Author Topic: Mountain Rifle Barrel Choice (Read 10806 times)

Chris in Washington · « **on:** December 07, 2009, 05:03:43 AM »

So for all those who have forgoten more about building Southern Mountain Rifles than I'll ever learn..... would an "A" weight 38" barrel look OK? I have a Friend that wants one built with this barrel, but I'm not for sure that it would look right..... what do you all think?

Chris

Bill of the 45th · « **Reply #1 on:** December 07, 2009, 05:23:52 AM »

Longer is always better, but it should look just fine, there are a number of shorter barreled guns in Jerry Nobles books.

Bill

Chris in Washington · « **Reply #2 on:** December 07, 2009, 05:33:55 AM »

I like the looks of the longer barrels too but.... he's a shorter older gentlemen that had shoulder surgery this summer.... I was more concern with the barrel profile. Trying to keep the weight of the rifle farther back.

Chris

flintriflesmith · « **Reply #3 on:** December 07, 2009, 06:17:11 AM »

Most of the Southern Mountain rifles were made after the straight or only slightly tapered barrel style had replaced the tapered and flared style of the 18th century.

The transition took place gradually and occurred at different times in different areas but in general any of the modern A, B, C profiles would not he historically correct for an 1820-60 mountain rifle. When pressed to use one you can go this route: "This rifle was made in the 19th century but the barrel was one reclaimed and reused from an earlier rifle."

Or you can just say who cares about have a historically correct barrel -- My customer wanted a late rifle with the superior handling of an earlier one so that's what I made for him.

A lot of contributors to this board will say "Sure, do what you want, after all you are the one that has to be satisfied with the rifle." I'm of the other camp -- to me a heavily tapered and flared barrel in one of these modern profiles is just as out of place on a mountain rifle as a straight sided barrel would be on a Rev War style rifle.

Gary

B Shipman · « **Reply #4 on:** December 07, 2009, 07:42:48 AM »

I'm with Gary . A 13/16 th in. in any caliber an A wt. is made in will be a featherweight if cut back.

David Rase · « **Reply #5 on:** December 07, 2009, 08:15:05 AM »

A 7/8" .50 caliber makes for a medium light rifle. I have a .50 caliber SW Virginia rifle with a 7/8" x 42" barrel that balances as well as any 'C' weight barrel. In 38" it should prove to be extremely agile.
DMR

Chris in Washington · « **Reply #6 on:** December 07, 2009, 08:49:29 AM »

Thanks guys for telling me what I thought was right.... it wouldn't be right! I'll see if I can't talk him into a nice 13/16 .40 cal..... just happens to be one listed for sale (G) If I'm going to build it, I might as well do it right.

Thanks again
Chris

Sean · « **Reply #7 on:** December 07, 2009, 03:34:10 PM »

Chris,

You can also call up Mark DeHaas and see if he's got a straight taper on hand. That would push the balance back like a swamp. If he doesn't have one on hand, he can probably make you one withing a couple months.

Sean

Mike Brooks · « **Reply #8 on:** December 07, 2009, 04:53:27 PM »

Looking at Jerry Nobel's collection It seems they were usually about 48" long, about 1" across the flats and have a swamped 'blob" at either end. The gun should weigh around 11 to 13 lbs or so.

Roger Fisher · « **Reply #9 on:** December 07, 2009, 06:02:51 PM »

I'm now starting a Gillespie long rifle and using 7/8 .45 straight 42 inchesand am pondering cutting her back to 40 inches to avoid having her tooooo muzzle heavy. I like a little bit of course. Of course if she is just too nose heavy I can always slug the butt. Wouldn't be the first time!

I did in fact hang the steel parts on the girl (lock, sett triggers, guard butt plate etc and that moved the balance point back nearly 2 inches from ahead of the rear entry so she could be just fine at 42 inches....

