smooth rifles - why?

[mattybock]

I can see the purpose of a rifle, and a smoothbore musket, but why would someone go out of their way to make a smooth rifle? What purpose could it serve?

Seems I could just use a musket, with it's greater bore and wollup power, and be just as well off.

 

[silly goose]

I have a .62 smooth rifle to take care of my muzzleloading chores from rabbits to whitetails. A long shot at deer for me is 50 yards, most half that or less. When I am back up to speed it should work just fine. And its beautiful.

 

[sb 54 cal.]

I converted a lyman deer stalker to a 54 cal. smooth rifle with a 32 inch rice barrel for turkey and deer but found it great for tree rats and want to try it on rabbits. Like be able to switch from ball to shot when I need to. Pappy

 

[Dphar]

I can see the purpose of a rifle, and a smoothbore musket, but why would someone go out of their way to make a smooth rifle? What purpose could it serve?

Seems I could just use a musket, with it's greater bore and wollup power, and be just as well off.

A friend and I have puzzled over this quite a lot.
Many were rifled originally and then bored for shot at a later date. Either because some were worn large enough that they were not practical for the game in their locale or because the owner's eyesight failed.
Also some might have wanted the look of a rifle but did not want to pay for the rifling and did not use a gun for anything but show.
In any event they were inferior to the rifle for ball and the fowler for shot in actual use. So as the game got smaller and the possibility of use in war was eliminated in the east the rifle bores got smaller 28-36 caliber. 50 grains of lead from a rifle will kill small game at a greater distance than a smoothbore would shooting 7-10 times as much lead and the powder to drive it.

HOWEVER, it is impossible, at this date, to get inside peoples heads from 1780 to know why someone had a smoothrifle, how they used them, etc etc. Its lost to time.
The western natives of the 1830s would not buy smoothrifles. The traders stated that they would not carry a SB of that weight when they could get the trade guns.

Dan

 

[hanshi]

Very often "Smoothrifles" are more accurate than the run of the mill smoothbore. It is simply a rifle with a smooth bored barrel and normally looks nothing like a fowler. They also handle like a rifle. They fire ball very well and handle shot well enough for small game.

In past times smoothrifles tended to be smaller caliber than most fowlers. One guy who has a collection of original smoothrifles has them from about .40 to .54 primarily. The larger gauges were usually the fowlers.

 

[cynthialee]

I bet they liked their smooth rifles for the same reason I like a .410
Versatile to some degree and all you need for small game up close. Also there is some bragging rights when you can consistantly nail your game with such a gun.

Anouther thing dawns on me as I type this...
They were useless as military weapons. Not much worry that your gun will be comandeared into service when it is not up to the task?

 

[Dphar]

Very often "Smoothrifles" are more accurate than the run of the mill smoothbore. It is simply a rifle with a smooth bored barrel and normally looks nothing like a fowler. They also handle like a rifle. They fire ball very well and handle shot well enough for small game.

In past times smoothrifles tended to be smaller caliber than most fowlers. One guy who has a collection of original smoothrifles has them from about .40 to .54 primarily. The larger gauges were usually the fowlers.

"Very well" would be relative to a musket or maybe a fowling piece. Relative to a rifle they don't shoot all that great.

Dan

 

[jdkerstetter]

...They were useless as military weapons. Not much worry that your gun will be comandeared into service when it is not up to the task?

In the same era as the flintlock smoothrifle a rifled military issue arm was the exception rather than the rule. Enjoy, J.D.

 

[Coot]

As mentioned, a lot about the smooth rifle is speculation but since it is sometimes interesting to do so, I will:

It seems to me that the smooth rifle is most likely to be found in the hands of a person who only owns one gun - otherwise, having both a fowler and a rifle would give you much better performance options for a given use.
If you primarily shoot shot & only infrequently round ball, a fowler would do better (even if using a lot of lead for the large ball) but if you shoot a lot of ball at close range (say deer or hog in a brushy area) & use shot on mostly small relatively stationary targets, then a small caliber smooth bore would be fine.
If the large game in your area has mostly been hunted out & your eyes are getting old & tired, then reaming out the old rifle into a smooth bore makes sense - particularly if you like the gun and a new fowler was either too pricey or you were down to hunting infrequently.
Since I can afford to have both a rifle and a fowler, the smooth rifle offers little to me - if I could only have one gun, I would choose the fowler.

 

[Billnpatti]

Originally, guns were smoothbore simply because the value of rifling was not known. After the value of rifling was discovered, it was not always wanted because it was more prone to fouling and slower to load. Later, as our country was being settled, the smoothbore was more desired than a rifled bore because a smoothbore could be loaded with a ball to kill deer or protect against maurauding Indians or it could be loaded with shot for small game or birds. It was just more versitile than a rifle. Today, smoothbores are chosen, by most people who choose them, for their added challenge or because they are used for shot.

 

[Dphar]

Originally, guns were smoothbore simply because the value of rifling was not known. After the value of rifling was discovered, it was not always wanted because it was more prone to fouling and slower to load. Later, as our country was being settled, the smoothbore was more desired than a rifled bore because a smoothbore could be loaded with a ball to kill deer or protect against maurauding Indians or it could be loaded with shot for small game or birds. It was just more versitile than a rifle. Today, smoothbores are chosen, by most people who choose them, for their added challenge or because they are used for shot.

Rifles were common in NY by the 1680s.
The versatility of the smoothbore is grossly overrated unless the owner is a poor shot with a rifle. Other than shooting at flying birds a small bore rifle 32-45 cal will bring home more food on less powder an lead than the smoothbore will. This was pointed out as early as the 1750s-60s.
So the average pig farmer type might be best served with the smoothbore if he is a poor shot. A good shot is better served with the rifle.
Reenactor types like to quote all the smoothbores in evidence in old estate inventories and such. But they ignore the MILITIA REQUIREMENT. A person with no other use for a firearm still had to have one. So they bought what would meet the militia requirement. Even the rifle owner might have a militia gun. The rifle might not even appear in the inventory if the owner gave it to some grandson or other family member in his old age.
Loading speed is greatly overrated as well. If fighting at close range and one antagonist misses he better forget loading and get ready to go hand to hand or run really fast. How long does it take a fast runner with a tomahawk cover 40-50 yards vs time to load a SB or a rifle.
If we read history we read accounts of the primary recreation on the frontier being rifle matches fired from a rest, smoothbores are not competitive. We read of people being laughed at when they get off a boat on the Ohio with fowling pieces circa 1790. We have a man captured in 1790 stating;

"Nothing better". Means they were apparently not held in high regard.
The long hunters used rifles for a reason.

But again trying to get into someones head from 200 years ago or more to understand what he thought or did is impossible. Then as now some people used smoothbores for whatever reason.
But IMO the smoothbore is far LESS versatile than the rifle. With no choke they were not equal to modern shotguns with small shot (modern ML shooters typically have them jug choked to address this deficiency) and very inferior to the rifle with a ball.

Dan

 

[cynthialee]

then my next thought goes to inhome defense?
Don't really need to be an acurate shot when the range is point blank. Also if you miss the guy you are shooting at the smaller projectile will damage less property.
But a pair of pistols would work better than a smooth rifle...But a pistol has less range and shooting across the property might be needed.

Slaughter of livestock?
Would work rather well for shooting into a pen or coral at relatively close and unsuspecting critters.

It was the 'Sears cheep rifle' of its day?

Now my brain is on overdrive trying to puzzle this out.

 

[Many Klatch]

For folks that shoot competition the smoothrifle is a way to get a leg up on shooters in smoothbore competition. The smaller caliber, .54/28 gauge, and the heavier barrel is somewhat more accurate than a traditionally styled shotgun/roundball gun of 20 gauge or larger. And if no one says anything about the rear sight they really do get an advantage.

There was a dig at old Fort Michelemackinac (SP) where they measured all of the round ball, that were found. The majority were in the sub-.54 caliber size. Very few .66 or larger ball were found. So there is some rational behind the smaller calibers, but they could have been used in rifles.

So, IMHO the smoothrifle is a modern adaptation of a traditional styled gun. :stir: That may or may not have existed in some numbers.

Many Klatch

 

[silly goose]

Dan, I think you are usually right in there with the information you provide, but to suggest that one would own a smooth rifle because he is a poor shot with a rifle, you surprise me with that.

By regulation, some things like turkeys may only be hunted with shot. How cool to take whitetail in December, rabbits through the winter, and turkeys in the spring with the same gun.

 

[matt denison]

Shumway's "Rifles in Colonial America" is chock full of smooth rifles, originals. They are not a modern thing.

IMPE (in my personal experience) a smooth bored rifle-gun can shoot darn near as good as a rifled gun to 50 yards or so. Rifling isn't so important for PRACTICAL USE within its limitations. Maybe not a tack driver but plenty good enough to take game and less expensive to create, buy, and own for a Colonial of the time. And, I might add, would be easier to load and clean. Mattybock was looking for advantages, there are a few.

 

[Lonegun1894]

From a period perspective, I think the majority have covered it well. The one advantage I can think of for period use would be the many comments I have read here and elsewhere about barrels getting refreshed every so often as needed, but can see how reaming the rifling out of it would be cheaper than having it rebored and then re-rifled. So I can see this being a financial decision. I know I have settled for a cheaper but adequate tool over the better but more expensive one I really wanted several times over the years, so it makes sense to me from this angle also.

As to for modern use, and the way I use my .54 GPR FL smoothrifle, it is partly a matter of versatility and partly of regulation. Most of my hunting is inside of 50yds not because the area I hunt in is very thick, but because I also bow hunt, and actually practice getting in close, so the smoothbore is not a handicap for probably 90% of my hunting with PRB. Then I get to use the same gun for small game and turkey with shot, and the .54 is much more capable there than I ever thought possible before I actually tried it. Most of my shot use is rabbits, squirrels, turkey heads, and other various stationary targets, for which the rifle architecture is better than a standard shotgun would me, at least for me. Now if I was to ever take this gun dove hunting, I am sure this would change my opinion, but for the way I use it, it's tough to beat. Now on to the regulation part of things, at least in my neck of the woods. this part has NO bearing as to historical use whatsoever as these regulations weren't imposed on anyone on the frontier so take this for what it's worth, just dont confuse it with historical matters. Since losing my deer lease a few years ago, I have been mostly hunting Corps or Engineers property, and the majority of them in Texas allow only archery and shotguns. Seeing as my shoothrifle is within their definition of a shotgun, but my rifle will get me fined and banned, I will use the smoothrifle. Now if I could use rifles, I would, as I have always preffered a rifle over a shotgun (modern or ML) with the exception of very limited circumstances, so I'm not saying go sell your rifles by any means, but the smoothbore does have advantages in some places and times. Like has been said above, you do give up some range, but when your groups are 2-3" or less at 50 yds, and you're hunting deer in an area that limits your shots to about 50 yds in the brush around here anyway, the 2-3" groups aren't a disadvantage as opposed to the 1-1.5" groups I get mith my rifle at that range when the vitals on a deer are the target. Now there are places that I get to hunt maybe once or twice a year that I take my .54 rifle to that would allow a 3-400yd shot, but I limit myself to about 100yds or just over with my rifled .54 GPR anyway, and still hunt the areas of that place that allow me to get closer than 100yds if I use the terrain and vegetation to my advantage.

