Barrel contours on original longrifles

[smylee grouch]

In this modern world we have what we call swamped or tapered and flared barrels. From the info posted by the barrel makers there is that short section of straight sided barrel a few inches from the muzzel, the waist. Did the originals have this waist or was the contour a continuous curve or arc?

[rich pierce]

In general barrels were more irregular. I have an early short jaeger barrel with a generous swamped profile. It has a continuous curve to the profile. Nowadays with machining they set up 3 intersecting angles. Slope from breech to waist, the waist, then flare to muzzle. All because of milling or planing machines. It’s fine either way. 

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

I have had the privilege of studying many dozens of original longrifles in private collections, and have been left with some impressions.  First, most if not all of these old rifles have heavy patina on the iron barrels, so holding the rifles up to a light source and peering down the length does not show transition in the swamp - just continuously changing taper and flare.  As Rich has said, there is great variation in the amount of taper too.  But by far the most valuable thing I took away was the realization that these early rifles had heavy barrels, compared to what a lot of builders are looking to use today.  Barrels with less than 1" or 15/16" at the breech are rare among the rifles I examined.  So overall weight at 10 pounds is what to expect.  I examined no rifles that were featherweights, ie:  around 6 - 7 pounds.
I would love to hear from builders with far more experience at handling originals about their impressions regarding these parameters...House bros, Eric K., etc.

[smylee grouch]

Thanks for that reply Rich. I would suppose that anything made by hand like a rifle barrel would have more variation in its specs than a machine made product and ease of production and speed is one reason for todays methods. One major supplier of todays modern Muzzle Loading products told me once that there used to be a barrel maker that he knew that would make the swamp in one continuous arc or curve but I can't remember who that barrel maker was now.

[smylee grouch]

And thank you Taylor for that insight. I agree 100% about the average weight of todays rifles as compared to those of those old originals. In my limited exposure I have seen no real light weight old originals but I will stress "limited". The same can be said about todays recreated Plains rifles also, most are far lighter than the old timers were.

[rich pierce]

I’ve altered new octagonal swamped barrels and octagon to round barrels with just filing. Often it seems that octagon to round barrels made today have real prominent wedding bands and a big drop off from the octagon to the round sections. I’ve never seen an original like that. So I have gotten after the octagon taper. I sometimes round the bottom 3 flats of an octagon to round barrel at the breech. Many/most were like that. Guess what I’m saying is don’t be afraid to alter a new barrel profile and then inlet it yourself. Modifying or fabricating parts is a fun part of making custom guns, when time and money don’t matter.

[Daryl]

In reading "Firearms of the American West", I felt quite enlightened when I read of rifle weights of the Plains Rifle Types, weighing up to 16 pounds.
This "trend" towards heavy "Plains" rifles stayed with the market into the single shot ctg. buffalo rifle era. Rifles to 12 to 16 pounds were common.

[James Wilson Everett]

Guys,

I agree with Rich, the change in barrel diameter at the transition from octagon the round at the "wedding ring" is very slight on original barrels, only a few thousandths of an inch.  Also, on many original barrels the swamp, or taper and flare, is not very pronounced.  I just bought an original barrel from Ebay marked with the date 1851.  it is 44 inches long, 0.890 breech, 0.820 waist, 0.860 muzzle.  Just looking at the barrel it appears to be a straight sided barrel, but it is swamped.  Also, rifled bore of 0.335 diameter, muzzle coned to a maximum 0.370 diameter, rather rough so I will re-bore it to about a 0.360 bore.

Jim

[Jim Kibler]

In this modern world we have what we call swamped or tapered and flared barrels. From the info posted by the barrel makers there is that short section of straight sided barrel a few inches from the muzzel, the waist. Did the originals have this waist or was the contour a continuous curve or arc?

This is modern.  Original work I've seen had much more of a continuous fair curve.  In the barrels we make, the curve is more fair and continuous.   I had gotten so used to seeing barrels manufactured in segments I got used to it.  When I made the first barrel with a continuous curve and sighted down it, I was shocked how much better it looked!

Jim

[walt33]

Hopefully is isn't not too off topic, but did the width of the forestock follow the contour of a swamped barrel or did the width stay  constant?

[shootrj2003]

Walt 33,I have very limited knowledge on swamped barrels but I believe the stock contours did not follow the barrel contours however most of the stocks of my muzzloaders follow a fairly straight taper, plains rifle stocks are tapered from somewhere at around 1 1/2” at the breech to maybe 1 1/4” at the ramrod entry,this being strictly an estimate without measuring mine and depends on the barrel ,longer  Pennsylvania rifles start maybe slightly thinner at the breech and after the lock area get slender quickly then maintain a slender profile to the muzzle area and fairly straight,but ,correct me if I am wrong they don’t follow the swamped profile.

[Stophel]

Hopefully is isn't not too off topic, but did the width of the forestock follow the contour of a swamped barrel or did the width stay  constant?

