barrel lg

Lots of post of late have been about how long a barrle should be.I think about the colt foot rifles that were about 18-24 inchs in barrel.Later jagers at plains style length.Some of penn rifles with 38 inchers.While americas first rifle makers were germans the first customers were english,dutch,indian and lastly french of the southren states.All these folks had been makng guns of 40-50 inchs.I wonder if the 42-46 inch american rifles were spawned mostly by style.So many had been used to long guns before the saw thier fist jager.

For my LRs, the minimum is 44" w/ 46" preferred. These guns are called "longrifles" and irregardless of the "original" reasons for long bbls, I just like how longer bbls look.

Possibly might have gone even longer to 48"-50" bbls, but the extra cost for custom bbls and longer blanks precludes readily selling these LRs on a competitive market.....Fred

There was the belief that a long barrel was needed to fully utilize the black powder allowing all to combust. But, we know differently today. However, for those who want to be purely pc/hc they need a 50" barrel. :stir:

I read somewhere that a stack of beaver pelts as high as the gun was long was the going price. Longer guns = more pelts. Just invent a tale about increased accuracy to keep the natives from feeling ripped off.

"So many had been used to long guns before the saw thier fist jager."

HUH? Jaeger rifles came before long rifles. Scarcity of lead and powder for the large bore Jaegers lead to the desire for a smaller caliber, of something that could garner enough oomph from the powder to still kill the eastern woodland game. As folks moved westward, better powder and the need for large bore guns to be carried on horse back led to the development of shorter large bore guns of stockier proportions.

I'm with Fred with one exception. When you get into the longer barrels ie. 44 and 46 inchers a lot of us folks just aren't tall enough to load and shoot them. At 5'0" tall it would be very hard for me to load them and shoot them. I would have to angle them too much to load them and they would be too front heavy to shoot. I have a 36" southern rifle in progress that will be just right I think, even though I'll have to put it on a slight angle to load it. I believe if you have to much angle while loading it you stand a chance on cracking or breaking it at the wrist. JMHO of course. Btw, they sure do look pretty when they're that long though. Something about that long slim rifle catches the eye. :thumbsup:

Gerard Dueck said:

I read somewhere that a stack of beaver pelts as high as the gun was long was the going price.

Click to expand...

I.I.R.C., initially it was deer hides, i.e. "That gun is worth 200 bucks."

Either way, it means little when pondering why the many longrifles made for sale to white settlers and colonists had long barrels.

Gerard Dueck said:

Longer guns = more pelts. Just invent a tale about increased accuracy to keep the natives from feeling ripped off.

Click to expand...

No need to "invent" a tale, a longer barrel means increased sight radius which directly contributes to better accuracy.

The evolution of the American Longrifle has been kicked around for decades. Fact is, I doubt we will ever know "why" exactly. Campfire fodder is all.

Enjoy, J.D.

armakiller said:

...At 5'0" tall it would be very hard for me to load them and shoot them.

Click to expand...

You just need a shorter horse...or a taller stump. :grin:

Seriously though, you should be able to load a gun at least as tall as you are without tilting it. You shouln't need to see the end of the muzzle to pour in powder or ram the ball home.

.....and they would be too front heavy to shoot.

Click to expand...

The solution to this is a lighter swamped barrel, or better yet an octagon/round barrel. Straight octagon barrels are inherently heavy and don't make nicely balanced long barreled rifles.

You mention a Southern gun. Original Southern mountain guns are notoriously long, barrel heavy, unwieldy guns. In the cases where their barrels were swamped they were barely so.

.....Btw, they sure do look pretty when they're that long though. Something about that long slim rifle catches the eye. :thumbsup:

Click to expand...

It's all about proportion. Given your claimed stature I'm sure your length of pull isn't long either. A scaled down long rifle with a 38" barrel will apear as long as a 44" barreled full sized gun.

Look at some of the original styles that utilized smaller buttstocks, like the Upper Susquehanna or Bedford area guns. They appear longer than they are because of their proportions.

For your next gun try having one built on one of two of Fred Miller's smaller patterns from David Keck at Knob Mountain Muzzleloaders, like the "Old Man's Gun" or one of his smaller Lancaster patterns. Paired with a 38-42" octagon/round rifled barrel they will make a slim longer looking gun....if built right. :wink:

Enjoy, J.D.

Gerard Dueck said:

I read somewhere that a stack of beaver pelts as high as the gun was long was the going price. Longer guns = more pelts. Just invent a tale about increased accuracy to keep the natives from feeling ripped off.

Click to expand...

I've read that also. Dunno if it's true. Good story though. :hmm:

Gerard Dueck said:

I read somewhere that a stack of beaver pelts as high as the gun was long was the going price.

Click to expand...

I've been seeing that claim for a long time, but I believe it has never been documented. I've never run across anything like it. It concerns the mountain man times in the west, I think. Here's an interesting item from much earlier and in the east, the only one I've collected which deals with the price of guns for Indians, and the length of barrel plays no part.

The Pennsylvania Gazette
August 30, 1753
The further Conference between his Excellency JAMES GLEN, Esq; Governor of South Carolina, and Malatchi and other Headmen of the Creek Indians....