As to the comments made by Dan regarding a rifle always having an advantage, considering your other posts about the areas he hunts, I understand completely, but not all of us hunt those places using those methods, so will have to disagree. Some tasks, nothing but a rifle will work for. I trust mine out to 60yds, but will not take a shot beyond that with my shootbore .54, but am confident in my .50 or .54 rifles out to slightly over 100. Hunting with that smoothrifle has forced me to pass on some shots that I KNOW I can easily make with a rifle, but wasn't allowed to use one so my options were hunt with a smoothbore or stay home. I used to use a .50 rifle for everything back when it was all I had, and it worked well and kept me fed, but this smoothbore would have done just as well, and that was hunting in an area that had shots presenting themslves at anything between 10ft and 300yds, with a lot of brushy areas seperating several hundred yards or more of open desert between patches, so I understand the need for close and long range capability.

If you're asking this and considering making or buying a smoothrifle, I say got for it. There are examples of smoothbores with and without rear sights through out history, and many have been posted here over the years, so the idea, while not something that everyone had, is also not at all out of line, depending on when and where you are, or what you are trying to accomplish. Just realize that all our guns have some advantages and some disadvantages. Your needs and method of use dictate weather the rifle, or smoothrifle, or fowler, or whatever else you can think of is the proper tool or not.

 

[Dphar]

Dan, I think you are usually right in there with the information you provide, but to suggest that one would own a smooth rifle because he is a poor shot with a rifle, you surprise me with that.

By regulation, some things like turkeys may only be hunted with shot. How cool to take whitetail in December, rabbits through the winter, and turkeys in the spring with the same gun.

I wish someone would tell me how a smoothbore shooting a ball is better than a rifle shooting a ball. I have yet to figure that out and I have used both over the years.
Why would a good shot shoot a smoothbore with solid shot unless forced to it by some circumstance? It makes no sense. It turns the good shot into a mediocre shot due to limitations of the firearm. In our time it also gives the mediocre shot an automatic excuse.
Turkey, deer, rabbit? I can do any of that, and have other than the turkey, with the same rifle. A rabbit head shot with a 50 cal rifle looks no different than one shot with 32 caliber rifle unless the 32 is loaded very light. Yeah done both.
I used to kill various fool hens with a FL pistol till that, sadly, became illegal in MT.

(This pistol killed a cow elk and an antelope BTW. The elk was killed after a long chase by a friend after a guy he was guiding shot off a front leg and I killed an antelope with it that had its lower jaw broken by a bullet.)
I have also used 45 colt and 44 mag (head shots)on grouse. The 45 Colt and the 50 cal FL shown in the photo will work for body shots. I used to use head shots with the longer barreled 54.


You are thinking 20th C. and game laws that, as you say, prevent using a rifle on turkeys. This does not magically elevate the smoothbore's usefulness. It simply MANDATES ITS USE. If the law required you to run them down and stab them with a pointed stick would this make the stick better than a firearm?? Back in the day they would shoot roosting birds from the trees. Or build turkey traps and take many at one time with NO expenditure of powder and lead. They could feed them and eat them as needed.Modern laws/thinking has NOTHING to do with the 18th/19th c.
I can hunt fall turkey with a rifle in MT but have not gotten around to it. Most like to hang out on private land. I found 10-12 on the Nat Forest a couple of weeks ago, maybe 400 yards inside the line where there is no general season. And the general season area is shielded by private land. How do they know?

If you could overcome the elitist shotgunner mentality you could probably get a rifle season where YOU live at least for MLs.
I have no idea where this idea that the rifle can only be used for some things comes from. Its not historical by any means. The rifle is a WONDERFULLY versatile general purpose hunting/defense tool. The versatility of the smoothbore is a modern construct due to arbitrary game laws or modern fallacies about ACTUAL use of firearms.
When we lived in Iowa I or Dad shot most of the pheasants we ate out a pickup window with a .22 pistol. This is good for 150 yards on a pheasant. If the shooter is up to it. Might take 3-4 shots at that distance but the pheasants usually don't figure it out till one is shot, then its pheasant and noodles. As a friend used to say about wing shooting game birds; "They can FLY?!". A bird shot on the ground with a pistol or rifle tastes as good as one shot flying and there is no shot to break a tooth on.