After more pondering the matter and to make a shooter out of her I took the bull by the 'horn' and cut her back to 39 1/2 inches.....or a tad more

G-Man · « **Reply #10 on:** December 07, 2009, 07:01:42 PM »

I think we're talking about a couple of issues on these - (1) width at the breech and (2) barrel profile.

The problem with a straight 13/16 straight barrel it that it is harder to keep the wrist area proportioned correctly - it can be done but do it carefully. In some of the books they talk about tapering the lock bolster to kick the tail out more - the problem I have with this is that they don't mention that when you do, you are not just kicking out the tail - you are pulling the nose of the lock in as well, and this can lead to mainspring/reamrod channel clearance issues and not enough width at the front of the lock panels for good definition.

So if you want to give yourself enough width for good wrist shaping, a rifle with a relatively wide-breech area is easier to work and thus a swamped barrel will help with the lines.

I have seen a number of mountain rifles of the post-1820s era that have swamped barrels with pretty severe taper and flare - the problem is that the modern outer profiles are usually different, as Gary pointed out. On the originals, the skinniest point on the barrel is sometimes noticeably farther back than they place it now so it is less noticeable visually. In other cases, like Mike pointed out, the flare is sort of a "blob" right close to the muzzle - I have been told of examples sometimes even wider than the breech. Take a look at the barrel making techniques shown in Foxfire 5 and John Rice Irwin's book - these late period swamped barrels were being made by mountain gunsmiths and you would expect a lot of variations. But in general, the barrel wall thickness is usually much heavier relative to the bore size than most people like today - imagine a swamped barrel, 1 inch or more at the breech and not much less at the muzzle but in a 32 to 40-some caliber - much heavier than most folks find comfortable today.

So I guess if you go with the A weight swamped, it will help your wrist profiling. It won't really be representative of what you usually see on these types of originals, but then again really any barrel you use will not be correct if you go with something of the weight and handling characteristics he wants. And if the 38 inch, shorten up the area between the breech and entry thimble - this will help the lines so it does not look stubby.

On the other hand if you go with the 13/16ths straight barrel, just realize you need to proportion everything down a little bit to keep the right look - wrist height, triggers and guard, etc. I think there was one of Ian Pratt's guns on the Contemporary Makers site last year made with a skinny barrel like that and it looks great. I have seen them even made with 3/4 inch straight barrels and it can be done nicely.

Good luck

Guy

Ken G · « **Reply #11 on:** December 07, 2009, 08:34:54 PM »

There are very few folks that would enjoy owning and shooting a true example of a Appalachia Mt. rifle. 1" at least at the breech and .32 to maybe a .47 cal. from the examples I have seen. 44" or better length. They are brutes to shoulder and worse to tote around all day.
Unless your friend is wanting a true to the detail Mt. rifle, I think I would compromise and build him something he will enjoy shooting and hunting with, that looks like a Mt. rifle. To me that would be around a 38" barrel. Especially if he has had some shoulder issues and is a small framed person.
I think what will be done with the gun and who is your audience are determining factors when building a gun. There are a few guys that with the knowledge to look at a contemporary built Mt. rifle and say it doesn't look right because of the barrel profile or caliber. I'm not meaning that in a negative way toward those that can. I am pointing out that your friend may never even be around a group of folks that could. If that is the case and he doesn't enjoy shooting it because it is more historically correct but nobody knows then it was a bad compromise. Most are going to look at hardware, patchbox, and lock selection and say it looks like a Mt. rifle or not.

Just my opinion.

G-Man · « **Reply #12 on:** December 07, 2009, 08:53:38 PM »

I think so many of these original southern rifles have such crisp slender architecture that when you see them in photos, you get the impression of them being very light delicate pieces. But when you get to see them in 3D and pick them up and shoulder them, it is surprising how heavy they are. I always had in my head that the Jacob Young "Woodfork" rifle was such a slender light piece as I had always been used to seeing Hershel and Frank's squirrel rifles influenced by Jacob Young's work. Frank was kind enough to show me the original piece at a couple of CLA shows - man - was I surprised. The barrel is really massive looking relative to the bore size - yet when viewed as a whole the gun just looks as crisp and slender as anything out there.