The wood on either side of the barrel should be pretty much the same the whole length, following the shape of the barrel.  The thickness and shape are determined by what style of gun  you are doing.  They were not all done exactly the same.   

[hanshi]

Being the curious sort I thought I'd measure my current .50 FWIW.  The rifle's a lightweight at 7 lbs 2 oz.  The Rice barrel measures 1.169" (breech), .739" (waist), .935" (muzzle).  So then I checked the stock.  Sighting down the barrel the "taper & flair" jump right out; but no conclusion on the stock from a visual inspection, then I measured it.  Width 1" in front of the lock panel was 1.248", waist - 1.037", 1" from nose cap - 1.103".

The previous .50 (sold a few years ago) weighed roughly 9-1/2 lbs (estimated) but could be up to a pound more.  And I have no measurements on it.  Modern barrels being made of steel, IMHO, do not need to be as heavy as the old wrought iron ones.  My .54 comes in at 10-1/2 lbs.

[flinchrocket]

You might want to recheck your breech measurement.

[shootrj2003]

My present project is out in the barn but my renegade stock, with a 1” bbl ,after the lock panel measures 1.320 does not taper at all to the entry point at the tip of the stock.

[Dphariss]

Somewhere I have barrel dimensions for a early/mid 1830s J&S Hawken 1/2 stock with an almost (by modern standards) swamped barrel. Memory tells me the barrel is about 1.032 at the breech, tapers rapidly to the rear sight at .970" its a little smaller at the forend tip then about 2"-3" from the muzzle it flares about .010". The is a forged barrel with welded on or forged in place nipple seat. I do not consider this barrel to be a "continuous curve" given the amount of taper in the first 10" or so. Given this is a 41" +-  barrel if it continued to with within 2"-3" of the muzzle it would be a pretty small barrel for a 50 caliber rifle.  As I recall the barrel have minimal taper from the rear sight/forend tip to the muzzle. These barrels, for the most part were made in Birmingham England or in barrel mills in PA. They were forged octagon, then ground to remove the scale and hammer marks on large diameter  coarse water powered grinding wheels. The 3 bottom flats may still show the concave surface left from the grinding. The Hawken barrel does not. Then the top 5 flats would be final finished by the gun maker. Maybe at the barrel makers. Dunno. But expecting them to be uniform or to have a continuous curve it not realistic. If I can find the blasted file or the paper I wrote them down on I will post them. Also the rib for the rod pipes was tapered in height being taller at the muzzle. Thats my 2 cents worth and its worth what you pay for it.

[Dphariss]

Being the curious sort I thought I'd measure my current .50 FWIW.  The rifle's a lightweight at 7 lbs 2 oz.  The Rice barrel measures 1.169" (breech), .739" (waist), .935" (muzzle).  So then I checked the stock.  Sighting down the barrel the "taper & flair" jump right out; but no conclusion on the stock from a visual inspection, then I measured it.  Width 1" in front of the lock panel was 1.248", waist - 1.037", 1" from nose cap - 1.103".

The previous .50 (sold a few years ago) weighed roughly 9-1/2 lbs (estimated) but could be up to a pound more.  And I have no measurements on it.  Modern barrels being made of steel, IMHO, do not need to be as heavy as the old wrought iron ones.  My .54 comes in at 10-1/2 lbs.

Actually wrought iron is a better barrel material than the steel used by most American ML "barrel" makers. This was passed on to me by a friend (who also worked in the brass suppository gun industry) who was told this by a very well respected big name in the custom modern gun barrel industry.  Remembering that all the Civil War Rifle Musket barrels were skelp welded "best iron" and attempts to "blow them up" in the 20th century failed. Giving us the myth that you can't "blow up" a gun with BP. Steel is only good for barrels if properly manufactured and of the proper alloy. Does anyone remember the Remington shotgun failures due to improper alloy choice? BTW the CW Rifle Musket barrels were proved with 200 gr of Musket powder and a 500 gr Minie spaced 2" off the powder. If a barrel failed proof a committee examined it and if the cause was determined to be an error by a workman he was required to pay for it. I would also point to the wall thickness of many 18th and 19th c double shotguns and fowlers. Though admittedly many English guns were pattern welded "Damascus".

[James Wilson Everett]

Guys,

I have been working on an original barrel marked W. PANNEPACKER, a barrel maker in Eastern PA in the first half of the 19th century.  The barrel looks straight, but it is tapered and flared.  It is octagon, 41.5 inches long with breech 1.039 inch, waist 0.910 inch, muzzle 0.984 inch, not as pronounced of a swamp as the barrels available today.

The bore was very rough so I bored & honed it to 0.445 breech end and 0.441 muzzle end, using 18th c tools usually gives a slight taper to the bore.  Now I have just started to rifle it, it should make a really nice and heavy barrel when finished.

Jim