Chokes

[tg]

I see a lot of jug choke topics lately and wonder what the difference between talking about them and post ML period scopes, or bolt action ML's would be,there is an ADVANTAGE over ML era tech it seems that the promotion of this technology may very well give new smoothbore shooters the nod to forget about working up loads with the common bore of the ML period as many here have done and just add post forum period technology, am I the only one that questions whether this is the correct place for such exchanges, again nothing to do with using modern tech just where we talk about it..if we are trying to "keep Tradition Alive" and set that example for those to follow.

 

[fyrfyter43]

TG, I have to agree with you. I hunt with a ML because I want to experience the hunt as it would have been, say 250 years ago. The longer I shoot MLs, the more interested I become in the historical aspect, and the more I realize that modern technology has crept into traditional muzzleloading.

It's surprising how many things have become so accepted that many believe them to be historically correct.

 

[Tony Logan]

I agree with you tg, there is a lot on here about jug choking. this is where I learned about it. Maybe its not correct. My new fowler is jug choked. It will be used for my personal pleasure hunting turkeys in TN where you can kill 10 birds(spring and fall combined) a year. In my case the turkeys do not have an unfair advantage. I have a ton of work done to try to get my pattern anywhere close to where I want it. I plan on doing that work. Heck I am still trying to learn how to make it go off everytime.

What I am saying is I never even owned, held or shot a flintlock until I read so much stuff online, on sites like this I had to get one last year. Now I own and shoot 2. "Everybody" has got to have a 'starting place.' Just like with their clothing. Mine is no where near ready to be judged or juried, and I might not ever be comfortable wearing it around the truly historically correct. I will get as close as I can. Its like this, I took 3 deer with my percussion rifle with iron sights last year, I used to shoot an inline and a 30:06 with a Leupold. This fall I plan on hunting with the new fowler and 45 flintlock and leaving the percussion at home.

I am moving away from modern all the time going back in time as fast as I can afford to go. So someday I might hunt with an original flinter or one made from scratch. It would have to be right handed,( mine are lefties, like my dominant eye. I would kill a turkey with homemade shot, homemade powder and a flint rock I found on the ground. I have no interest in a matchlock at this time. Until then I need to keep reading about jug choking shooting store bought powder and store bought shot because like I already said I have got a lot to learn.

 

[tg]

I will just mention one more time it is not about using this technology just whether it fits in the scope of this forum as it is basicaly a non ML tech and past the cutoff date.There are a lot of things man people use that does not fit here for the same reasons, have the guidelines been set aside for post 1865 tech as valid topics or is it a matter of whtether a bunch of people really like the stuff so we loook the other way and live with a growing list of white Elephants.I will not comment on it again.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Its very easy for the Purists to forget that NOT everyone can hunt in the same pristine conditions that some shooters have available to them. Waterfowl shooters,for instance, are restricted to using NON-lead shot in their guns, just like the modern hunters. Where you can hunt waterfowl, you are almost always being crowded by other shooters with modern guns, and who use questionable loads, and have a strange way of measuring 40 yards. My first goose hunt was at a commercial Club near the Mississippi river, and we were having trouble with "Sky-Busters" from the club next to the one where I was. The Guide/caller used his Walkie-Talkie to call the owner at his house, and ask him to call the neighbor to throw those guys out. They were shooting at geese that were more than 100 yds. up but responding to all our calls, and slowly coming down, until the sky-busters scared them off.

I do Not blame Modern BP waterfowlers for using Jug chokes, or modern screw-in chokes in their guns. It keeps BP a Presence in the hunting fields, so we are not all forgotten. That benefits US ALL- even the purists. Without chokes in their bores, they simply can't compete with modern gun shooters in blinds just 50 yds.( or less) from them.

The same goes with the BP shotgun shooter who has to hunt with "buddies" using modern guns. He will almost never get a shot at game, if his gun is not choked. Its not that the buddies are game hogs( altho that does occur). Its because they don't like to see a bird lost because your gun can't reach out far enough. So, they tend to blast away at what should be your bird to shoot.

I think the "rules" of this forum are flexible enough to allow discussions of jug chokes, because they do provide an "answer" or "solution" for those shooters who want to use a BP gun in the field, but have shooting conditions that will not allow a cylinder bore shotgun to be very effective. Claude's restrictions on time were intended to keep this forum discussing muzzleloaders, even acknowledging that there were some Breechloaders in use during the time period set.

I think This Thread can easily separate out the discussions on Jug-choking, so that people reading here will understand that this "invention" probably didn't occur until at least the late 1860s, and probably not until the mid 1870s. So far, the evidence is simply not that clear.

What we do know about "ideas" is that they often occur in separate locations by different people in the same relative short time period. The guy who gets the Credit is the one who thinks to patent the idea, or otherwise publish a "service" to provide the concept on other people's guns.

IN TRUTH, he may, in fact, have simply developed the idea from something he saw someone else do first, often years before. Not every person who comes up with an original idea has the financial resources to develop that idea into a commercially profitable venture. In the gun business, this happens all the time. :shocked2: :hmm: :idunno: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[Lorne Johnson]

I would agree with Paul. It is the spirit of the form that matters. Enforcing the "letter" of period correctness (if such a letter, or line, could be precisely drawn) would really impoverish the forum. The Lyman guns all come with coil springs, which are hardly period correct. Virtually all the reproduction guns are made with modern steel--nobody has made Damascus barrels in a hundred years. The Thompson's aren't all that pure either. But, the heart of the forum rests in those guns, and they serve the spirit of muzzle-loading very well indeed.

 

[RwBeV]

I was one of those fellows that refused to stop hunting with a ML shot gun when the steel shot laws came to being. An un-choked gun is marginal at best for water fowl, if you have to use steel in one, its useless. I had my gun choked in order to shoot steel shot, at least I can still hunt with a ML that way. Thank goodness I was able to get my hands on some Bismuth, so that will do for now.

The 1865 date us kind of iffie with jug choking, some where in the mountain of Muzzle Blast, Muzzle Loader, Buckskin Report and many others (a friend of mine gave me 8 milk crates full of black powder magazines) I read a reference to jug choking in the 1860 era, I will dig through and see if I can find it. Either way it is a traditional form of choking a ML, In my way of thinking no more incorrect than using fluid steel barrels or coil springs as mentioned earlier.

Over the years I have had several choked ML shot guns, I am by no means an expert but if someone is looking for information I will give all I have. It is my way of keeping the sport of ML hunting going. If not where are they supposed to look, if you bring it up on a modern shotgun forum they will run you off (I tried, thats how I found this forum)

Bob

 

[cgg]

I think Paul has pretty much hit the mark concerning jug choked guns and bird hunting in 2010.

I am not a big fan of jug choking, but I just sent out a 16 ga. barrel to get choked. The way the game laws are written these days I am limited to using shot no larger than #4 and therefore have to shoot for the turkey's head. Jug choking lets people make those head shots ethically and with authority.

I guess my point is that I like being historically correct, but the way some modern game laws are written I really can't be. For shooting small shot at turkey heads, choked barrels are the way to go, IMO. It is more important to me to make clean, ethical kills than it is to be historically correct, in this case.

I don't believe folks hunted turkeys with small shot and aimed for the head in the 18th or early 19th century. If this was 1810 instead of 2010 I would take my .36 long rifle out with a patched round ball and hunt turkeys, but I can't legally do that where I hunt in the spring.

Whether or not discussing choked flintlocks fits within the parameters of this forum is for someone else to decide. I have a lot to learn about all kinds of muzzleloader shooting and hunting and I guess I can look for another forum if I have to.

At least in Pennsylvania in the fall turkey season I can use a rifle and I will take my .36 loaded with a patched round ball out then.

 

[ebiggs1]

Everybody that shoots a flintlock is HC/PC. It is just a matter of how HC/PC that individual is.

Excellent reply Mr. Vallandigham.

 

[fyrfyter43]

It sounds to me like a lot of folks really don't want to leave behind their modern ideas about hunting and embrace the challenge of hunting with a more primitive weapon.

Turkeys can be killed with fine shot out of a cylinder bore barrel. There are plenty of folks right here on this forum that do it on a pretty regular basis. Do they have to pass on some longer shots that could possibly be made with a modern choked shotgun? I'm sure they do. But that is part of the challenge of hunting with a more primitive weapon. You have to hunt harder to get within range of your quarry.

Sure, I own guns made with modern steels, and even, gasp...one with a coil spring lock. However, I do not see the parallel that some try to make whenever this type of topic comes up. Modern steel and coil springs do not offer any real advantage in the field, especially not in comparison to jug chokes.

Don't get me wrong...it doesn't matter to me one bit how others choose to hunt. After all, it's your tag. However, don't fool yourself or others into thinking that you're really taking a step back into the past, unless that past is circa 1970s.

 

[roundball]

IMO, its difficult to make some of the hard, fast, absolute direct comparisons about using muzzleloaders today for turkey hunting as an example, to using them 'back in the past'.

While no one will ever confuse me with a historian, everything I've gathered over the past many years leaves me with the conclusion that turkeys were mainly hunted with rifles/PRBs, not smoothbores & bird shot.
But most states today don't allow rifles to be used for turkey hunting, and some states even restrict the shot sizes, forcing the issue of using smoothbores and small size shot.
Further, turkey hunting today is basically sport...compared to hunting for food back in the day...plus, modern turkey hunting ethics disdain shooting turkeys off the roost which IMO, I'm as certain the settlers did as I am that the sun will rise in the East.

All that said to remind us that we have sort of an apples / oranges situation trying to totally and absolutely compare the use of smoothbores & fine shot today...(without even getting into the notion of chokes)...to what was used and the manner of take back during those times, and specifically speaking of turkey hunting there's not much of a direct comparison at all.

Personally I have .28 and .20ga smoothbore Flintlocks that I use on a variety of game...had one of the .20ga smoothbores Jug Choked for my turkey hunting out into a large open green field and like it as well for that as I like the .28ga cylinder bore used for squirrels, deer, etc.
I'm right where I want to be in my 'journey' to the past, hunting everything exclusively with Flintlocks, rain or shine, and know exactly what & how I'm hunting with them...best longest lasting type of sport / hobby activity I've undertaken in my life...knocking on 20 years now.

 

[fyrfyter43]

You are absolutely right that modern turkey hunting is very dissimilar to the way turkeys were hunted in the past. But I think this discussion really goes farther than hunting turkeys with jug choked barrels. It has more to do with the mindset that "if they'd-a had it, they'd-a used it". The fact is that they didn't have it, so they couldn't use it.

That's great that you are right where you want to be. I don't fault anyone for their chosen means of hunting. But you also understand and acknowledge that your choice of weapon is not historically correct.

Reading some of the threads around here, it's easy to see where a beginner can get the idea that many modernisms (short starters, cushion wads, jug choking, etc.) are historically correct.

 

[roundball]

You are absolutely right that modern turkey hunting is very dissimilar to the way turkeys were hunted in the past.

It has more to do with the mindset that "if they'd-a had it, they'd-a used it".

No, not my situation at all...I learned about the Jug Choke and decided to try it...just like I learned about Patent Breeches and decided to use them...had nothing to do with "if they'd-a had it, they'd-a used it". I pretty much do what "I" decide I want to do...and you'll never find a post of mine where I claimed that what I do is HC/PC.
IE: I took many different types of game with many different calibers and gauges for years using T/C Hawkens with T/C and GM barrels, admittedly not "HC/PC".

