smooth rifles - why?

[Zonie]

I don't know why folks keep wondering how a smooth rifle is "better" than a rifle but as others have said, it can shoot shot without fouling up the rifling with lead.

This is good for ground shooting birds of all types, shooting rabbits, squirrels and other small eatable animals and a fox or skunk or two.

Out to practical range in heavy woods it can shoot a roundball and take a deer or bear as well as a rifle.
It can also kill a pesky indian outside the campsite or cabin if that is what's needed.

It had to cost less than a rifle if for no other reason than it often took a few days intensive work just to rifle a barrel.

I think the bottom line is a smooth rifle provided a lower cost option that filled the cooking pot, back when filling the cooking pot could literally mean making the difference between life and death.

 

[Drago]

Maybe it was Ford's and Chevy's, not Cadillac's and Kia's?

 

[mattybock]

but why bother to invent one to begin with if muskets are a thing, especially low cost trade muskets?
I can understand the use and usefulness, but why the bother to begin with?
Me thinks that it was invented by a lazy gunsmith who just didn't want to rifle the barrel.

 

[silly goose]

Because you don't seem to have a use for one, does not mean they should not be. There seem to be some folks who like them for what they are, and apparently have for a couple, few hundred years. I cannot understand the negative flavor by some toward the smooth rifle, such as someone who owns one must not be able to afford rifling, they are a poor shot or a gunsmith who would make one must be lazy. Is it not good enough that someone may want one, and that someone might just be a somewhat normal person with no other notable defects or undesirable traits?

 

[sb 54 cal.]

I like mine I can kill anything I want on my Missouri farm with it. Pappy

 

[rich pierce]

Because you don't seem to have a use for one, does not mean they should not be. There seem to be some folks who like them for what they are, and apparently have for a couple, few hundred years. I cannot understand the negative flavor by some toward the smooth rifle, such as someone who owns one must not be able to afford rifling, they are a poor shot or a gunsmith who would make one must be lazy. Is it not good enough that someone may want one, and that someone might just be a somewhat normal person with no other notable defects or undesirable traits?

Though we're in a different era, the muzzleloading sport was kept alive and resurrected by target shooters, period. And serious target shooters who are really good, who have dedicated a life to being great shooters, cannot understand why somebody would bother with a bullet shooting gun with known limited accuracy. You can tell them all day that a smooth rifle is fine for your purposes, shooting deer to 50 years, and they will not get it, because that is not their desire or experience. It's like the guy who will save and work to upgrade his car for high performance or buy a high performance car (maserati) hearing, "My Ford Focus does everything I need it to do." It's not going to make sense to them because it would not work for them, and they normally don't bother to try to see the world from anyone else's perspective. It would not work for them, so it's a waste.

On the flip side, it's good to point out facts as lots of people read these posts, and the fact is, a smooth rifle is not in the ballpark for accuracy compared to a rifle at 50 yards and beyond. One or two exceptions do not change that basic fact. One can still have a lot of fun shooting and plinking and hunting with a smooth rifle recognizing its limitations. I don't own one and am not sure I ever will because they don't intrigue me except for their historical aspect. The ones that do appeal to me are the very early ones that were big bore and with octagon to round barrels. I have a harder time finding a niche personally for a .40 or .50 cal smooth rifle.

 

[Lonegun1894]

Rich, this isn't aimed at you, but rather everyone in general. I totally agree with everyone that we all strive for the best accuracy possible, regardless of our chosen weapons. However, some of us here have valid reasons for choosing the smoothbore. Some use it because it is all they are allowed by law, others like me choose it for some purposes because I have some places I can use anything (in which case I usually use a rifle) but others where I am only allowed a smoothbore, and some do it for the challenge of something different than the norm. In my case, I was very pleasantly surprized by the accuracy potential, even if it does not equal a rifle. Someone said that maybe back in the day some people didn't feel the need to use the most up to date weapons, if anyone in this world can understand that mindset, I believe it should be the great bunch of people we have here.

I'm not talking down the rifle, just saying that the smoothbore can accomplish the same task in the right hands by the shooter sneaking closer to the animal. Give me a rifle if possible, but if not, I'm not staying home watching TV just because I dont have rifling. Many here understand that, and some never will unless or until they really try one out, weather that is by choice or regulation. Either way, best of luck to everyone this season.

