I prefer light, longer barrels generally and would prefer to see something like Rice's Southern Classic. Interesting comments on this thread regarding what's PC/HC and what was not. I don't really feel too strongly one way or the other about such things. I'm very glad that there are historians here and builders who care about learning all they can about the traditional firearms and accoutrements. That said, I have to wonder if this isn't one of those things where early Americans also would have loved to have much lighter guns if they could. I don't know enough about the quality of iron/steel that they had back in the day, but it seems to me that the materials and processes that they used necessitated a heavier rifle. And, sure, if your idea is that we should build exactly as they did and use the same materials and processes as they did, then more power to you, but there are darn few of us (if any) that aren't taking advantage of modern processes and better materials. Just look at this thread, look at Jim's CNC locks, etc..
I don't think we can conclude that they greatly desired lighter barrels, for two reasons:
First, while I really don't want to get into the barrel steel debate again, I have to point out that the very little actual
data - not assumptions but data - on the comparative ductility and strength under shock impact of wrought iron and modern steels suggests that wrought iron is inferior to the 4140/50 steels used in modern gun barrels, roughly comparable to 1137, and definitely superior to cold-drawn 12L14, the most widely used material today. The caveat is that the 1137MOD used in gun barrels is presumably better than the 1137 for which I have data, being formulated for that purpose, and that the 11L14 used in barrels these days is at the least stress-relieved if not actually annealed, and thus possibly stronger under impact than the cold-drawn 12L14 tested. Ergo, it is likely that modern muzzleloading barrels are a bit stronger in real life than on paper. Also, I do not know how representative the wrought iron sample used is. Gun barrels were not generally made from poor grade iron, though - that was used for things like wagon wheels, architectural ironwork, or other non-demanding applications, I believe.
Despite those caveats, however, I think we can conclude that good quality wrought iron, far from being "rotten cheese" as I've seen it characterized, was a perfectly good material for the pressures involved, and any weaknesses were due to the possibility of slag inclusions or bad welds, not the material
per se. This is is bolstered by the performance of mid-19th century rifle-musket barrels made of very high-end wrought iron welded with triphammers - I forget the particulars, but these barrels stood up to proof loads and destructive testing that put other barrels, including modern ones, to shame, giving rise to the myth that it was impossible to overload a muzzleloader.
In sum, while the consistency and lack of welds in modern steels are a definite advantage, the idea that period gunsmiths were forced to vastly overbuild their barrels to achieve safety is way overstated, I think.
The second reason is that I think that they preferred heavier barrels on rifles is because they could have easily have reduced weight or muzzle-heaviness if they desired, either by changing the barrel profile or shortening it, or both. One of the fascinating things about the development of the Kentucky rifle is that, at least on paper, the German rifles first brought here fit our ideas of a good field gun nearly exactly - fairly light, (I think), short and handy, good weight distribution, and with a stock design that kept felt recoil to a minimum. It is the 18th century version of Jeff Cooper's "scout rifle".....By the 1790s, at the end of 20 years of warfare and survival along the trans-appalachian frontier, the longrifle had become long, with a pronounced barrel presence, cupped buttplates, and comb-lines nowhere near parallel to the bore. This basic design, with slight modifications, went on to be the workhorse of the Fur Trade for the next forty years or so, serving right alongside trade guns, shotguns, and European rifles with designs more closely suited to our modern ideas that could have been copied had people found the longrifle design wanting.
Had they wanted what people today want, I think that they would have kept the original German design, or developed something fairly close to it. That they didn't indicates that they had other ideas about what was required for a good rifle.
Ergo, barrel weight was a deliberate design choice.
