Things I have assumed were wrong

[WKevinD]

I just examining a collection of long fowlers and club butts and a few items stood out that I have made poor assumptions about in the past.
Most of the fowlers had barrels that were 58"-60", 4- .62-.66 caliber 2-.70-.78 caliber as expected.
Most had original ramrods, the part that surprised me was that they all had such drastic tapers. 1/2" was the average tip diameter at the muzzle end but 3/16" was the general diameter at the end, some had a small worm but all were so thin that I questioned what type of loads they were used with. I can not see a tight wad/ patched ball with these slim rods.
The other surprise was average LOP. !2 1/2" - 13 1/2". With the barrel lengths I expected something else I guess. Most requests for LOP on reproductions have been longer and I have been assuming that was correct.
Thoughts?

Kevin

[Roger B]

People were a lot smaller in the previous centuries. Even looking at American WW2 uniforms in museums shows that we're smaller as a species in the early 20th Century. Smaller shooters, smaller LOPs.
Roger B.

[rich pierce]

Regarding the ramrods being thin, I think they were really fowling guns. So they just needed to seat wads. Any pressed into service for round ball use probably got iron ramrods. But today most folks wanting a fowler are thinking of plunking gongs or deer with a round ball. So they want their ramrod to be a minimum of 3/8” on the short end.

[Snowmoon]

Regarding the ramrods being thin, I think they were really fowling guns. So they just needed to seat wads. Any pressed into service for round ball use probably got iron ramrods. But today most folks wanting a fowler are thinking of plunking gongs or deer with a round ball. So they want their ramrod to be a minimum of 3/8” on the short end.

Plus from what Mike Beliveau has found in his research, round ball shooting would simply entail tapping down a wad over the undersized ball and powder. Just as easy as loading shot (in fact, easier, since you don't have to use an over-powder wad).

[James Rogers]

Patched balls in smooth guns seems to be a modern thing adopted by bp rifle shooters who jumped on the smoothbore fads as they came along.
The period mindset of a patch was to go into rifled grooves to impart spin. These were shotguns and whenever a fowler used a piece such as these with a single ball projectile, he generally used wadding instead of a patch.
Some that were transformed for purpose of war usually were cut back for the bayonet, possibly were equipped with an iron rod but still used paper cartridges or wads. 

[JTR]

From what I've seen, original ramrods are pretty rare.
But of the ones I've seen, yes, they taper down pretty thin.
John

[James Rogers]

From what I've seen, original ramrods are pretty rare.
But of the ones I've seen, yes, they taper down pretty thin.
John

I agree.  The pipes usually tell the tale though.

[Seth Isaacson]

People were a lot smaller in the previous centuries. Even looking at American WW2 uniforms in museums shows that we're smaller as a species in the early 20th Century. Smaller shooters, smaller LOPs.
Roger B.

The average American man's height has not changed as much as people often think according to the data I've seen: 5' 7" around the Civil War,  5′8″ in WWII, and 5' 9" today. Average weight certainly has change more: 135 in the mid-19th century, 145 in WWII, and 200 now. I haven't found the length of pulls on antique muzzle loading sporting guns to be shorter than today on average. I've measure a fair number of English and European sporting guns from the 18th and early 19th centuries, and most have been around 13 3/4 to 14 1/2 inches unless clearly made for a child or women. Military muskets and rifle-muskets seem to be more around 13 1/2. American long rifles and half-stocks though are all over the place it seems in terms of length of pull.