 

[jdkerstetter]

but why bother to invent one to begin with if muskets are a thing, especially low cost trade muskets?
I can understand the use and usefulness, but why the bother to begin with?
Me thinks that it was invented by a lazy gunsmith who just didn't want to rifle the barrel.

Fact is we'll never know "why". But historically the common trade guns and military muskets were not made available to the everybody. Trade guns were just that, trade items mainly exchanged by the various governments and trade agencies to their Indian allies. Muskets were, of course, issued to the Military and the Militia. If you were not affiliated with one of these factions you were left to your own devices....and sometimes even if you were of the Militia you were ordered to show up with your own gun.

The "lazy gunsmith" statement is ludicous on it's face as many rifles with smooth barrels are highy adorned otherwise.

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[Capt. Jas.]

Actually trade or trading guns were available to all, not just for the Indian trade. They were available at the local mercantile just like many walmarts stock the cheap guns available to all.

 

[jdkerstetter]

Based on past post, I believe you have poured through more historical documentation on this subject than I so I will accept your word as fact. I just have not seen it. Which were made available, where and what period? I would have thought more would have survived intact in civilized hands.

If smoothbore trade guns were available and excepted by Colonists and early Americans, I think it would help explain rather the smooth rifle rather than excuse it. Supply of trade guns would have to have been sporadic during periods of one conflict or another. Plus, the quest for a gun of better quality (especially over English trade guns) and the gun makers' quest for their share of the market.

Thanks and Enjoy, J.D.

 

[Robby]

Like Rich said, there is a historical aspect to this. In archery I have made many different styles of bow that were in use by different peoples. They all have their quirks that you must adapt to and learn to hunt with, or shoot targets, whatever. I like the historical context of the smooth rifle. Will it limit my options in the field, say for deer hunting? Absolutely, but I can adjust to that and live within its limitations, and in the mean time, hunt or target shoot with something that is correct historically, at least as much as I can make that possible. That in and of itself is a huge part of the enjoyment I get out of this whole thing.
Robby

 

[George]

If smoothbore trade guns were available and excepted by Colonists and early Americans, I think it would help explain rather the smooth rifle rather than excuse it.

Trading guns are mentioned many times, several hundred, in my 18th-century newspaper database. There is usually no description, such as smooth or rifled, and no brand name, just "trading gun" or "Indian trading gun" or "Indian gun". Most frequently they are simply listed with other goods for sale, such as this:

The Pennsylvania Gazette
August 15, 1751
TO be sold by public vendue, under the Court house, on Friday, ”¦ wool cards, pieces of bunting in grain, Indian guns, fuzees ditto, boxes of long pipes, flower of mustard, vermillion, red, blue and white strouds, Indian trading bullets, high top buck skin gloves, and wadding.

The South Carolina Gazette
April 17, 1749
Charleston, South Carolina
Just imported in the Billander Molly,... painted carpets ”“ gun powder ”“ bullets ”“ and wilson's best Indian trading guns ”“ oznabrugs

THE SOUTH CAROLINA GAZETTE
August 28, 1736
Charleston, South Carolina
JUST IMPORTED in the Ship Anna Maria,.... small trunks of mens boys womens & girls shoes well sorted, trading guns, fine gun powder, casks of sorted tin ware

Sometimes they are described as specifically for the Indian trade:

THE SOUTH CAROLINA GAZETTE
October 19, 1738
JUST IMPORTED in the Brigt. Thomas & Ann,”¦ Chocolate, single refin'd Sugar, and sundry Goods for Indian Traders, such as Strouds, blue Plains, Cutlasses, Belts & Girdles, Guns, Hatchetts, Brass Kettles, Brass Wire, &c Great Care will be taken to prevent the Woollens receiving any Infection of the Small-Pox.

Occasionally they seem to be in the hands of individuals:

THE SOUTH CAROLINA GAZETTE
March 29, 1735
Charleston, South Carolina
RUN AWAY FROM Mr. Bryan Reily AND Mr. John CarMichael, two Irishmen Servants,...They stole from the said Masters a new yellow stocked trading Gun, marked on the plate of the lock (to the best of our remembrance) R FARMER and sundry other goods.