Guy

eagle24 · « **Reply #13 on:** December 07, 2009, 09:08:35 PM »

I tend to agree with Ken. I love the iron mounted southern rifles, but have no desire to carry and shoot a rifle as hefty as most of the originals I have seen and handled. I think you have to make a compromise if it is a rifle to be shot and enjoyed. I just finished building my first southern rifle and used a Rice "B" profile barrel. I would agree that the profile of the barrel is wrong for the rifle, but I love the weight and feel of my rifle. As Ken mentioned, most folks probably won't know that the profile of the barrel is wrong. If you look at the contemporary rifles in this style that are being built today, I think you will find that most of them are slimmer and lighter than most originals. There are some originals that appear to be very slim (Elisha Bull) from pictures I have seen. Some of them look slim because they have longer barrels rather than shorter. I have looked at several originals that you really had to look closely to see the swamping of the barrel and the waist was closer to the breech than the muzzle, so I agree with Gary that a straight or very subtle taper was the norm (BTW, I'm sure Gary has forgotten more than I will learn before I'm gone). I'm building a rifle now with a 7/8" straight .45 barrel. I had it cut to 40-1/2" to help the balance a little (compromise). I also have a barrel that I had Ed Rayl make for me that has a gentler swamp than some more readily available profiles. It is 15/16" (breech) 3/4" (waist) & 13/16" (muzzle) and 45" long .47 caliber. I guess you have to decide where and how much you want to compromise.

Nate McKenzie · « **Reply #14 on:** December 07, 2009, 11:17:55 PM »

I once took a 42" or 44" ( I forget which ) swamped barrel and cut about four inches off the muzzle and recrowned it to make an almost straight tapered barrel for a mountain rifle. Boy, it was a sweet handling little thing. Mine was a "b" wt. but you could do the same with an "a" wt. Really shot good too. That would make your friend a nice handling rifle with ckoser to original profile.

Dennis Glazener · « **Reply #15 on:** December 08, 2009, 12:29:13 AM »

A couple of comments, when using a 13/16 straight barrel (or even a 7/8) with a drum and nipple, be careful with the wall thickness.

As to Nate's remarks on the tapered barrel. take a look at the spec's on the iron mounted rifle in the ALR virtual museum (link below) http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=4165.0

A 44 inch "B" profile in 45 or 50 caliber with about 4 inches cut off the muzzle comes very close to matching that rifles barrel profile. Or if you wanted a 36 or 40 caliber you could use an "A" profile.

I have handled the ALR library rifle and it is a great handling rifle and it would certainly handle better than a straight 13/16 or 7/8 in 42".

Dennis

flintriflesmith · « **Reply #16 on:** December 08, 2009, 05:43:36 AM »

Quote from: Dennis Glazener on December 08, 2009, 12:29:13 AM

...A 44 inch "B" profile in 45 or 50 caliber with about 4 inches cut off the muzzle comes very close to matching that rifles barrel profile. Or if you wanted a 36 or 40 caliber you could use an "A" profile....
Dennis

The description says the barrel is a straight taper. Cutting the muzzle of a B weight barrel will still leave a barrel with three or four stages of taper. I guess it depends on how you define "very close."

Bore is approximately .47 caliber.
Barrel length is 41” and is a straight taper, there is no evidence it has been cut.
Barrel measures .930 at breech, .800 mid-way and .743 at the muzzle.

B Shipman · « **Reply #17 on:** December 08, 2009, 08:50:02 AM »

Then there's a Zacharia Luster rifle wtih a slightly swamped barrel with a breech less than 13/th in. at the breech.

G-Man · « **Reply #18 on:** December 08, 2009, 03:34:05 PM »

I think there are a lot of good ideas on here. I love to see when someone goes to the lengths of getting a custom barrel made to match the profiles of an original. But that in itself can be a challenge with a long wait.

