Most common caliber?

Back in the late 1700's and through the 1800's. What do you suppose was the most common caliber of muzzleloader used by pioneers, settlers, mountain men? Years ago I seem to remember someone telling me that the smaller calibers(32,36,41 etc...) were more prominent than the .50,.54,.68 etc... I am FAR from being and expert. Your input is appreciated.

It's highly regional. As folks moved out west, the calibers grew. Might have something to do with the early account by Lewis and Clark of their guys running lots and climbing lots of trees after shooting bears with their 54 calibers. A 54 cal must have sounded likean elephant gun to guys stuck with deer at close range in the eastern woods, but when they moved west they mostly left their pea shooters back home.

BrownBear said:

It's highly regional. As folks moved out west, the calibers grew. Might have something to do with the early account by Lewis and Clark of their guys running lots and climbing lots of trees after shooting bears with their 54 calibers. A 54 cal must have sounded likean elephant gun to guys stuck with deer at close range in the eastern woods, but when they moved west they mostly left their pea shooters back home.

Click to expand...

Interesting historical question. There were elk, black bears and bison east of the big muddy. Substantial calibers would be called for to bag those. I believe the rifles that remain from those days will tell the story. Local museums would be a good starting place to get the answer.

Rifleman1776 said:

There were elk, black bears and bison east of the big muddy. Substantial calibers would be called for to bag those.

Click to expand...

Wm. Blane, speaking of Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky in 1822-23:

"The usual size of the balls for shooting squirrels and wild turkeys, is from 100 [36 cal.] to 150 [31.4 cal.] to the pound. For deer and bear, the size varies from 60 [42.7 cal.] to 80 [38.8 cal.], and for larger animals, as the buffalo and elk, from 50 [45.4 cal.] to 60 [42.7 cal.]; though a rifle carrying a ball of a larger size than 60 to the pound, is very seldom made use of. For general use, and for shooting at a mark, the favorite size is from 60 to 80."

150 = .315, 46.7 gr.
100 = .36, 70 gr.
80 = .388, 87.5 gr.
60 = .427, 116.7 gr.
50 = .454, 140 gr.

Spance

I believe that it is a matter of both when and where. As a very general rule, it is my understanding that in the early - mid 18th c, many rifles were in the .36-.50 range but later as the frontier (and attendant large game and Indians) was pushed west, the eastern guns went smaller in caliber - perhaps .30 - .45 and as the plains & Rockies opened up, guns intended for use in those areas went up in caliber to say .45-.54. There is no hard & fast rule & there is a question on whether an original gun is still in it's original caliber or has it been freshened to a larger caliber. As a side note,I live about 20 miles west of Richmond, VA, and my rear property line is Buffalo Creek. Of course the local buffalo were long gone by the time settlements were going up west of the Appalachians.

I have a pamphlet on the excavation of Ft. Michilimackinac in Michigan (occupied 1715 to 1783). Of all the lead balls excavated the .530" was either the first or second most common.

Struck me at the time as that was what I like.

I'll have to see if I can dig that report out. I think I squirreled it away somewhere.

An officer during the AWI wrote home describing American rifles. He said that their bores were 7/16, or at least he never saw one bigger.

If you do an average of the rifles in RCA I and II, it comes up to the lower 50's (caliber, not gauge). This little research project was done by someone I knew who has since passed.

I don't recall the exact average he came up with but definitely the lower .50's.

I think it is time for more visits to some gun museums. G.M.Davis is my favorite. Ralph Foster is next but hard to do research there. From my fading memory, and others I have seen owned by private collectors, I seem to recall most were tiny calibers. e.g. .32 to .40. The barrels were very heavy compared to todays longrifle recreations and, always a puzzlement to me, the sights were impossibly tiny.

Is that an average, or a median number?

The tiny sight thing carried even into some 20th c. guns. Without detailed knowledge of how the human eye & brain work, I believe that the tiny (low thin front blade & rear with a tiny "V") were used based on the assumption that aligning them made for a more precise aim than that using a wider front blade & wider, deeper "U" in the rear. The idea seemed to be "how could you get a precise aim with a big fat sight & wide barn door notch in the rear" vs the "threading a needle" approach of tiny sights.

Col, that was an average. I have both volumes and maybe I'll repeat his research on some stormy day. We are bound to get at least one blizzard before the hummingbirds come back. :haha:

The RCA volumes do look at the earlier rifles mostly pre 19th century. I think a lot of rifles were built in much smaller calibers for the eastern part of the country getting into the 19th century.

I'm no historian though. when it comes to the history of the longrifle it's good to keep an open mind.

A couple problems with averaging out published calibers is that 1) they may have been freshed out and enlarged a great deal over their working lives, even to the point were they were no longer useful 2) they may have been bored out and re-rifled to a larger caliber in the early 20th century back when everyone shot originals and 3) published data is often incorrect. When there is an error the gun tends to be a little smaller caliber, not larger, in my experience, though I'm sure there are exceptions.

A better approach is to find originals that have survived in very good condition and compare them with written documentation. In the case of Revolutionary War and slightly later, that means rifles that were taken to England as trophies and the writings of Joseph Doddridge, George Hanger, and Isaac Weld. Naturally they are all contradictory, but together they do suggest an average caliber of .48-.50 rather than the .53-.55 that a simple average of RCA's data would give us.

