Non - Tapered Barrels

Some posters on this forum really dislike octagon- to - round barrels on smoothbores that are not tapered.
I think I get the aesthetic appeal of tapering lines on a long plane, and I am True Believer in my preference for swamped barrels on rifles and smooth rifles. ( I have three of them )

I also have a CenterMark .62 Tulle with no rear sigbt that has what I think is a non - tapered barrel that I have never measured.I don't like the sight picture because when I am down on the stock it looks like the top flat has a hump in it at a point just before the octagon transitions to round.

Is this the main reason for the dislike of non - tapered octagon - to - round barrels?

BTW, my preference is for thicker barrel walls forward of the transition area because I like a little more weight out front for shooting balls offhand. Hangs on target better.

Is this the main reason for the dislike of non - tapered octagon - to - round barrels?

Click to expand...

No. The main reason for the dislike is lack of being PC/HC. Many get very passionate about this issue.
However, it (possibly) can be argued the properly tapered barrel has weight, handling and sighting characteristics that make them very desirable. And that is probably why they were designed that way to start with back in the day.

Tapered is just how they are , breech area is stronger and tapers to muzzle even modern smoothbores have this feature :idunno:

The main reason for the dislike is lack of being PC/HC.

Click to expand...

Depends, from the silk purse out of sow's ear department I added a rear sight and now at the Alamo pass mine off as a "smooth rifle", a utilitarian parts gun from the 1820's/30's....





OK, let us speak plainly. From what I know TVM is the main culprit.

1) Ethics. The MAIN thing that got my boxers in a twist was that going into it, on my first-ever flinter, NOTHING was said about the issue of barrel taper. Hey, when you lay out the unheard-of sum (for me) well north of $1,000, you kinda expect full-disclosure, especially given forthcoming and generous nature of most everyone else in this hobby.

2) Handling, this is a biggie. Pick up a correctly-done fowler and it feels like a magic wand, pick up a straight-taper (mine weighs in at ~9 lbs) and it feels like a heavy rifle without the benefits of that arm.

3) Sight picture. A fowler is a point-and-shoot proposition. Sighting along a straight-taper octagon to round barrel you see the flat of the octagon section for a short distance, but then there's the step/down to the round section. All you see is the top half of the thin front sight blade floating out there somewhere in space beyond the end of the top octagon flat.





You can learn to use it, but its always slower, harder to pick up a sight picture, and especially tough on older eyes. Actually the same sight picture applies to TVM's "normal" barrels with the untapered octagon section and tapered round.

Pick up a correctly-tapered barrel fowler and, besides the weight and handling issue, you can see the whole top of the barrel from tang to blade, a huge difference.

Birdwatcher

I don't have a strong preference. I find I don't notice how they appear when shooting. A swamped barrel looks straight from the mid-point.

I'm not thinking about the barrel when concentrating on the sights or wing shooting game. So I default to the style or common trait of the firearm I am buying.

Im considering ordering a Fowler from TVM with rifle sights.

I'm thinking that using the rear sight will get my line

of sight up enough at the rear that I will not see the " hump".

I have a TVM smoothbore with a rear sight and a non tapered barrel. It's not heavy or clunky but then, I don't wingshoot. Mine shoots mostly ball. It also works great with shot for squirrels and other game. In handling and shooting, it feels like a lightweight rifle with no muzzle heaviness. If I ever decide to shoot quail, maybe then I'll think about tapered.

IMHO there is absolutely no reason to spend that kind of money and accept unnecesary compromises with utility, grace of lines and authenticity.

Here's my gun in profile.



I had occasion to visit TVM on account of a poorly-set lock on my gun as delivered (I was passing through Tennessee anyway so I just brung it in person. The poorly-set lock was I believe due to the fact I requested a larger Chamber's Colonial Virginia lock.

I have been told on the 'net by someone saying they were an employee of TVM that the company ships out about four completed guns each week.

