smooth rifles - why?

[jdkerstetter]

If you're referring to relic muskets and trade guns recovered from grave sights, battle fields and what have you, I don't thinks is definitive evidence of what was done with smooth rifles by hunters of the period.

If you have something else, please share. Thanks, J.D.

 

[pargent]

YES those too , quick reference that everyone can read was in a recent past issue of Muzzleloader magazine.I wasn't specificly using native grave finds for this. It is beleived by a lot of experts that cloth patching started with American rifle men (widespread use ). It is felt that smooth bore shooters used whatever was at hand , old tow , blanket , leaves, wasp nest , they wadded their guns . The fact that most documentation available lists the ball sizes for these guns as smaller than what we now use ( ledger lists for traders etc. ) NB please bear in mind if you are looking at French ledgers the French pound was a slightly different weight to the English pound ( comes into play when both used the balls to the pound way of describing cal.) .

 

[George]

...why do you not believe that smooth rifle shooters did used patches on their round balls?

Only because I've never seen a single clear original description of their use. I hope you can prove me wrong.

Spence

 

[jdkerstetter]

Wish I could read that article but I don't get Muzzleloader Magazine. As stated before, I have no doubt that patching of round balls by the military units, the Indian population and other users of trade guns was probably not done. English and French trade ledgers can be used to support theories about this, but I believe it is quite a leap to apply them to the choices of gun builders and buyers in Pennslyvania and Colonies South.

Smooth rifles aren't trade guns or muskets and, if one believes that all surviving smooth bore rifles were built as smooth rifles originally, then all surviving smooth rifles are the contemporary to rifle production in America. They were built by the same hands, bore the same architecture, and were basically identical to the rifle aside from the lack of rifling. Furthermore they appear, almost exclusively to be of German influence, with little to no French or English characteristics.

It goes to figure that when the users of these guns shot round ball they shot it patched. Speculation on my part, I admit. But, if you say the experts agree that the wide spread use of cloth patching started with the American rifle men, then it goes farther to prove my point than any evidence to the contrary yet introduced.

I don't buy into lumping smooth rifles in with muskets and trade guns and the use of wadding for round balls in areas where it was already accepted that a patched ball provide superior accuracy. We may never know for sure but somebody said that the simple answer is usually the right one and to me this one is that simple.

Spence, When I posted this I saw you had posted. I can offer no proof. I can only offer what I typed above which I believe to be a logical arguement about an unknown. I also hope somebody has can come up with some hard evidence.

Thanks, J.D.

 

[George]

I can only offer what I typed above which I believe to be a logical arguement about an unknown.

It's a reasonable argument. Also reasonable is the thought that, since it must have been common knowledge that patches were being used in rifles at the same time, even the shooters of smoothbores other than smooth rifles must surely have been aware of the improvement and tried it in their guns. Some people owned both, so how could it never occur to them to experiment? Perfectly logical, someone must have done it. But where did they write it down?

Spence

 

[jdkerstetter]

I'm afraid too much went unwritten then. I don't know what's worse. With all the "stuff" that's written today think how confused they will be about this point in history in the future. :shake:

Good night, J.D.

 

[Zonie]

It is a sad statement of fact that they didn't write down a lot of things that interest us today.

Apparently, no one wrote down their loading technique for loading a smooth rifle, how to size a patch and ball so no short starter is needed when loading a rifle, who carried out the thunderjug in the morning or what the average person used for toilet paper.

So many questions, so few written answers.

 

[George]

It is a sad statement of fact that they didn't write down a lot of things that interest us today.

True, but it's one of those mind benders that gives me a headache... just because they didn't write it down doesn't mean they did it. :haha:

Spence

 

[lonehorseman]

I've been away from the forum for a while, and what a great topic to return to! It made me re-think some of my notions. I have several rifles and one fowler. Several of my shooting buddies have fowler styled guns with rear sights, and asked if I planned to add a rear sight to my latest putchase. Having been a "shotgunner" for most of my life, I could never imagine using a rear sight on a weapon that is mostly intended to be pointed and fired quickly. The reason... I was basing my opinion on the way I have always used my shotgun. As a modern sport hunter, it would be a huge sin to shoot quail on the ground or sitting rabbits! If, however, I was trying to feed a hungry family I would do these things without thinking twice. It would be even easier in the absence of game laws, and if it was a commonly accepted practice. Looking at hunting in an 18th Century mindset makes it clear that a set of rear sights would greatly improve the odds of filling a frying pan. Knowing that the shot and ball in my shooting bag would cover everything from sitting birds to treed bears would make the smooth rifle a logical choice for a meat hunter.

With modern game laws and a lifetime of sport hunting experience, I am still better off to choose my weapon as I head to the woods. The smooth rifle WOULD NOT be MY choice, but in the absence of those two factors, it would probably be the best choice.

Thanks again to all who contributed. Any post that includes Spence, j.D., and Dan is a good one!

 

[pargent]

MY theory is that with the under size balls in common use the patch cloth would need to be very thick.