“I am now to say something to your Excellency, which I hope you will assent to; the King has spoke what was necessary upon other Heads, and what I am to speak is without Direction of any Head men; it flows chiefly from myself, being a Head Warrior, and the rest of the Head Warriors here present, that is, that the Trade should be lower; we want a Match Coat for 6 lb. Leather, a Gun for 14 lb. which is now 16. 50 Bullets for 1 lb. 2 double Handfuls of Powder for one Skin, 20 Flints for 1 lb. a Check Shirt for 3 lb. now it is 4 Callicoes at the same Rate; a Blanket 6 lb. for two Yards, a Man’s Flap 1 lb. a Hoe 3 lb. a Pair Silver Bobs 1 lb. a Belt 1 lb. 2 Knives for 1 lb. a Pair of Shoes at 3 lb. which used to be 4 lb. a Pair of Scissars 1 lb. a Keg of Rum 25 lb. Leather."

Click to expand...

Since he mostly uses the term leather instead of skins, he may mean brain tanned or what the colonials called "brained" or "Indian dressed" hides.

Notice that "Man's Flap".

Back to your normal program.

Spence

Rifleman1776 said:

Gerard Dueck said:

I read somewhere that a stack of beaver pelts as high as the gun was long was the going price. Longer guns = more pelts. Just invent a tale about increased accuracy to keep the natives from feeling ripped off.

Click to expand...

I've read that also. Dunno if it's true. Good story though. :hmm:

Click to expand...

It has been debunked over and over for years and years. I can't believe anyone is still repeating it. If you really give it some thought you'd realize how dumb it is and anyone who believes it should be embarrassed. It's like an urban legend that is right on the edge of possibly possible so green horns believe it when told by a hivernaut.

long guns,not long rifles,46 inch muskets and 54 inch hudsun bay fowlers were in use before the invention of american rifles

Rifleman1776 said:

Gerard Dueck said:

I read somewhere that a stack of beaver pelts as high as the gun was long was the going price. Longer guns = more pelts. Just invent a tale about increased accuracy to keep the natives from feeling ripped off.

Click to expand...

I've read that also. Dunno if it's true. Good story though. :hmm:

Click to expand...

Beaver came into fashion when rifles had already begun to shrink. In 1763 a beaver pelt was worth 12 shillings. A pound was worth 20 shillings. And a good rifle cost 8 to 10 pounds. (The British Army only paid 2 lbs, 4 shillings per Bess in 1776).

Figure a buyer had a hefty 75% markup and paid only 3 shillings per pelt

Or 66 pelts to the rifle.

But, if you look at the chart on the below website for H.B.T.C., a "gun" only required 14 made beaver. The N.W. Gun was worth much less than a Bess.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/carlos.lewis.furtrade

http://resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/moneyold.htm

About those American long guns, here's what I've read all my life. The American longrifle was born out of a sense of economy. Lead and powder were hard to come by back in the day, so American gun making evolved into designing guns that required less lead and less powder, but still had enough power to kill a deer or human. Now, it's true that a longer barrel will yield more velocity, but not a whole heck of a lot. You're not going to gain 300 feet per second by adding another 8" or 10" to the barrel. But they didn't have any way to measure velocity back then, other than with human senses, so they must have convinced themselves there was enough difference to warrant a longer barrel.

This is the story I've learned over the years, don't know how true it is. Bill

Heard the same stories Bill. My belief is they are speculation, at best. Haven't seen anything from the period that confirms what these 'smiths were considering as the longrifle evolved.

Just for information's sake.....

snowdragon said:

But they didn't have any way to measure velocity back then,......

Click to expand...

The book New Principles on Gunnery was published in England in 1742. In it Benjamin Robins outlined his use of the ballistic pendulum, which was the first device used that allowed accurate measurement of bullet velocity.

Did it influence longrifle developement in the Colonies? I don't know, but the science was there. Enjoy, J.D.

The long rifle was not a new idea that sprang up here, there are early 18th century rifled jaegers with over 40'' barrels.

Sure there were.....but they were far from the norm there. The question is, why did long barrels become the norm here? Enjoy, J.D.

Rex Allen Norman ran the figures in one of his articles. A stack of beaver pelts 5'6" tall (50 inch barrel w/ 14" LOP trade gun) would cost the buyer about $12,000.00 for a 7 dollar gun.

Obviously the advantage was seen probably in accuracy. Why it was seen might be a better question. I think geography must of had something to do with it. Here in new England hunting in the mountains there is little underbrush and you can shoot a lot farther than where I hunted in the Midwest where logging has created brush, shots are
well under a hundred yards. There a short jaeger is just fine but here I'd take a long rifle any day If we could go back to see someone like Andreas Albrecht's first gun or who he apprenticed from and how the land dictated it would sure be a lot easier to narrow it down. It may just be as simple as common knowledge of the time short shots = short barrels. That didn't exist here.

Rifles were a very important part of survival in early America. I think like vehicles today are part of our survival. I think rifles were made and sold for similar reasons. 4x4 trucks in up-state NY sell good not so good in Tennessee, what a person could afford, local styles, looks, and who wants one of those old looking, out dated ones like dad still has? :grin: I did notice today most people still like the look of a loooooooong rifle. Just my thoughts on the topic. :thumbsup: