Smooth rifles, were they made as new guns?

[MountainSmoke]

Something I’ve oft thought of. It’s formed the musings around a campfire on a trek many times
A load for a frontier smoothie would be about 50-100 shots for a pound of powder and 10-20 shots for a pound of lead.
So let’s say you shoot a turkey. With carbs on the side you could feed three or four people. Just meat one or two.
A rabbit or a duck won’t go as far.
Yet you’ve used the same amount of lead and powder that could put a deer, up to a buff in the larder. It’s just not economical to hunt small game.
But…..
Way out on the wild frontier most trading post offers shot.
Buck shot, beaver shot,swan shot, snipe shot. Folks depending on wild meat were buying and using expensive resources on small game
Not talking passenger pidgins here. That was hunted to extinction by market and sport hunters. This is the frontier where a missed shot was an empty belly. And a gallon of powder was not only expensive in cost but expensive in weight/volume in transportation
Taste?
I know I’m as happy with a bowl of rabbit stew as a deer roast
Was it just worth it?
A pipe bowl, a campfire, the sound of the tall timber, and a mystery I’ve never got my mind around

Good post!

 

[sportster73hp]

Isn’t a smooth rifle just a smoothbore with rifle sights? Did it also use a rifle style /shape stock?
I would think if the rifling was shot smooth and you couldn’t afford the freshening you just keep using it as is.

 

[Jedidiah]

Isn’t a smooth rifle just a smoothbore with rifle sights? Did it also use a rifle style /shape stock?
I would think if the rifling was shot smooth and you couldn’t afford the freshening you just keep using it as is.

I think basically you are correct, but their are many details that make a firearm a Fusil versus a Fowler, versus a Smooth Rifle., Trade Rifle etc. It is like saying isn't a ford the same as a chevy, yes, they are both cars, and will take you from point a to point b, but there are a lot of differences in them too.

 

[M. De Land]

Isn’t a smooth rifle just a smoothbore with rifle sights? Did it also use a rifle style /shape stock?
I would think if the rifling was shot smooth and you couldn’t afford the freshening you just keep using it as is.

That is a class distinction (sighted smooth bore) in NMLRA territorial matches. I still an not absolutely sure what folks mean by the term (smooth rifle). An over under having one barrel of each makes the most sense to me.

 

[JamesT]

I have often thought that we have it all wrong, because we think that the original settlers etc actually got to eat a lot of meat and other things each day. I would not be surprised if there were lots of days that a biscuit, whatever berries or local shrubbery they could harvest and a cup of coffee/tea was the best they could do!

I think that was largely true up until the end of WW2 in this country.

 

[JamesT]

Isn’t a smooth rifle just a smoothbore with rifle sights? Did it also use a rifle style /shape stock?
I would think if the rifling was shot smooth and you couldn’t afford the freshening you just keep using it as is.

I think it would be easier to comprehend and clarify by saying a smooth rifle is a rifle without a rifled bore. Architecture, triggerguard, cheekpiece, squared toe, maybe a patch box, sights. A fowling piece would typically have a rounded toe, no cheekpiece, often times no sights, etc.. without saying never and always this is the difference.
James

 

[rich pierce]

When this topic arises, posts arise about efficiency of rifles versus smoothbore and shot versus round ball. It’s natural to wonder why choices were made. But diverse choices were made. Someday folks may wonder why some people who live in the the suburbs and drive on paved roads purchase huge off-road capable 4 wheelers to the mall. And some country folk who live on dirt roads drive Corvettes.

People make diverse decisions.

 

[JamesT]

I've never heard anyone address the fact that maybe some gun builders really only built one style of gun. I have never dug into this too deep but I wonder how much truth could be in it. Today's contemporary builders are adept at creating guns from many different schools. That wasn't the case in the 18th and 19th centuries. A gun maker in Reading was taught and used to shaping a rifle stock with a Roman nose profile. Slightly different technique than shaping a Lancaster style gun. So how many gun makers really only knew how to shape one style of stock? And remember they had apprentices working for them possibly doing the rough work. So possibly the guns looked the same other than if they were rifled or not. This is more of a question than stating facts. Have never heard this theory but have pondered it. How many of the well known makers have existing examples of an obvious fowling piece compared to the rifles they were known for? Has anyone ever seen a fowling piece that came out of areas like Lehigh Valley? Or just smooth rifles?
James

 

[Brokennock]

Isn’t a smooth rifle just a smoothbore with rifle sights?

