• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades

"SWAMPED" BARRELS??? Intended or poor workmanship?

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
If you have three identical length barrels; straight, swamped, and tapered that all weigh the same, shooting the same charge out of all three, the tapered barrel will flex the least (in a conventionally stocked gun), as, there is the least amount of mass out forward in static inertia to overcome when the barrel starts to flip upwards.

That same lack of static inertia moves the center of gravity rearward, which will make the tapered barrel want to flip up higher or more quickly on discharge..

Moving the center of mass forward makes holding the sights on target easier in unsupported positions, like standing. The further it is from the fulcrum, or your support hand, the steadier and more resistant to small wobbles it will be, but on the other hand, because of the momentum of the more forward mass on the wobbles, their amplitude of them will increase.

A longer sight radius will allow you to see small imperfections in sight picture more easily and make adjustments than a short one, (and thereby allow you to shoot it more accurately) but the barrel's intrinsic accuracy may not be as good as a shorter stiffer one, so it's something of a trade-off there, as well as factoring in the simple practicality of handling.
 
Then why did swamped barrels virtually disappear when straight and straight tapered barrels began to be manufactured.

Note that in the Colonial Williamsburg video on making a rifle, the smith's kept moving to larger octagon dies in their sledge block as the barrel was forge welded. The thesis is that the smith's used their knowledge of how metals move when heated to forging temperatures. Original swamped barrels are not swamped to the degree of modern swamped barrel profiles.

I do not disagree that swamped barrels are lighter than straight barrels. I agree that swamped barrels handle better.
 
Then why did swamped barrels virtually disappear when straight and straight tapered barrels began to be manufactured.
Ease and lower cost of manufacturing. I'm sure a company, like Douglas, which contributed greatly to the resurgence of muzzle loading in our time, would have had to charge much more for their barrels if made swamped. Plus, those (if swamped) would not have been as versatile in building a rifle that needed shorter lengths.
 
I agree but in the thread last week about octagon rifles and round barrel rifles I was told that the swamped barrel was failure of the gunsmith to draw file the barrel properly. In fact the person replying to me said that swamped barrels were no more than poor workmanship but sense the rifles exist with swamped barrels we are only following their imperfections
IMHO the answer got was wrong.

Cost to make them is the reason they went away. Blame the consumer IMHO not the makers.
 
Hi,
To be fair to the individual who posted that swamped barrels were poor workmanship, when you look at some "swamped" barrels on original long rifles, they are so slightly tapered or tapered and flared it could seem like just uneven work. However, when those barrels are measured it is apparent the swamping was intentional, however slight. The key feature for a swamped barrel is the mass and thickness is at the breech where you need it for safety and I believe good stock design. If you carried that mass forward you would have a very heavy unbalanced barrel. So taking off metal where it was not needed made great sense. The flair at the muzzle could be just fashion or it might be to allow for a low fine front sight, which was the fashion at the time. As far as affecting ballistics, I honestly doubt that played any part. It wasn't until 1737 and Benjamin Robbins' paper to the Royal Society that anyone described the science behind barrels, rifling, and ballistics. Most of the great German gunsmiths that made swamped barrels on wheelock rifles during the 1600s did not know any of that science. They had experience but their explanations why one barrel was better than another was based more on metaphysics than physics. The straight barrels on mid to late 19th century American long rifles probably resulted from more standardized industrialization of barrel making and straight barrels would be more economical to make. All of those late long rifles, particularly during the percussion era , that I have handled were miserably unbalanced and muzzle heavy. I would hate to shoot them unless using a rest. They also have little appeal to me because the (IMO) artistry both in form and function was all gone compared with the 18th century. With respect to the intention of swamping or tapering barrels, the book "Espingarda Perfeyta", which is an early 18th century gunsmithing manual from Portugal clearly describes the intentional process. The Spanish and Portuguese made the best barrels in the world at that time and the design was always octagon to round. They would start by apportioning piles of iron such that 14 piles were for the breech section, 12 were for the rest of the octagon section and then there were 3 piles of 8 for the round section. A total of 50 piles. Clearly they meant the breech to be big and then taper to the round, which would be smallest of all.

dave
 
While Dave knows his barrels I think it only fair to add that Turkish rifled barrels where exellent & equal to the European makers .Nor do they vary much other than the tall rear sight arrangement and a tendency to swamp more heavily .And the beautiful figured' Damacus' barrels made long before Europeans could produce them I seem to recall Wm Rigby was the first to match them about 1818 or there abouts . They might have run around in Turbans & Baggy pants but they were no slouches in gun makeing .
Rudyard
 
Earlier today I attended the Long Rifles of the American Revolution event at Rock Ford. Almost all of the rifles on display had swamped barrels and some, such as the Turvey rifle, to a dramatic extent. I most certainly did not see any shoddy work. Quite the contrary, they strike me as more works of art than weapons of war. When my imagination allows me to travel back well over 200 years and witness the conditions in which these folks lived, worked and created these masterpieces, I find their accomplishments a wonderment!
 
