixed breech or permit hooked barrel removal?  Another point in the issue may be that a fixed breech might change impact if the barrel is removed for cleaning.  Getting the tang screw back to the same tension may be important.

DP

Its a 10x28 with a large head that screws into the back of the "hook" and pulls the tang tight to the back of the breech and requires removing the tang to remove. This is a long tang Hawken breech. It is a solid set up and was done that way for that reason. The breech is also glass bedded to make a solid base for the tang.
This rifle was built as a match winner and it does this.
The other option was mig welding the tang to the breech but this would have been much more labor intensive.
I have a pretty tightly made breech on a FL that I am considering putting a screw of this type in to test the accuracy.

Any significant change in the screw tension etc etc will change the accuracy/impact point on any firearm.

Dan

[northmn]

When I think on it I seem to remember an individual that silver soldered his hooked breech togehter for that reason? The screw idea is better as it is not so permanent.  I only remove barrels occaisonaly for general inspection for outer rust or for other maintenance and do not do so to clean them.  Others do.  The English long range rifles must have had a very tight fit as they were probably carried broken doen in a hard case.

DP

[Daryl]

Test your hooked breech fit by putting the barrel in the vice, attach the tang then pull and twist on the tang to see if there's any movement, fore, aft or sideways. Any movement at all can cause fliers, shot to shot. After shooting a few thousand shots, it is possible that slight peening of the fitted surfaces will 'loosen' the hook's purchase in the tang and then cause fliers. Making the joint solid by screwing it together as Dan did will 'fix' any probems of this nature.  If there is a gap between barrel and tang after being put together, a steel bearing epoxy like Devcon can be a remedy after screwing. Put together and screwed, then dressed down to the steel and it will be a virtually invisible joint.

[Colonial Riflesmith]

In the old Marine Corps we had a saying. "It's not the dope on the rifle, it's the dope behind the rifle". Back then the saying was that a bolt action is more accurate than a semi. Well, I challenged the fella to a shoot. 1000 meters on an ECHO target. Put up or shut up. Me with a M14 which is 308, and him with a 1903 Springfield 30-06. I shot the pants off that guy that day. Iron sights mind you. The guy never spoke to me again. Point in fact. Get what you want, and leard how to shoot her.

[northmn]

While it is true that a better shot can outshoot someone that is not so good, if the better shooter does not have as good of equipment,   given two equal shooters the better equipment will often perform if both shooters are excellent shots.  A lot of "refinements" in target quality weapons work only if the person behind the butt can take advantage of them. I remember when I was into shooting practical pistol for a short time.  One of the recommendations was to shoot $1,000.00 worth of ammo before you spend $1,000 on a custom compensation system on a 45.  I used to see that on the BP range.  Most of the best shots shot custom rifles.  Once in a while someone would show up with a factory rifle and do as well at a match.  One way to look at better equipment is that it will increase performance over time, or be more consistant, than at one individual match.  When we talk about which is more accurate the assumption is made that the shooters are good enough to take advantage of the situation.  Many are.

DP

[Roger B]

Being a plains rifle addict, most of my rifles have hooked breeches & several have small caliber target barrels that will interchanged with large caliber barrels.  I once had a local expert claim that i could not change barrels without going through at least five shots for the barrel to "settle down".  I pomptly went to the bench & swapped a 45 for a 54 & back again with all shots grouping together  (two separate groups for the different calibers) as they always did.  I don't worrry about it.  When legal, I have sometimes changed barrels in the middle of an aggregate when both paper & novelty targets were included.
Roger B.

[Dphariss]

The breech I "locked" is a Hawken type.
The owner indicates, by hand signals, that the groups are 3-4 times bigger with the breech unlocked.
His composite group from the "over the chunk" match was 3/4" at 60 yards this was a total of *15 shots*.
10 for score with barrel sights. 55 gr of 1.5F Swiss and a .451 ball.
He is a very particular rifleman and a "fierce" competitor.
Forearm fit, how tight the wedges are etc can be a factor as well.

Dan

[T*O*F]

The English long range rifles must have had a very tight fit as they were probably carried broken doen in a hard case.

The tang of an English rifle is secured by a screw that screws into a female threaded stud on the trigger plate.  The standing breech of the tang is secured by a screw up from the trigger plate into a threaded hole in the bottom of the standing breech.  This locks it securely into place under recoil, providing it is tightly inlet.

When inletting, the breech hook is fitted to the standing breech so that it must be hammered on until they are flush.  Then they are inlet together.  Once perfectly inlet, they are separated.  The breech hook is then relieved on a slight bevel so that is enters the standing breech freely, but wedges tight as the barrel is lowered into the channel.  This allows no movement and is repeatable.  Most guys make the mistake of filing both sides of the hook so the whole thing fits, which will result in free-play.