The South-Carolina GAZETTE
February 28, 1761
CHARLES-TOWN
RUN AWAY from the subscriber”¦ He carried along with him a bay mare branded RS in one, the bottom of the S making the head of the R; also sundry cloaths, trading gun, and a tomahawk.

Spence

 

[rich pierce]

Thanks Spence!

 

[matt denison]

And once again we all learn something new from Spence.

:bow: :thumbsup: :hatsoff:

 

[Rat Trapper]

While I have no intentions of purchase of a smooth rifle, I find this post very interesting. Lets keep it going, with hopes that someone will be able to dig deeper into history.

 

[rich pierce]

Unfortunately we can almost always document that things existed and learn a lot about them, but the "why" is almost always speculative. Certainly we can agree that anyone purchasing a smooth rifle originally was not looking for a long range target gun, or a long range hunting gun. It's also true that there were some very plain and simple smooth rifles made in the 1820's -50's era in Berks County PA and close by that were likely farmer's all-rounder guns, used for everything from shooting the hog to filling the pot. But the smooth rifle goes back at least to the mid 1700's and lasts through the mid 1800's so generalizing is probably not wise, and they varied from very plain to the most collectible original Golden Age "rifles" you have ever seen. For example, show me a rifled original Bucks County "rifle". Even the famous Verner gun is a smooth rifle. Some will argue, "it was probably rifled originally" but that is a weak logic approach based primarily on their beliefs rather than evidence, and a more complicated reasoning than that these guns were smooth bored in the beginning. Occam's Razor is a rule saying the most simple explanation is the most likely. Let's apply that to Golden Age Bucks County "rifles" which are almost ALL smoothbored now, and compare to contemporary Lancaster County "rifles" which mostly show evidence of rifling. To believe the Bucks County smooth rifle guns were rifled originally then bored out later, we'd have to assume that for some reason they did this less often in Lancaster. It gets complicated. So we're left with the concept that in the Golden Age, they were desirable to a variety of customers seeking plain to fancy guns and that there may have been a lot of local preference.

 

[George]

Certainly we can agree that anyone purchasing a smooth rifle originally was not looking for a long range target gun, or a long range hunting gun.

Part of the problem may be that we have a wrong impression of the shooting scene in the old days. Most of us make the mistake of assuming they used their guns just as we do, and that is very wide of the mark. I've been amazed how unsophisticated their approach to shooting was in many ways. For instance, I don't believe they ever used patched balls in smooth bores, so the capabilities of their guns may have been even less than we imagine. Yet the guns filled their need, because the situation was very different. I've seen several statements that a gun was "good to 100 yards", or some such, and they were bragging, not complaining. It is generally true that the state of technology is driven by the need, so smoothbores may well have been sufficient to theirs.

I've spent the last 15 years doing nearly all my hunting with smoothbores, mostly with our version of a smooth rifle, and I've been generally very successful, even when using methods of the day instead of our modern ones such as PRB, commercial wads, etc.. Imagine how much easier that would be if game populations were multiplied many time and game laws didn't exist.

Spence

 

[pargent]

Well for my 2 cents worth one may choose a smooth rifle because it had better sights than a fowler :hmm: , the slightly heavy barrel could be loaded for bear ( note to some refers to a heavy ball load in the gun not an actual load for hunting bear specificly ) , slightly quicker to reload than a rifled gun , the owner may have felt that he didn't need a rifle but wonted somthing a bit more substansual than the usual light fowler, a musket was to heavy or what ever. There must have been a market for them .Even today people buy guns that most others can see no sense in owning let alone using them for hunting and defence of hearth and home .

 

[jdkerstetter]

....I don't believe they ever used patched balls in smooth bores, so the capabilities of their guns may have been even less than we imagine.

Spence,

I understand this was the case on the accepted military paper cartridge loading techniques of the day as we have documentation to support it, but why do you not believe that smooth rifle shooters did used patches on their round balls?

Thanks, J.D.

 

[pargent]

All of the finds of still loaded guns backs up what you have said 100%, talking smoothies here guys and pre1840's :thumbsup: