swamped barrel accuracy

[M. De Land]

I've been told that swamped barrels are not used much at serious offhand matches because they are not as accurate.
Is there any truth to this one? MD

 

[LRB]

No, but many competition shooters seem to like a slightly muzzle heavy barrel, which most often is a straight sided barrel.

 

[Rifleman1776]

I've been told that swamped barrels are not used much at serious offhand matches because they are not as accurate.
Is there any truth to this one? MD

There is absolutely no truth to that at all. Swamped barrels generally give a rifle a better balance that most shooters just love. And, the swamped barrel absorbs harmonic vibrations which would otherwise affect accuracy. Swamping makes a barrel more accurate for this reason.

 

[Stumpkiller]

My thoughts would be that target shooters don't have to carry the rifle for hours or days before taking one shot, so the added expense of the swamping is not justified. Also, a heavy barrel is less prone to heat issues in "rapid" fire that a target shooter must put out.

I prefer a swamped barrel for offhand (most of my shooting is offhand) but I am certainly not a competative target shooter. A heavy barrel would not help that.

 

[Flinchlock.50]

I agree with Stumpkiller. The swamped barred rifles are easier for me to shoot offhand also.

 

[roundball]

"...the swamped barrel absorbs harmonic vibrations which would otherwise affect accuracy. Swamping makes a barrel more accurate for this reason..."

I had no idea swamped barrels absorbed harmonics and are more accurate as a result.

Please post the link to the source data for this.

In fact, the link to the source data would be good for permanent inclusion in the 'Articles Section' of the MLF for the benefit of all members.

Claude, you'd agree to this, correct?

:thumbsup:

 

[LRB]

"...the swamped barrel absorbs harmonic vibrations which would otherwise affect accuracy. Swamping makes a barrel more accurate for this reason..."

I had no idea swamped barrels absorbed harmonics and are more accurate as a result.

Please post the link to the source data for this.

In fact, the link to the source data would be good for permanent inclusion in the 'Articles Section' of the MLF for the benefit of all members.

Claude, you'd agree to this, correct?

:thumbsup:

Roundball, I really don't think that is correct. I would like to see the data on that myself.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

My swamped barrel from a bench shoots amazingly well, just 'cause I'm not so steady offhand isn't the barrel's fault. :haha: Many modern target guns that are shot off-hand, aka "standing unsupported", are muzzle heavy. There must be some advantage to that condition, so a straight sided barrel will allow some shooters to be steadier, thus they achieve better accuracy. As was mentioned, the thicker barrels do not react to heating as fast as swamped or thinner walled barrels..., so during matches with "rapid fire" portions the thicker barrels do not react as much. The reason passes into the present, hence the reason for modern "bull barrels"..., and now "fluted" barrels..., heat dissipation on match rifles. :wink:
LD

 

[Rifleman1776]

"...the swamped barrel absorbs harmonic vibrations which would otherwise affect accuracy. Swamping makes a barrel more accurate for this reason..."

I had no idea swamped barrels absorbed harmonics and are more accurate as a result.

Please post the link to the source data for this.

In fact, the link to the source data would be good for permanent inclusion in the 'Articles Section' of the MLF for the benefit of all members.

Claude, you'd agree to this, correct?

:thumbsup:

I learned this from old timers, shooters, barrel makers and historians, at the Friendship range, around campfire and who wrote in Muzzle Blasts long before anyone had heard of "links".
The soft iron used in early barrels had serious harmonic problems. Back then "they" were still pretty smart and someone developed the swamping to dampen that vibration. Even today, take a look at modern rifle barrels. Many are contoured to absorb harmonic vibration. Nothing new. In fact, I'm surprised this is new information to you. Want to know more? It can be researched. Old Muzzle Blasts are one source, there are many others. However, I have learned that some here believe the "old timers" are ignorant simply because they are old timers and that the magazine is simply entertainment.

 

[Vaino]

Harmonics causing bbl deflections are definitely produced when firing CF rifles and those are the reasons for handloading so the bullet exits the bore at either end of the bbl pendulum swing where the bbl is actually standing still. The accuracy muzzle attachments do just the opposite in that they adjust the bbl harmonic deflections to the load. Cf pressures create much greater bbl harmonic deflections than the low pressure of BP loads and also due to the greater mass of BP rifle bbls vs most CF bbls, harmonics and deflections are nowhere as great, if in fact they're even present. Don't think harmonic caused bbl delection is a factor in BP rifle accuracy. Sorry for the reference to CF ballistics but are necessary in this discussion.....Fred

 

[tg]

"Please post the link to the source data for this."

I second the motion, any statment such as this should be followed with collaborating source information, several would be better rather than one article from F&S with no research/test data to confirm the statement.

 

[Stumpkiller]

I don't know about harmonica sized problems the swamped barrel solves. I'm still working out the banjo sized muscle shakes and accordian sized sighting difficulties I seem to be playing.

 

[roundball]

Old timers passing a jug around a campfire is the least credible source I can imagine.
:haha:
Centuries ago when swamped barrels were invented there was no established science or knowledge base about harmonics or any way to measure them.


Pretty sure most who buy swamped barrels do so for the lighter weight and better balance that their design provides.
:wink:

 

[Rifleman1776]

Old timers passing a jug around a campfire is the least credible source I can imagine.
:haha:
Centuries ago when swamped barrels were invented there was no established science or knowledge base about harmonics or any way to measure them.


Pretty sure most who buy swamped barrels do so for the lighter weight and better balance that their design provides.
:wink:

Glad you had a winkie with the first sentence. I said nothing about jugs. Actually, I see nothing wrong with people sharing knowledge orally. I have been knocked for sharing information that was printed. Now, it seems, something is valid only if it is pulled from the Internet.
On that point, can you prove, from the Internet, your statement about the ignorance of 18th century people regarding vibrations and harmonics?
Methinks you will not be able to.
Your last sentence, if referring to buyers today, is probably correct in that they do not know the origin of the reason for swamping.
Beautiful benefits of swamping (aside from the harmonics thing) are beauty to the eye and balance when holding to shoot.

 

[Stumpkiller]

You can't prove a negative. You can only prove what they recorded or what has been preserved. You won't find: Journal entry of 1/09/1757 - "Have decided I don't know a thing about barrel harmonics this day, it having been not yet discovered, and so beat the portion near the muzzle of my barrel more severely than the end nearest the breech meerely as I was angered with my apprentice and wanted his inletting task to be unpleasant."

 

[roundball]

Agree...as members we all have an obligation not to make sweeping across the board statements as if they're rooted in irrefutable scientific fact when no such facts exist what-so-ever.

If someone wants to make their personal claim that "they" believe such and such...that's one thing and still unsubstantiated...but at least it's not being put out there as if its some known established fact.

 

[George]

"Have decided I don't know a thing about barrel harmonics this day, it having been not yet discovered, and so beat the portion near the muzzle of my barrel more severely than the end nearest the breech meerely as I was angered with my apprentice and wanted his inletting task to be unpleasant."

:haha: :haha: Maybe not exactly the way it happened, but here's a blurb from 1789 which amazed me, just by showing that they were investigating such stuff.

Pieces intended for shooting with ball, whether they be plain or rifled, ought to be of much more equal thickness from the breech to the muzzle, than those that are intended for shot, only. In every barrel, there is an undulating vibration communicated to the metal by the explosion. This is most remarkable in a thin barrel, and when the charge is great; and may be rendered very evident by the following easy experiment. Take a piece of fine steel or iron wire, that is tempered so as not to stretch readily; pass it once around the thin part of a barrel, and twist it tight. The piece being then charged and fired, the wire will be found burst asunder, or considerably untwisted. It is evident, that such a degree of vibration in the barrel, must have an effect upon the ball in its passage through it; and that the only means of preventing it, is, by having an additional quantity of metal in the barrel. and especially in the fore part of it. The same circumstance certainly obtains, though in a much less degree, in fowling pieces; and on this account, as well as on that of the recoil, a barrel which is strong enough to withstand any charge that is required, may yet have too small a quantity of metal in it.

He didn't seem to think much of the idea of what we would call swamped barrels for combatting harmonics, just the reverse.

No jugs were injured in the making of this post. :rotf:

Spence

 

[Stumpkiller]

Amazing. :bow:


For a great insight on "cottage" technology of the early 18th century read the book "Longitude". It is about the quest to be able to plot a ship's location and the attempts made at coming up with the technology necessary. Especially the chronometer. These weren't cave men back in the 16 and 1700's (and even prior). There were some pretty sharp dudes.

 

[roundball]

He didn't seem to think much of the idea of what we would call swamped barrels for combatting harmonics, just the reverse.

No jugs were injured in the making of this post. :rotf:
Spence

Amen !
:wink:

 

As I read this discussion, between one OLD FART, and a newly retired guy that's spent the last two weeks reading the temps, and humidity in the new safe he has in the garage, for what reason I don't know. I truly wonder where this is going, when it generally boils down to most target shooters want heavy barrels for their part of this sport, and swamped barrels are more for balance and aesthetics of the style of gun.
PS I also qualify as one of those retired old farts.

Bill