My impression on visiting was they meet this output by running a sort of production line involving three or four people, this keeps the output high and allows them to reach a lower price point.

One downside is that the ramrod channel is routed out relatively far below the barrel. While presumably simplifying production the low-set ramrod necessitates a deeper, heavier forend on the stock.

If I were going to do this over I'd look long and hard at Northstar West which offers a 41" barrel "Early English Trade Gun" for about the same amount of money.

As best I can determine these have fully tapered barrels, octagon and round sections both. And I expect they could equally well be set up with a small rear notch sight.

Failing that, keep a sharp eye on the classifieds on the various muzzleloading/reenacting websites.

I regularly see fowlers much better than mine with the same LOP going used but in great shape for the same or less money I paid for mine new.

Hope this helps.

Birdwatcher

Here's a pic of mine which looks very much like yours. Notice that it has the colonial Va lock you referred to. Fit and finish on it are superb. I was inspired to order it after examining one owned by a friend of mine. It sounds trite, but seeing and handling one in-the-flesh beats going by a picture, every time.

Some background...

Sir, people are impressed with my gun too. As was I when I took delivery, in fact I proudly posted pics that very same day....



This was a bucket-list item for me, the first time I had spent that kind of money on something only for myself.

This was the event and here are two of the nephews up in NY that inspired me to buy it (Ticonderoga 2007).



I ordered it in the fall of 2008, received it in May of 2009. I waited to shoot it until I could do so with my nephews but did not get to that summer on account of the poorly set lock, stopping in to get it fixed on the way home. Waited another summer.

Here we are not too long ago, up in in NY shooting my two flinters (dang they grow fast!). On the topic of buying used, I picked up that period-correct early 19th Cent. Southern Longrifle on these boards for only $800).



..and another pic once again showing the heavy lines of my TVM...



Regardless, the gun got me heavily into reenacting, and I have since "died" heroically in battle several times at the Alamo, Goliad and San Jacinto :haha:

Birdwatcher

Birdwatcher said:

IMHO there is absolutely no reason to spend that kind of money and accept unnecesary compromises with utility, grace of lines and authenticity.

Here's my gun in profile.

I had occasion to visit TVM on account of a poorly-set lock on my gun as delivered (I was passing through Tennessee anyway so I just brung it in person. The poorly-set lock was I believe due to the fact I requested a larger Chamber's Colonial Virginia lock.

I have been told on the 'net by someone saying they were an employee of TVM that the company ships out about four completed guns each week.

My impression on visiting was they meet this output by running a sort of production line involving three or four people, this keeps the output high and allows them to reach a lower price point.

One downside is that the ramrod channel is routed out relatively far below the barrel. While presumably simplifying production the low-set ramrod necessitates a deeper, heavier forend on the stock.

If I were going to do this over I'd look long and hard at Northstar West which offers a 41" barrel "Early English Trade Gun" for about the same amount of money.

As best I can determine these have fully tapered barrels, octagon and round sections both. And I expect they could equally well be set up with a small rear notch sight.

Failing that, keep a sharp eye on the classifieds on the various muzzleloading/reenacting websites.

I regularly see fowlers much better than mine with the same LOP going used but in great shape for the same or less money I paid for mine new.

Hope this helps.

Birdwatcher

Click to expand...

Soon as they bring back the girl I shall resume saving towards same. Crying shame :shake:

Here's a pic of mine which looks very much like yours. Notice that it has the colonial Va lock you referred to. Fit and finish on it are superb. I was inspired to order it after examining one owned by a friend of mine. It sounds trite, but seeing and handling one in-the-flesh beats going by a picture, every time.

Click to expand...

The question on this thread was why non-tapered barrels are a problem.

On a rifle, not so much, I have never spoken against TVM's rifles. Never seen one, folks seem happy with them.

Respectfully, you do not use your own TVM "Fowler" as a fowler, it doesn't work well for that (although I have taken mine dove hunting). What you and I both have is the equivalent of a bull-barreled shotgun with a crappy sighting plane. I call mine a "smooth rifle" which is the nearest eqivalent to what it is, in .62 cal.