I agree but in the thread last week about octagon rifles and round barrel rifles I was told that the swamped barrel was failure of the gunsmith to draw file the barrel properly. In fact the person replying to me said that swamped barrels were no more than poor workmanship but sense the rifles exist with swamped barrels we are only following their imperfections
Watch the Gunsmith of Williamsburg and see him make a barrel from a flat piece of iron, forge weld it then bore it. Pay attention to what he says about he says while he draw files the barrel, swamping it.

It is done to lighten the barrel, balance the rifle and give it less of a nose heavy feel. It does not weaken the barrel and is done on purpose.
 
My .54 Flint Hawken has a 38" 1" diameter barrel and I need a gun bearer in order to take it still hunting. The sling helps for carrying but off hand it points like a piece of locomotive rail. I only take it now for end of the day trail watching.

1666878895042.jpeg


On the other hand, the .54 Isaac Haines I completed last fall has a 38" swamped barrel and what a difference in handling. Off hand pointing is very sure and steady and its a delight to carry.

1666879131409.jpeg
1666879158691.jpeg
 
Then why did swamped barrels virtually disappear when straight and straight tapered barrels began to be manufactured.

Note that in the Colonial Williamsburg video on making a rifle, the smith's kept moving to larger octagon dies in their sledge block as the barrel was forge welded. The thesis is that the smith's used their knowledge of how metals move when heated to forging temperatures. Original swamped barrels are not swamped to the degree of modern swamped barrel profiles.

I do not disagree that swamped barrels are lighter than straight barrels. I agree that swamped barrels handle better.
They disappeared when the bean counters got involved.
 
Hi,
To be fair to the individual who posted that swamped barrels were poor workmanship, when you look at some "swamped" barrels on original long rifles, they are so slightly tapered or tapered and flared it could seem like just uneven work. However, when those barrels are measured it is apparent the swamping was intentional, however slight. The key feature for a swamped barrel is the mass and thickness is at the breech where you need it for safety and I believe good stock design. If you carried that mass forward you would have a very heavy unbalanced barrel. So taking off metal where it was not needed made great sense. The flair at the muzzle could be just fashion or it might be to allow for a low fine front sight, which was the fashion at the time. As far as affecting ballistics, I honestly doubt that played any part. It wasn't until 1737 and Benjamin Robbins' paper to the Royal Society that anyone described the science behind barrels, rifling, and ballistics. Most of the great German gunsmiths that made swamped barrels on wheelock rifles during the 1600s did not know any of that science. They had experience but their explanations why one barrel was better than another was based more on metaphysics than physics. The straight barrels on mid to late 19th century American long rifles probably resulted from more standardized industrialization of barrel making and straight barrels would be more economical to make. All of those late long rifles, particularly during the percussion era , that I have handled were miserably unbalanced and muzzle heavy. I would hate to shoot them unless using a rest. They also have little appeal to me because the (IMO) artistry both in form and function was all gone compared with the 18th century. With respect to the intention of swamping or tapering barrels, the book "Espingarda Perfeyta", which is an early 18th century gunsmithing manual from Portugal clearly describes the intentional process. The Spanish and Portuguese made the best barrels in the world at that time and the design was always octagon to round. They would start by apportioning piles of iron such that 14 piles were for the breech section, 12 were for the rest of the octagon section and then there were 3 piles of 8 for the round section. A total of 50 piles. Clearly they meant the breech to be big and then taper to the round, which would be smallest of all.

dave
Thanks Dave! Finally a common sense, thoughtful, we'll informed, answer without name calling.
 
The history of barrel making is something I've rarely come across and know little about. But I well know how both swamped and straight barrels handle. I currently own 3 flintlock rifles and 2 with straight barrels. My go-to deer rifle in .45 has a straight barrel. But it's light wgt. and short at 36" and is wonderful to handle. Another .45 has a heavier swamped barrel (38") and is a dream to handle.

IMHO an all around rifle should have a swamped barrel. But a strictly target rifle does much better with a straight barrel. I also believe longer barrels, over 38", behave much nicer with a swamped tube.
 
The history of barrel making is something I've rarely come across and know little about. But I well know how both swamped and straight barrels handle. I currently own 3 flintlock rifles and 2 with straight barrels. My go-to deer rifle in .45 has a straight barrel. But it's light wgt. and short at 36" and is wonderful to handle. Another .45 has a heavier swamped barrel (38") and is a dream to handle.