I think this customer has some requests/ needs in terms of the weight and handling. I respect the opinions on here about the profile, but I guess my point is that while the A weight swamp profile may not be whay you would expect to see on a mountain rifle, short barrels and straight sided barrels are not the norm on mountain rifles either, unless they have been cut. So given the options and the custormer's needs, I guess I would not hesitate to use either. The 38 inch A weight swamped barrels sure handle nicely if you like a light rifle and they do help with the architecture. If you are starting from a blank and the amount of flare at the muzzle really bothers you, you could carefully file down the outside of the muzzle end of the barrel to reduce the flare. A 13/16 or 3/4 inch straight will too - I just think a lot of folks have a harder time getting the right look through the breech and wrist area with a skinnier barrel. But it can be done.

Good luck

Guy

northmn · « **Reply #19 on:** December 08, 2009, 04:30:08 PM »

I have a 13/16 40 that broke through the wrist when I cut it down enough to get the correct proportions. I think the accident was a fluke but they do get weaker, expecially with DST's. On the other hand the rifle carries very nicely and is a joy to shoot as compared to my 54 with a 1" tapered to 7/8 inch barrel. I rally like the 13/16 45 and am thinking about building one for sentimental reasons as that was almost a standard when I started shooting long rifles. Every profile I have seen of originals makes me respect the fortitude of those that carried them as they are heavy. We are not talking about Tennessee rifles alone either. Some of the Western trade rifles needed the horse to carry them. You can make perfect replicas of originals or you can make ones enjoyable to shoot.

DP

stuart cee dub · « **Reply #20 on:** December 09, 2009, 02:37:41 AM »

What size ramrod hole did you use on your .40 NorthMN ?
I am making a so.mtn rifle now (even though I swore off building rifles in favor of smoothbores)
The barrel is a a 13/16th straight barrel 40'' long in a 40 cal,for a late ketland flint .

What size ramrod hole does one use on a something like this 5 /16's seems too breakable in wood and 3/8'' may be too big for such a tiny bore size. I just sent my wood off to get drilled and milled and I have a few days till it gets to Jack's mountain .
There was a lady at the MN state territorials (from MI) who had a poorboy with a similar barrel and it was a lovely handling rifle .Had to make one after that .

I don't mean to hijack the thread but these rifles do create a whole new set of problems.I guess the originals looked lighter than they were.

rsells · « **Reply #21 on:** December 09, 2009, 06:03:17 AM »

I have an original mountain rifle that has a lot of Bean characteristics when you look at the hardware. However, approximately 15 inches has been cut off the breech of the barrel, and it is impossible to know who made the rifle. The barrel is swamped, but I do not have any idea how large it was at the breech end when it was first built. The barrel currently measures .880 at the breech tapering down to .780 at 9.25 inches from the muzzle, and flares out to .900 at the muzzle. It is a relatively small caliber (approx. 38 to 40 cal.). I measured the distance between the thembles and feel that the barrel was originally approximately 45 1/2 in length, so it would be relatively heavy across the breech when it was first built. A piece of wood was replaced down the top of the barrel grove at the breech end, and I can not get a reliable measurement we can use at the breech end of the barrel grove. I have built mountain rifles using straight, straight taper, and swamped barrels. I think the rifles built using A weight 42 and 44 inch look and balance out better when shooting. They seem to have a balance point approximately 12 inches out the barrel, and the last straight taper barrel I used (42 inches long) had a balance point 1 1/2 to 2 inches further out the barrel when the rifle was completed. The last mountain rifle I built was a 3/4 across the flats 44 inch long .29 cal. and it was slightly nose heavy. However, it held very well when shooting free hand. Good luck on you build. Mountain rifles will grow on you if you spend time looking at them in detail.
Roger Sells

News:

Author Topic: Mountain Rifle Barrel Choice (Read 10806 times)

Sean

eagle24

northmn