• 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

Why were barrels swamped?

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

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

kanati

36 Cal.
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
89
Reaction score
0
This has probably been covered ad nausea here, but why did the original smiths make barrels in the swamped shape?

Thanks, Ron
 
I dunno, save weight maybe? :idunno:

Go to Track and look at the barrels, look at the weights of the same length straight barrels, then look at the the same length swamped bqrrel weights.
 
Swamped barrels are also known as tapered and flared. I figure that tapering gave the maker a chance to have a heavy breech without having the gun too heavy. A tapered barrel may have accomplished the same goal, but may have left the barrel with a need for a tall front sight. The flare at the muzzle may have been to avoid the tall front blade.

A swamped barrel has a great appearance too - very nice graceful lines. Handle one, and you'll notice they have a great feel as well.

Wallace Gusler, (Col. Williamsburg), talked about it as a matter of style in the film "The Gunsmith of Williamsburg".

Regards,
Pletch
 
The Verner I just built has a 44 inch swamped B Green mountain, the whole gun weighs just a little over 8 pounds. I've always wondered why they swamped barrels. Weight is a good suggestion. Then heard it was a carry over from the blunderbuss. Then I heard they made the end larger because that is where the boom is actually seen. then recently someone theorized that it may be the result of reworking the barrel, tightening up the bore. I've heard all kinds of theories on it.

-Ron
 
Balance...

Pick up a straight one inch .45 and then a swamped .45, both in 42 inch barrels...The difference is unreal...When you put most of the weight between your hands the gun comes up and holds steady...Without the swamp they are extremely muzzle heavy...
 
I don't know the why but I can tell you the result. A swamped barrel has to be mounted and handled to fully appreciate it. Once you try a swamped, you'll never go back to straight. Okay, straight barrels and muzzle heaviness do make great off hand and target rifles. But for hunting, trekking or just toting in the woods they can't be beat. The balance is really shifted back toward the hands.
 
I have a straight barreled gun in 45 that is 13/16 across the flats and a 32 cal swamped barreled gun. Both are 42 inches and although the 32 is a little heavier it feels better to carry points better and just has a generally feels like it is better balanced.
 
It looks like good engineering, putting the strength where you need it and avoiding the weight penalty of some extra metal. Check out the contours on early cannons. Heavy rear end for the intial high pressure and thickening at the muzzle to prevent splits. Some length on the front end heavy section would have been preferable so as to allow future trim back (to have good rifling at the muzzle again).
 
For all the previous reasons listed. Plus the fact that a curves line is much easier to produce when doing it by hand draw filing.
 
kanati said:
...why did the original smiths make barrels in the swamped shape?

All the reasons mentioned above...

* better balance
* less weight for a long barrel
* strength where needed (1 1/4" breech, 1 1/8 muzzle). Imagine the weight of a 44" long 1 1/4" thick barrel.
* cosmetic - just looks very nice.

Finnwolf
 
I always heard the first swamped barrel was an accident (poor workmanship) when trying to makle a tapered barrel and when challenged the maker made great claims that it was done on purpose and came up with all of the claims of betterment. ???
 
Having watched the boys from Williamsburg year after year at Dixon's gunmaker's faire weld an iron skelp into a round tube, I really think that the barrels turned out that way from the welding process. They just went with the flow when hammering the flats and left them that way. JMHO, nothing more, I have no way to verify this idea.
Having handled tapered barreled gonnes, no flare on the front end, I don't like the way they do not hold steady. The flare on the front, I believe, after two decades of shooting swamped barrels, holds on target better than a simple taper. A little more weight out there, but not the weight of a straight barrel. Again, JMHO.
volatpluvia
 
I heard Daniel Boone didn't swab between shots and got his rammin rod stuck in the bore. He pulled so hard that he stretched the barrel out in the middle and there afters everyone wanted one that way jus like Daniels. Least ways that's how it was a told ta me.
 
I agree with the less weight theory as mentioned by most. Another aspect is the manner in which BP burns. It burns so fast it is an explosive perhaps beefiness in the middle of a BP barrel is not required due to such a short pressure curve.
 
40 Flint said:
I always heard the first swamped barrel was an accident (poor workmanship) when trying to makle a tapered barrel and when challenged the maker made great claims that it was done on purpose and came up with all of the claims of betterment. ???

If that had been the case, then I expect that we would have some examples of straight tapered barrels from the 1700's and we don't. We don't find examples of non-swamped barrels until the first barrel making machines made it on the scene in the 1800's. If you've ever handled a longrifle with a swamped barrel, you'll never want anything else.

twisted_1in66 :thumbsup:
 
Walks with fire said:
I heard Daniel Boone didn't swab between shots and got his rammin rod stuck in the bore. He pulled so hard that he stretched the barrel out in the middle and there afters everyone wanted one that way jus like Daniels. Least ways that's how it was a told ta me.

Now that's funny. I can just see that that barrel a stretchin' now! :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:

Twisted_1in66
 
Swamped barrels reduce the glare and heat shimmer from the barrel with the very low mounted sights that were in use at the time, in effect making the sights taller without actually using taller sights. It also is easier to hand grind and file a slight curve than to make something perfectly straight where the slightest deviation will stand out. It also just gives the rifle a more aesthetically pleasing appearance in addition to all of the practical reasons of strength and balance.
I'm sure Dan Boone did have something to do with it, I saw the TV episode in which he invented the Kentucky rifle. :grin:
 
kanati said:
This has probably been covered ad nausea here, but why did the original smiths make barrels in the swamped shape?

Thanks, Ron


It allows a heavy enough breech to withstand the pressure, a problem back in the day, and still have a rifle light enough to carry and shoot. The flare at the muzzle allowed the front sight to be lower. The forge welding process made swamps relatively easy to do.
With the advent of better powder, the percussion system and things such as picket bullets in the 19th century the barrels got heavier. Its one line of thought anyway.
With the industrial revolution the manufacturing process changed as well. From welded iron to bored steel barrels. This made swamps less practical.
Dan
 
devildog66 said:
I agree with the less weight theory as mentioned by most. Another aspect is the manner in which BP burns. It burns so fast it is an explosive perhaps beefiness in the middle of a BP barrel is not required due to such a short pressure curve.

BP has characteristics of both fast and slow burning powders and has a fairly long pressure curve.
You must be careful with the term explosive.
BP is only categorized as an explosive due to its ease of ignition.
BP does not "explode" it burns. If confined it can generate a lot of pressure but compared to modern explosives its pretty anemic. Its burn rate is about 800 meters per second tops. It cannot detonate. Can it produce an explosion? Sure. It has been used for blasting etc for a very long time when properly contained. But it still only burns. Modern smokeless are also formulated to burn. This is what separates them from explosives like nitro-gycerine/nitro-cellulose which is what smokeless powder is made from.

Guncotton is a high explosive with a detonation rate ovder 2000 mps IIRC. TNT and more modern high explosives can have detonation speeds of 5000 to 9000 meters per second. They require no confinement.
But the modern explosives will only burn if ignited by flame. But use a blasting cap to initiate and it will detonate.

Dan
 
Back
Top