Ferguson rifle

Herman Karl said:

Now that I know you are out there don’t be surprised if I consult you upon occasion. Have you checked out the thread on the discussion positing that greater velocity is produced from a smooth barrel than a rifled barrel? One assertion is that the spin causes greater drag. Perhaps you can interject some factual information?

Click to expand...

I will have a look..

My normal game gun is a Thomas Bland 16 bore which has a Damascus Barrel. It was made in the 1880s! The ribs were loose and I had to rebrown the gun when they came back.. (Solder and me do NOT get on!). This is it before I re browned it!

Please no breech loaders

I posted the last picture as part of a point I was making regarding Damascus barrels..! I do have muzzle loading Damascus guns, but I don't happen to have a photo of one of them on my machine at the moment...

I am aware that the Ferguson is a breech loader! It is however a very significant 18th C development of firearms and marks the start of the long transition that was to occur in the following century. It just so happens that this is where one of the discussions regarding this firearm exists on the web..

I fail to see the purpose of your interjection.. the subjects we are discussing on this thread are equally applicable to both muzzle and early breech loading designs that were being made in the period. We are not discussing the specifics of modern guns, and have only mentioned them with regard to the lessons that can be applied from an understanding of the issues of the past..

Please do not interrupt a perfectly valid and useful conversation regarding early firearms. We are all aware this site is called the "muzzle loading forum" however it is, in the main, a discussion board regarding 17th to 19th C firearms. This subject encompasses a wide range of topics, many of which cross arbitrary boundaries!

I would be most interested in your logic for objecting to this thread...?

dave_person said:

Hi Straekat,
Actually, they had good consistent powder available, which is why Ferguson requested "superfine double strength" grade of powder for his rifles. Ernie Cowan wrote he though that a mix of modern 3f and 4f would be about the same. I believe the key to understanding the strengths and weaknesses of Ferguson rifles is to shoot a good copy or example of one. That eliminates a lot of the speculation about them.

dave

Click to expand...

Very true. It is easy to test qualities of powder in a Ferguson due to the fact it has a powder chamber. It holds a finite volume of powder. My Ferguson prints a full 12 inches higher at 100 yards by using Swiss 3f, as compared to Goex 3f.

Here is a directive, quoted directly from the forum rules sticky - italic/bold type is mine....

POSTS FOR BREECH LOADING GUNS:

Ӣ The firearm must have been made prior to 1865. Replicas of these guns are also acceptable.

Ӣ The firearm must utilize an ignition system which is separate from any form or type of cartridge that may have been used to seal the breech or load the powder or the projectile. The "cartridge" may incorporate a pan or similar device to hold priming powder.

Ӣ Vent ignited guns, Matchlocks, Wheel-locks, any form of Flintlock and its predecessors, Percussion cap and its predecessors are all acceptable for discussion.

Ӣ Discussion of needle guns, pinfire, rim fire, center fire and any similar cartridges containing priming devices or the firearms that use them is not permitted.

Ӣ Posts may be made in a suitable section such as, smoothbore, cannon, handgun, flintlock rifle or percussion rifle, based on the type of gun.

Posts in the General Muzzleloading section is recommended.

I humbly submit that the Fergusen rifle falls into the time frame of forum regs