You said seeing is believing. "Seeing" correctly executed fowlers and holding them in the hand is EXACTLY what made me realize how incorrect ours are for the genre.

A well balanced, reasonably light fowler feels graceful in the hand, shoulders easily, and is equally adept with shot and ball, with a sight picture that just comes up naturally and effortlessly. It does everything yours and my own guns will do but better, lighter, better-looking, and more historically authentic as well.

There are NO extant versions of original period fowlers with such heavy untapered barrels. Probably for a good reason.

I just browsed the TVM website. Disgracefully they STILL make NO mention of their untapered barrels :cursing: When I bought mine I didn't even know to ask.

With regards to locks, the stock offering now is the large Siler, as it likely was when I bought mine since I paid $100 extra for the larger round-faced Colonial Virginia lock. I did this because contrary to TVM's statement on their web page, the flat-faced Siler lock is not period-correct for the F&I War.

If historical accuracy on a gun costing this much doesn't concern you, more power to ya.

If handling, weight and functional utility doesn't concern you either, again, congrats on your choice.

As for me, when the questions comes up here, I'll answer it.

Nice deer!

Birdwatcher

smoothshooter said:

Is this the main reason for the dislike of non - tapered octagon - to - round barrels?

Click to expand...

The main reason people dislike them is for the same reason why gun makers invented the tapered barrel style 100's of years ago. To both shift and reduce barrel weight, and thus create a gun that doesn't handle like a lead balloon.

I would say the only problems with octagonal to round non-tapered (or swamped) is weight and balance.

Not all smoothbores are used to the same purpose so if you don't care how much it weighs or swings it's not a problem.

BUT, if you're carrying it for five miles while upland hunting and have two seconds to get a shot off on a flushing grouse . . .

I just browsed the TVM website. Disgracefully they STILL make NO mention of their untapered barrels :cursing: When I bought mine I didn't even know to ask.[/quote]


If you go to the website and read the description about their fowler, it states that the barrel used is a "special straight barrel." :idunno:

When placing my order I was aware, but I have never had the pleasure of shooting a tapered barrel fowler meant for upland hunting. I don't do that sort of hunting anyways. I will be using mine like hanshi does...mainly a round ball shooter. Although, I am struggling with the decision of whether to put a rear sight on it or not...

Okay so I am a little confused. As some of you may already know I'm looking to get a fowler kit in the near future. So after all of this if I wanted to get a true fowler do I stay away from oct/round completely or are they okay if they are tapered. What about swamped? Leaning towards to Jim Chambers English Fowler/Officers Fusil but still kind of want a Tulle. So having said that what barrel is preferred for a true fowling piece

If you are seriously concerned about being historically correct and want the best handling characteristics for a fowler or shooting ball, you want the octagon to round tapered barrel.

You should look at "Flintlock Fowlers" by Tom Grinslade. Worth buying a copy but you can borrow a copy via interlibrary loan. Many fowling pieces have tapered octagon to round barrels and tapered round barrels are also found. A unrifled swamped barrel would be on a smooth rifle - which while capable of firing shot, is not a fowling piece.

Jim Chambers uses tapered and swamped on all his kits (as is "proper") as far as I know.

Muskets/military tended towards round while civilian tended towards oct to round. No hard fast rules for the latter.

Tulle (French military arsenal) guns open a different chapter. Those more fall under military muskets and trade guns, but were certainly used to kill birds of all descriptions. A military style would be round but a Fusil-de-chasse would likely be octagonal to round; and I think the French liked to make a 16-flat transition of several inches (octagonal to hexakaidecagonal to round). ;-)

I don't know if the Fusils (chasse, fin C or D) had a swamp but I do melieve most were tapered and started octagonal. I defer to the better informed on that.

Stumpy thanks again for the info. So what barrel would you recommend for a true fowling piece?