Can't speak to other eras.

All good points. All could be argued but not by me. Like I said, I'm no historian.

Elnathan said:

A couple problems with averaging out published calibers is that 1) they may have been freshed out and enlarged a great deal over their working lives, even to the point were they were no longer useful 2) they may have been bored out and re-rifled to a larger caliber in the early 20th century back when everyone shot originals and 3) published data is often incorrect. When there is an error the gun tends to be a little smaller caliber, not larger, in my experience, though I'm sure there are exceptions.

A better approach is to find originals that have survived in very good condition and compare them with written documentation. In the case of Revolutionary War and slightly later, that means rifles that were taken to England as trophies and the writings of Joseph Doddridge, George Hanger, and Isaac Weld. Naturally they are all contradictory, but together they do suggest an average caliber of .48-.50 rather than the .53-.55 that a simple average of RCA's data would give us.

Can't speak to other eras.

Click to expand...

How many American rifles were captured or purchased by the British during the AWI and were able to be precisely measured in modern times?

Also, during that period, didn't the number of balls to the pound for a rifle mean what size balls would fit in the bore smoothly without binding? Depending on what they considered the proper "windage" or space between the ball and bore size, that would normally have meant the true bore size was larger than the size ball they used?

Gus

That’s a problem as was confused system of measurement. A gun could be measured in balls per pound, in 100th of an inch or in fractions of an inch.
Then since the ball may be loser then we often shoot today the system is further complicated. A 32 bore or a 9/16 or a .54 might be as small as .52 or as large as .56. And two boys might apply a whole different way then confuse the terms or bounce back and forth as the moods hit them.

Rifles are rifles...

But revolutionary war and prior, a smooth bore was more common than a long arm with a rifled barrel.

Many guns were built with a custom mold for that bore.

Many smooth bores were likely around .68.

I know the colonial militia had issues issuing roundball since many had their own arms. Same goes with confederate army during the Civil war.

The primary purpose of arms back then was to protect the garden from an attack of native herbivores... just as much as from 2 legged critters. Large game was scarce in the colonies by time the golden era of the flintlock came around.

Bravo 4-4 wrote:
..., the most common caliber of muzzleloader used by pioneers, settlers, mountain men...

Click to expand...

BrownBear wrote:
It's highly regional. As folks moved out west, the calibers grew

Click to expand...

It's also highly influenced by time. "Pioneers and settlers" you have the start of the colonies, in the beginning of the 17th century, and the classic Mountain Men era is in the 19th century.

I was taught that for the beginning of the 18th century, up through the F&I so up to about the mid 1760's for rifles, most were .50 -.58. In the 1770's through the AWI the calbiers dropped down as low as .45, but most were in the .50 - .54 range, and post AWI the calibers dropped into the .40 - 50 range...., on into the beginning of the 19th century when some rifles are found into the mid .30 caliber range, so .36 and upward to .45's. When the Corps of Discovery ventured out, so the beginning of the 19th century, the calibers jumped back up (out West) to an average of .54.

So there is time period and also geography.

NOW if you're talking Canada, they favored smooth bores in .58 - .62, and New England and New York were probably very similar.

IF you look at the ledgers from Kaskaskia IL, for George Morgan's hunters in the 1760's, only one of his many hunters is listed as carrying a smooth bore. Alas Morgan doesn't record the bore of the rifles that he sold.

Then you have civilian vs. military arms. Go with civilians, and add region, and again New York and New England you see very large bores, 16 gauge and higher. Otherwise tradeguns (now figure in everything sold or traded to natives) and you get a lot of 24 bore (.58) and 20 bore (.62) guns. In PA you don't figure in military arms since they had no standing militia law, and no provincial arsenals, BUT go South one colony and you get Maryland with more than a thousand muskets, carbines, and short muskets, probably all .75 - .80 caliber (11 - 10 gauge)

In short.... there is no real, mean average for English speaking peoples in North America, from 1609 through 1820.....

Back then it wasn't as it once was in the US in the 1950's through the 1970's where the 12 gauge and the .30-06 were probably the most popular bore sizes. :wink:

LD

The first U.S. Rifles made for the Militia's were the M 1792 and M 1794 rifles. The 1792 contract specified rifles with a 44 1/2 inch barrel in .47 caliber. That was modified to a 42-inch barrel in .49 caliber.and were rather close to civilian rifles of the period being full stocked.

However, the M1803 rifle was Half stocked with a barrel about 33 inches long and .54 caliber. That caliber remained consistent for U.S. Rifles until the M1855 Rifled Musket.

Gus

Coot said:

The tiny sight thing carried even into some 20th c. guns. Without detailed knowledge of how the human eye & brain work, I believe that the tiny (low thin front blade & rear with a tiny "V") were used based on the assumption that aligning them made for a more precise aim than that using a wider front blade & wider, deeper "U" in the rear. The idea seemed to be "how could you get a precise aim with a big fat sight & wide barn door notch in the rear" vs the "threading a needle" approach of tiny sights.

Click to expand...

Yes. I forgot there were optician shops every quarter mile in the forests and mountains, even back then. :wink: :rotf:
Tiny sights still a puzzlement to me.