I think basically you are correct

No.

Did it also use a rifle style /shape stock?

Yes.
A smoothrifle would not only have front and rear sights (there were other smoothbores with both such as the Type-G or "Carolina" trade gun) but would have rifle stock architecture and most likely (but not always) rifle type furniture such as a trigger guard with a grip rail like most rifles.
Think of any of the well known or common early rifle styles, picture theor features. Look at early rifle examples such as, the "musicians rifle," the "Tulip Rifle," the "Lion and Lamb" rifle, the "Edward Marshall" rifle,,,, any one of these guns most likely had similar "siblings" by the same maker's shop that had no rifling in the bore.

With period ads listing both rifle guns amd smooth rifle guns, as well as fusils and/or fowling pieces in the se ad, it would lead me to believe there was more difference than just sights.
Period advertising not only lists smooth rifle guns for sale, but also advertises the service of "freshing" a rifle bore.
I could be wrong just working from memory but I don't recall seeing any ads for removing rifling, or boring it smooth. Not saying it was never done, but I think the case for worn rifles being bored smooth is weak at best. It was probably easier to cut the grooves a little deeper than it was to remove the lands completely.

 

[tenngun]

Isn’t a smooth rifle just a smoothbore with rifle sights? Did it also use a rifle style /shape stock?
I would think if the rifling was shot smooth and you couldn’t afford the freshening you just keep using it as is.

Sights were placed on all manner of smoothbores it was seen on NWG and TFC.
Today many trade gun shoots or smoothbore shoots won’t let one compete unless there is no rear sight. If one has a Fowling gun with a rear sight and want to shoot one has to shoot with smooth rifles
However back in the day smooth rifle referred a gun on a rifle stock, often with full leangh to octagon barrel, rifle style trigger guard often a patch box. In every aspect the gun looked like an American long rifle.

 

[ronaldrothb49]

No.

Yes.
A smoothrifle would not only have front and rear sights (there were other smoothbores with both such as the Type-G or "Carolina" trade gun) but would have rifle stock architecture and most likely (but not always) rifle type furniture such as a trigger guard with a grip rail like most rifles.
Think of any of the well known or common early rifle styles, picture theor features. Look at early rifle examples such as, the "musicians rifle," the "Tulip Rifle," the "Lion and Lamb" rifle, the "Edward Marshall" rifle,,,, any one of these guns most likely had similar "siblings" by the same maker's shop that had no rifling in the bore.

With period ads listing both rifle guns amd smooth rifle guns, as well as fusils and/or fowling pieces in the se ad, it would lead me to believe there was more difference than just sights.
Period advertising not only lists smooth rifle guns for sale, but also advertises the service of "freshing" a rifle bore.
I could be wrong just working from memory but I don't recall seeing any ads for removing rifling, or boring it smooth. Not saying it was never done, but I think the case for worn rifles being bored smooth is weak at best. It was probably easier to cut the grooves a little deeper than it was to remove the lands completely.

If you look in Rifles of Colonial America the ones that are listed a rifled look pretty much the same as the ones marked as smoothbores.
In thoughts on the Kentucky Rifle in the Golden Age Kindig lists info from the Leonard Reedy journals. He lists making smooth rifles. Under Repairs he freshened 128 rifles, way more than any other repair he made. Also he listed 1 barrel as being bored smooth and 1 barrel that was bored and re-rifled.

 

[flintlock00]

Here's my take on the subject: I had an opportunity to study an original "Smooth rifle" built by Samuel St. Clair, gunsmith in Snyder County, Pa, active from about 1823-1849. This gun had a 44 inch octagon to round .45 cal barrel stocked in maple, with all the trappings of a rifle- front and rear sights, rifle trigger guard, cheek piece, toe plate, nose cap, but no rifling. It has become my understanding, after reading studies on the topic, that an octagon to round barrel generally indicates a smoothbore. Therefore, my conclusion thus far into the Pilgrim's Journey is that this gun was originally built as a smoothbore, following the general design convention with the OTR barrel. So, count me in for the "Smooth From The Beginning" portion of the ML Community.

 

[DuncNZ]

I have always believed that smooth rifles were firearms which were stocked and had furniture like a rifle , had sights like a rifle , had a single trigger and had an octagon to round barrel and calibers slightly larger than the average rifle , to allow the use of shot
I have read somewhere that some gunsmiths sold their rifles with a couple of rifling saws so the barrel could be re rifled before it wore out , either by the owner or another gun smith , also they supplied a bullet mould and a powder measure with each rifle .

 

[Jedidiah]

That is a class distinction (sighted smooth bore) in NMLRA territorial matches. I still an not absolutely sure what folks mean by the term (smooth rifle). An over under having one barrel of each makes the most sense to me.

I think people over think this! A "smooth rifle" is simple. It is a long arm that has the typical characteristic of a rifle in style & architecture but is not rifled. problem solved.

 

[Jedidiah]

Since muskets etc far out numbered most other long arms , it is apparent to me tht there were many more "smooth" rifles than anything else., just with different names because of differences in stock style, architecture & furniture. I do not think any one back in the day cared what their firearm was called, musket, fusil, fowler, trade gun, smooth rifle, etc. They really only cared if it worked and brought home the "bacon" so to speak. IMHO.

 

[French Colonial]

From a previous thread "Use of shot not permitted"

"Note that he says a smooth bored gun was a rarity, this was in the 1839-to-1842-time frame in your neck of the woods Arkansas.

This persistent opinion is wishful thinking of those who prefer smooth bores not supportable by documentation.

In the course of the day, we had seen a man pass by with a smooth-bored gun, and as such a thing was a rarity in the backwoods, the conversation turned on this circumstance.

Gerstäcker, Friedrich. Wild Sports in the Far West (p. 212). Good Press. Kindle Edition.

Here is primary documentation that a smooth bored gun was a "rarity"

Everyone of you guys that say smooth bore guns were more common always come up with theories as to why it was so (insert your reason based on 20th century thinking) but I have yet to see any documentation to bolster your argument.

Just because you wish it was so does not make it so.

 

[Grenadier1758]

Just where did Gerstacher see this rare smooth bored gun? In the far west, a smooth bord gun might indeed be unusual. What about other regions?

 

[French Colonial]

Just where did Gerstacher see this rare smooth bored gun? In the far west, a smooth bord gun might indeed be unusual. What about other regions?

He was in Arkansas at the time, but he hunted in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana etc.

He never made it west of Arkansas, He mainly hunted deer, bear, "panthers" and large game, he even shot ducks and geese with his rifle.

The book is available on kindle and is a fantastic read, he was a lot tougher than I ever was or will be.

 

[Jedidiah]

From a previous thread "Use of shot not permitted"

"Note that he says a smooth bored gun was a rarity, this was in the 1839-to-1842-time frame in your neck of the woods Arkansas.

This persistent opinion is wishful thinking of those who prefer smooth bores not supportable by documentation.

In the course of the day, we had seen a man pass by with a smooth-bored gun, and as such a thing was a rarity in the backwoods, the conversation turned on this circumstance.

Gerstäcker, Friedrich. Wild Sports in the Far West (p. 212). Good Press. Kindle Edition.

Here is primary documentation that a smooth bored gun was a "rarity"

Everyone of you guys that say smooth bore guns were more common always come up with theories as to why it was so (insert your reason based on 20th century thinking) but I have yet to see any documentation to bolster your argument.

Just because you wish it was so does not make it so.

Semantics. A smooth bore can be a rifle ,shotgun, fowler what ever. One sighting does not prove much either way. IMHO. I know that after each major confrontation in our history, muskets were the primary longarm, which were smooth, and plentiful compared to "rifled" longarms. I do not think they all dried up and went away, nor do i think the avg. person turned one down if they could get one. IMHO

 

[oldwood]

Last night I was reading some 1800 era advertising for m/l flint guns to be built . The add said , rifled , or smooth , longrifles for sale.