 

[Capt. Jas.]

While it is possible that smooth rifle shooters only used balls patched with silk :grin: , there is no documentation to suggest it was a common practice. There are thousands of written references to not only military and trading guns being wadded but also many other smoothbored gun types being wadded the same way. I think there has only been one 18th century reference that could possibly refer to patching a gun and Spence found that.
There are also the written records regarding rifle guns and they also seem to suggest that the common view of the use of a patch was to only seal any rifling and impart spin.
Even into the early twentieth century, wadded punkin balls seemed to be the norm for use in smooth bore guns. Of all the old loaded original smooth guns of all types I have only heard of wadded loads being found.
The latter part of the twentieth century seems to be the beginning of patching a non rifled bore as common practice.

There is much that we will never know. If I had to guess, I would say that if patched balls were ever used in smooth guns it would have had its chance for common usefulness in the smooth rifle. That is merely conjecture though and does not give enough justification for me to argue to alter the historical record (written, dug, remaining original) that we do have in existence.
That said, it is always good to question. It causes more research and further detail. Some do resist the questioning as a result of past internet banter in which some used the woulda, coulda, shoulda, approach to propel a false historical record.

 

[brubincam]

if they didn't patch their balls in smooth rifles--how did they keep balls on the powder and not roll down the barrel ?

 

[SgtSchutzen]

Ya ram a piece of wadding on top to hold it in like you do for a shot load.

 

[rich pierce]

Or if you use a paper cartridge load then the paper serves the purpose and sorta acts like a patch too at least on the way down.

Let's face it, almost all of us learned how to shoot a round ball with a patch in a rifle. Many are stuck on the idea that they must have done the same in a smoothbore back in the day, because that's the way we'd do it. Never mind that every soldier or militia man cut their teeth on paper cartridges or wadding, not patches in round ball shooting muskets or when shooting buck and ball loads.

All this is a little off topic as to the "why" of smooth rifles. Looks like we've moved on to the "how" part.

 

[Dphar]

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.

But this assumes they were smooth when made. Many were not and I am told that many listed in various books as "smooth" will show traces of rifling when closely examined, like with a bore scope.
Dan

 

[jdkerstetter]

Dan, You forgot the little.... :stir: ....I tried that on another thread an ruffled a few feathers.

There are those who want to believe that all guns now smooth have always been smooth and find any discussion of an alternative blasphemous.

I, for one, am willing to discuss it and welcome it. Enjoy, J.D.

 

[rich pierce]

Nobody I know denies that some rifle built guns were originally rifled and later bored out. Some folks would like to use that well known fact to suggest that "most" of the current rifle built guns with smooth bores were once rifled, but that seems to be unsupportable wishful thinking. Maybe someone could point me to an original rifled Bucks County "rifle"? Compare to the bores of York or Lancaster rifle built guns of the same era. Maybe someone could point out some original rifle built guns with double set triggers and smooth bores. Even 1?

There are plenty enough contemporary accounts including gunsmith accounts to prove that smooth rifles existed.

My rules for guesstimating whether a rifle-built gun was smooth or rifled originally (posted before, this discussion surfaces 1-2x a year):

Double set triggers? It was likely a rifle.

No rear sight or dovetail? Likely always a smoothbore. Course this is rarely seen.

Octagon to round barrel? Inclines toward originally being smooth.

Big bore (> .62) round barrel with no evidence of ever having been re-breeched? Likely a smoothbore originally.

None of these are conclusive but make sense to me. If anyone is interested in picking a series of guns from Kindig's big "Golden Age" book and going through them one by one, then we'd be talking specifics.

 

[George]

... why do you not believe that smooth rifle shooters did used patches on their round balls?

J.D., I didn't mean to mislead you, I wasn't speaking of smooth rifles in particular when I said that, I was thinking of smooth bores of all types.

Spence

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Rich I also have observed that the smoothbore rifles never have double triggers and I think that argues for their having been originally built smooth. Since double triggers have always been very common on rifles then if any great percentage of those rifles were later bored smooth would not smoothrifles with double triggers be quite common?
I also have observed that, as you point out, the smoothrifle is both a regional thing and an era thing. Was it maybe a local fad which ran it's course and died out? It seems some makers produced quite a few smoothbores while other makers not at all.
It is only rather recently that the idea of a purpose built smoothrifle has come to be commonly accepted, for many years the collectors have asserted that of course all rifles were originally rifled and later bored smooth. I'm sure that notion came to them from the known fact that many civil war surplus rifled muskets were bored smooth and sold as cheap shotguns. But those post-Civil War conversions were produced on a semi-mass production scale which made it economically profitable. With barrels shortened and rebored to 16 gauge or larger, forestocks cut back and sights discarded they actually made a pretty fair shotgun. The smoothrifle is something else entirely.

 

[rich pierce]

Good points. I have an old 1863 Springfield bored smooth that my Grandpa used as a boy to shoot crows and woodchucks.