• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades

When did straight barrels come into use?

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

sooter76

40 Cal.
Joined
Aug 28, 2014
Messages
218
Reaction score
11
Everyone always talks about swamped barrels and it got me thinking, how far back do straight barrels go? Were they found on muzzleloaders in the early and mid-18th Century? Earlier? Later? How common would it have been to find a 1750's Longrifle with a straight barrel or was this unheard of?
 
Eh, 1800 or so.

Yes, I would say that a straight rifle barrel in 1750 (or 1760 or 1770) would be pretty much unheard of. And yes, it does make a HUGE difference. :wink:
 
I'm curious why they became more prevalent in the 19th century. Was it because they were easier to "manufacture"? Most of us that have used both see the value in a swamped barrel, so why change from a well-balanced barrel (I'm not suggesting that all swamped barrels of the time were light or well-balanced) to a less well-balanced barrel?
 
I would think that the straight barrels came about as the bore size got smaller.
 
Yes. The Industrial Revolution made it possible and a LOT easier to form the bore and machine the flats. Before that a barrel was formed by laying a flat plank of iron over a mandrel and pounding it to shape. Then filing the barrel flats and cutting the rifling one groove at a time.

First came water trip-hammers to speed the hammering and then came lathes and milling machines.

Eliphalet Remington was a blacksmith turned gunsmith but decided with water power in 1816ish (died in 1828) he could do very well making rifled barrels for other gunsmiths. But it wasn't until 1845 that Remington Co. changed barrel technology and took a solid steel blank and then made a barrel by drilling out the bore. Up to then (and WAY past) they were still pounded over a mandrel from flat stock or multiple strips welded over the mandrel. When you are pounding and hand filing it's probably easier to work in a swamp than try and get perfectly round or parallel. Lathe turning and machining (and much better steels) made swamping impractical.
 
I've heard many say that the old swamped barrels weren't as swamped as present barrels are. So from what I hear the standard swamped barrel (like today) was uncommon...however! Some will still say that lots of old swamped barrels had to be "miked" in order to prove its swamped.

Okay. IMHO, a swamped barrel that can't be easily discerned by a quick visual check IS, my dear friends, straight. Such an "alleged" swamped barrel would have none of the notable characteristics or balance that a barrel is swamped to provide.

So it must be considered that straight barrels were common well before the Revolution. Just saying. But if I were provided a barrel which I could not easily and instantly see the taper and flare; That sucker is without question, straight.
 
I think it was further back than swamped barrels. Which were luxury items for hunting rifles, really, I believe. I doubt any of the military rifles had swamped barrels, and with all the accouterments associated with military muskets (like barrel rests) weren't all that necessary. So a lot of history of straight barrels, I think. But I may be wrong on this.

I remember seeing a David Brinkley video of a gunsmith at Williamsburg making a rifle from start to finish, including the barrel, which was swamped and rifled by early machines. What impressed me was that the bulk of the barrel beneath the stock wasn't hexed, but was rough and left in the half-round and rather unfinished. No need to finish it in the hex. This was a great video, and I saw it about 20 years ago. The gunsmith used 18th Century tools and built a fine pre-Revolution rifle, lock, stock, and barrel. If you can get a copy of it, watch it.
 
hanshi said:
I've heard many say that the old swamped barrels weren't as swamped as present barrels are. So from what I hear the standard swamped barrel (like today) was uncommon...however! Some will still say that lots of old swamped barrels had to be "miked" in order to prove its swamped.

Okay. IMHO, a swamped barrel that can't be easily discerned by a quick visual check IS, my dear friends, straight. Such an "alleged" swamped barrel would have none of the notable characteristics or balance that a barrel is swamped to provide.

So it must be considered that straight barrels were common well before the Revolution. Just saying. But if I were provided a barrel which I could not easily and instantly see the taper and flare; That sucker is without question, straight.

I have found 18th century gun barrels, particularly of the pre-Revolutionary period, to have much more flare in the breech than modern barrels, and perhaps not quite as much flare in the muzzle.

I don't buy the it's-tapered-and-flared-so-little-you-can't-really-see-it theory. :wink:

You just can't properly shape a Revolutionary or earlier period rifle without a flared breech. Straight barrels are too skinny. I once built a 1770's rifle with a 15/16" straight .54 barrel. Honestly, while it was barely passable at 20 feet, it still wasn't "right". A smaller barrel is simply way too small, and a larger straight barrel is just massively heavy.
 
hanshi said:
IMHO, a swamped barrel that can't be easily discerned by a quick visual check IS, my dear friends, straight. Such an "alleged" swamped barrel would have none of the notable characteristics or balance that a barrel is swamped to provide.
----------
But if I were provided a barrel which I could not easily and instantly see the taper and flare; That sucker is without question, straight.
You wouldn't like this one, then.



I owned it for a long time before I really measured it, why bother, if you've seen one straight barrel you've seen them all, right?. But I was very impressed and puzzled by the balance and handling of the gun because it has a barrel almost 50 inches long. How did they do that? When I did measure it, imagine my surprise---1 1/8" at the breech tapered smoothly to 3/4" at 10 1/2" from the muzzle, then flared back to 7/8" at the muzzle. Could have fooled me, and it did.

This is an original, hammer-forged octagonal. I'm glad it isn't obviously swamped, for two reasons. First, a gun with a swamp/taper-and-flare which jumps out at you is ugly to my eye. Belongs on a blunderbuss, not a longrifle. Second, I think, and this is also just personal opinion, the subtle swamp demonstrates the depth of understanding the old boys had of the way to make a good handling gun and also the appreciation they had for the beauty of them. Both of which we may be in the process of losing. :wink:

Spence
 
In the late 17th century to the early to mid 18th century, short to very short Jaeger Rifle barrels were swamped to make them handier, even though very short barrels may not have needed the swamping as much as the long to very long rifle barrels used in Germany, Switzerland and here in the colonies.

I believe up through the Eighteenth century that long rifle barrels were swamped both for the larger calibers used in much of that century and especially the longer length of the barrels. We sometimes forget that rifle barrels often went from 44-48 inches and some as long as 50 inches, like the one Spence showed above. Swamping the barrels made them lighter and more manageable, especially when swinging on a running target. It would be hard for me to imagine how muzzle heavy and “dead feeling” a straight barrel would be in 44-48 to 50 inches. Of course, the extremely long barrels were at least partially due to the mistaken old myth that black powder burns throughout the length of the barrel. This even though the Royal Society of London proved that was false in the mid 18th century, though that myth surprisingly continues to this day in some quarters.

I have a late 18th/Early 19th century reproduction long rifle with a 39 inch, .45 caliber straight barrel and it is a bit too muzzle heavy for a rifle carried and used all the time, though the added muzzle weight feels good for an offhand target rifle. I shudder to think what it would feel like with a 44 to 48 inch barrel and having to carry it all the time.

Water powered Trip Hammers were used to forge large quantities of barrels by German, British and other Continental Barrel makers from the 17th century onward. For example, the extremely cold winter of 1739-40 in England froze up the streams and rivers in England so badly those water powered trip hammers were “stopped cold” and they had to order huge quantities of “Dutch” Guns and Gun Barrels that year and for the next two years. The quantities were something like 36,000 muskets and 10 or 12 thousand separate barrels in that three year period. This during the “War of Jenkins' Ear” that morphed into the War of the Austrian Succession circa 1739-1748. Of course, there was no market for such large quantities of gun barrels here in the Colonies until the AWI and later, even IF the British would have allowed that large scale of Industry here in the Colonies.

Though much or most barrel shaping and swamping was done while the barrel was forged, both German and British barrel makers used very large to extremely large files known in the period as “Rubbers.” These used to shape or “rough swamp” the barrels before finer files were used. Some Rubbers shown in German Gun Shop engravings are downright huge and were obviously meant to be used by two men. Rubbers even occasionally show up in British Military Artificer’s/Armorer’s lists of tools sent here during the F&I War and AWI, though obviously not intended for swamping rifle barrels. Though I have not been able to document the use of Rubbers by American Gunsmiths, I doubt most people doing the Probate Inventories of Gunsmiths would have known that is what these large files were called. Most Probate Inventories for Gunsmiths only identify some or very few of the tools by name. Other gunsmiths would have known the names of the tools, but not the average person doing a Probate Inventory.

The 19th century saw the trend of barrels getting shorter and thus did not need to be swamped as much. Even so, many of the barrels that looked “straight” were tapered, to ensure they were not as muzzle heavy.

Gus
 
I'm not sure why I wouldn't like that rifle because it is swamped, something I'd notice by running my hand just from the breech to the middle. But those who say you need a micrometer to tell if an original barrel is swamped, well, they're talking about a straight barrel. I will notice a barrel going from 11/8" down to 3/4" in 10" length. But one going from 11/8" at the breech and measuring 1/74" LESS in the middle isn't swamped. An accidental "bump" against a table can cause that.
 
I have an original rifle from Massachusetts ca. 1820. It has a rifled barrel of about .58 caliber and the barrel is more or less straight at about 15/16" (it's a little fatter here, a little skinnier there, bump here, dip there, etc). The surfaces are irregular, but obviously not in an attempt to make it "slightly swamped". For all intents and purposes, it is straight (and muzzle heavy!). To recreate a gun like this, a 15/16" straight barrel would be just the ticket. But not so much for a 1765 Pennsylvania rifle. :wink:
 
hanshi said:
I'm not sure why I wouldn't like that rifle because it is swamped,...
What I meant to say was that you wouldn't notice it, it doesn't jump out at you, even though the swamp is significant. I never see it unless I set out to do so, and even then it's not a gimme. I think most people would think it is a straight taper. Is that true of modern swamped barrels?

Spence
 
It's 49 1/8", but has had about an inch cut off at the breech at some time in its long history. It's not only swamped, but has a hook breech and a coned muzzle. It's 28 ga./.56" smoothbore.

Spence
 
Stophel said:
I have an original rifle from Massachusetts ca. 1820. It has a rifled barrel of about .58 caliber and the barrel is more or less straight at about 15/16" (it's a little fatter here, a little skinnier there, bump here, dip there, etc). The surfaces are irregular, but obviously not in an attempt to make it "slightly swamped". For all intents and purposes, it is straight (and muzzle heavy!). To recreate a gun like this, a 15/16" straight barrel would be just the ticket. But not so much for a 1765 Pennsylvania rifle. :wink:

Interesting that you mention it and I agree completely. I have a reproduction c.1820 Silas Allen New England Rifle with a straight 38" .50 barrel. It too, is quite muzzle heavy. I've shouldered an original Henry Pratt rifle (Boston c.1830) with the typical N.E. tapered (not swamped) barrel; that gun is even more muzzle heavy than mine. J.V. Puleo told me that his original early 19th century N.E. rifles, all with tapered barrels, are muzzle heavy. So, at least regarding the original tapered barrels in New England, you can't really visually notice the taper and it certainly didn't seem to help with balance. In a repro, the straight barrel indeed has a more "period correct" look and feel than the newly made tapered barrels which are much better balanced, and with a taper that's visually discernible.

Smollett
 
Back
Top