IMHO an all around rifle should have a swamped barrel. But a strictly target rifle does much better with a straight barrel. I also believe longer barrels, over 38", behave much nicer with a swamped tube.
A friend of mine has a 42 inch long 40 caliber straight 1-1/8" target gun. You can hold it on your shoulder, but you are much better off using a bench. I, however dont bench shoot, I squirrel hunt. Swamped barrels for me, thank you.
 
A friend of mine has a 42 inch long 40 caliber straight 1-1/8" target gun. You can hold it on your shoulder, but you are much better off using a bench. I, however dont bench shoot, I squirrel hunt. Swamped barrels for me, thank you.



I have swamped barrels on 3 vs straight barrels on 2.
 
Last week in a thread about octagon to round barrel rifles one person said that it was totally unintentionally done because draw fiiling an true Octagon barrel was messed up and that's why we see swamped barrels
absolutely totally WRONG! It was primarily done for balance and ease of handling. I have two flintlock longrifles. One is the Traditions Pennsylvania Longrifle that I got back in the early 2000's, which has a 40¼" long straight barrel. There is no question that it is nose heavy and hard to mount, swing, and hold on target when shooting freehand. However, with a fairly long barrel it's easy to rest on a tree branch or other support. I thought that was how all longrifles felt until I bought my Early Lancaster (also in .50 cal. like the Traditions) from a private builder, who used a 44½" swamped barrel on it. The first time I handled it, the difference was dramatic.

Even though the barrel on my Early Lancaster was an additional 4¼" longer than the Traditions one, the balance point on the rifle is right where my left hand holds the forearm of the stock. Night and day easier to mount, swing, and especially hold on target. It wasn't until 1838 when Remington made the first successful barrel drilling machine with a hollow center supplying the front of the bit with oil or lubricant to keep the drill bit cool as it drilled through a solid steel blank that straight barrels were made. They gave up the balance and ease of handling for the lower cost and reduced time of making the barrel. The length of the rifles and their barrels shrank tremendously to help compensate for this nose-heavy design and half-stock rifles such as those used on the plains became the norm.

Prior to that ingenious design invented by Remington, the barrels were made by by hammer forge-welding a flat iron skelp around a mandrel. After removing the mandrel, they were then bored out to make bore of the rifle perfectly straight and reamed smooth. If they lived near a cannon maker, they could send the barrel to them for this "boring" process. After it was bored out, then it would laboriously be rifled. Typically took about a week to make a single rifle barrel. This boring out and rifling after removing the mandrel is why rifles made with the same mandrel would more often than not end up being different calibers. So much so that when you bought a rifle, the bag mold to make the lead balls to fit it was included with the rifle. During the Rev War era, most of these rifles were around the .50 caliber size but could be perhaps .48 cal. to anywhere as large as .54 caliber. So there were no "standard" size rifle calibers and lead balls to fit them. Rather it was a variety of sizes.

A gunsmith shop would usually have a number of apprentices and journeymen besides the master builder(s). It takes approximately 400 man-hours to make a single rifle using the materials and methods of the 18th century. Working 12 hours a day, that is more than 33-days, which would severely limit the number of pieces that could be turned out. Using apprentices for the beginner's skills such as starting the forge and using the bellows to keep it at temperature, while having journeymen work the brass, build the locks, do the carving, etc. allowed a gunsmith to produce enough rifles or guns (smoothbores) to stay in business. Additionally most of the locks were imported by the barrel-full from England before the war, which would reduce a major amount of labor. From records of some of the Pennsylvania gunsmiths, repairs were a big part of the business, if not the major part.

The octagon shape that you see on these rifles was much easier to make than a round barrel because you needed a thicker barrel to handle the pressures and, although they had spring board lathes for shaping wood, they had nothing powerful enough to lathe a perfectly round wrought-iron barrel. And contrary to the "draw knife" thoughts on forming the octagon, I had the gunsmith at Williamsburg in about 2008 tell me that they were hammered to shape and then filed or ground to make the nice flats and edges. He said a drawknife was a wood working tool, not a gunsmithing tool.

Typically now days, a swamped barrel will cost you about $200 or more than a straight tapered barrel. The barrel itself is more expensive and inletting the stock to accommodate swamp design takes longer than inletting a straight barrel. That's about the price of upgrading the wood used for the stock. If it comes down to either a swamped barrel or a prettier piece of wood, go for the swamped barrel. You'll absolutely love the way your new rifle handles with it. Below is a picture of my Early Lancaster Rifle hanging on the wall. You can easily see the swamped shape of the barrel as it tapers down to the middle and then swells up again starting about 14" or so from the crown of the muzzle.

Early Lancaster.JPG
It's
 
Back
Top