The smoothbore has two things it will do better than a rifle. Flock shooting birds on the ground or water and shooting at flying birds. Oh yeah one other thing; standing in ranks and letting other people shoot at you with their SB while you try to shoot your 3 rounds a minute at them then charge with your now empty/unloadable pointed stick when ordered to.


A 50 caliber rifle or smooth rifle is not much good for any of this, for the last it has no bayonet.
We have accounts of "bear pistols" long barreled (12" or so), small bore ML pistols used to dispatch black bear brought to bay with dogs in the SE. One in particular I have seen described was used to kill something in the 100s of bear and is around 40 caliber. 40 Cal. Yeah, thats right.

Then we have the powder and lead situation on the frontier. Near as I can tell nobody except maybe some (1-2) British military units in Kentucky during the Rev-War used a musket. The Blue Licks battle dig shows no musket balls. They used too much powder and lead. Unless you have pack horses or wagons its impossible to carry an adequate supply of ammo. Its too damned heavy. JJ Henry enroute to Quebec with Arnold had 70 balls and a pound on powder in his pouch and horn. Of course the balls were 45-50 to the pound not 15-16 or 13 perhaps for a musket. Check the weight of 70 45 to the pound rifle balls vs 70 musket balls using 120+ gr of powder to fire them. A person can carry another heavy blanket for what the ammo weighs or travel lighter and be less tired.
If you have a limited supply of lead and powder are you going to cut it up for cut shot and use an ounce to kill something that will feed 2-3 people or less or cast it into a ball weighing 1/3 this much that will kill your enemy at 150-300 yards and kill any game you find in the forest? Deer, buffalo etc?
People need to think this through from the 18th c. side and forget modern laws and ideas that do not apply.
Finally there was no choke in the FL era and very seldom were shotguns choked before the breechloader. So for those of you with your jug choked FL fowlers? Your comments on it usefulness are invalid in the historical context. You are using something that did not exist at the time. Its like pulling a Connestoga wagon with a Farmall H and thinking you are recreating some trip made in 1780 or 1840.

Dan

 

[Dphar]

Freshing did not require reaming and rerifling. Sheilds "cut out" Clark's 100 to the pound rifle during the return trip of the Lewis and Clark Expedition.
Remove the breech plug. Cast a lead slug in the bore on a rod and pull it out when solidified, set in a steel cutter of the proper width to deepen the grooves, shim with paper as needed. When the grooves are cleaned and even depth put in a cutter to match the lands and cut them to clean and uniform bore size. Maybe lap it some to smooth the bore if you have an abrasive than rebreech and install the barrel and test fire.
Increases the bore 1-2 calibers.
No reamer or rifling guide needed. Just some lead, a file to make the cutter from and a rod.
Much easier than boring one smooth for shot.
Dan

 

[silly goose]

I guess maybe I just like them(moreso now) because they bother some people just because they exist. :blah: Carry on.

 

[Robby]

There are many pictures of what we call 'smooth rifles', beautifully done and original. How and why they got that way is, like Dan said, is lost to history. Though I have some vague recollection of someone posting an original gunsmith advertisement that offered guns smooth bored and rifled at an extra charge.
I am fortunate in that if I have an itch for a smooth rifle, I can make one, an do have a Bucks county smooth rifle in the pipeline. But, if the hand of fate tapped me on the shoulder and whispered in my ear, From now on you can have only one gun, it would be a smooth rifle in .58 caliber. I know from experience that with a lot of patience and range time, a very accurate and consistent 80 yard gun can be made from a smooth bore, having the option of running shot through it for small game would be a big plus. A good and disciplined hunter will always stay within the limitations of himself and the equipment he is using. Now that is for hunting here in the northeast. If I was out west, my decision might be entirely different.
Robby