Personally I find the HC/PC mentality lorded in the open/general type forums a total turn off...if somebody wants to preach strict history they can go do it in the relevant history categories...but be aware if they do...they better cover their glass house with plywood because I bet even I could throw a stone through the glass that most of those folks live in.
:grin:

 

[pmwest]

If the true goal of this forum is to keep tradition alive, then I would think it appropriate to discuss and compare the historical documentation of the development of choked smoothbore barrels. There are records of published advertisements for choked shotguns from the 1780’s. The Roper choke, a screw on detachable device, was patented in 1866. The recessed or “jug” choke was one of many techniques used to improve patterns during the muzzleloading caplock shotgun era. One of the advantages of this type of choke was that it could be applied to an existing barrel. I have not found any pre-1865 documentation of distain for using choked barrels as being too modern.

 

[fyrfyter43]

Bill, sorry for the misunderstanding. My first paragraph wasn't necessarily directed at you. I wrote the rest of my post and then went back and added the first paragraph. That was more referring to a general mindset.

Like I said, I don't care how anybody else fills their tags. But I do think it's important that folks understand the difference between what was in use in, say, the 18th century vs what came along much later. Many modernisms have crept into muzzleloading for the sake of making things easier and I think a lot of folks are under the false impression that things such as short starters and jug chokes are historically correct.

When we start talking about things like this, where do we draw the line?

 

[Capt. Jas.]

There are records of published advertisements for choked shotguns from the 1780’s.

You are going to need to cite and expand on this one.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Indeed! In the London Gun Trials of 1866 the winning patterns were no better than one would today expect of a good cylinder bore gun. If any of the entrants were experimenting with any form of choke it clearly wasn't very effective. It is one thing to claim to have a form of choke, such as the Roper muzzle attachment, and quite another to demonstrate something which actually works.

 

[pmwest]

“The Gun and Its Development” By W. W. Greener, Ninth Edition, page 255. Titled: Historical Note on Choke-Boring.

“Instructions to Young Sportsmen; on the choice, care and management of Guns;”¦”, Second Edition, 1816 By P. Hawker, Esq. Page 11 describes a jug choke system referred to as “open behind”. The author was not complimentary of this type of barrel.

It is interesting to note in some of these old writings the techniques of boring barrels. It seems to be very common to taper the bore on straight taper from breech to muzzle or to “relief bore” with the last few inches of muzzle opening larger than gauge diameter.

 

[Capt. Jas.]

From an earlier discussion on chokes

I must with respect disagree with the two references, which if viewed together without further information might lead some to think the "Tula" or jug choke was being used in the 18th century.

Marolles was plagerized word for word more than once in various "Essays on Shooting" in the English language in the 18th century. The text was verbatim.

What Marolles describes is actually a belled or coned relief at the muzzle and in this particular case it is also roughened.

Here is the Marolles quote from Greener's book......On the authority of M. de Marolles, who wrote in 1781, it is asserted that
choke-boring was known to, and practised by, the gun-makers of his day. He
writes : " An iron or wooden mandrel, fitting the bore, is furnished at one end with
small files, which cut transversely only. This tool, put into the muzzle of a barrel
and turned round by means of a cross-handle, forms a number of superficial
scratches in the metal, by which the defect of scattering the shot is remedied.
One effect of this plan is that of destroying the smoothness of the barrels within,
rendering them liable to foul, and causing them to lead sooner, after the discharge."

The part of the Moralles text that Greener leaves out (probably because of the Deyeux reference below which would make for redundant reading) is........Some make the barrel wider for three or four inches at the muzzle ; and this bell-mouthed form is of very ancient date. Espinar, whose treatise has been already mentioned, says, he has generally found this succeed in making barrels throw their shot closer.

Greener then quotes Deyeux from an 1830's text....... Deyeux, who published the "Vieux Chasseur" in 1835, writes : "I have seen these
results produced by a barrel slightly opened at the muzzle, choked in the centre,
and freed at the breech, such as some good smiths pretend is best to make them.
I have seen the same results by a barrel choked two sizes at the muzzle, and by a
perfectly cylindrical gun."

Deyeux, in his use of the word "choke" is to mean the bore itself is reduced in size from that of the breech and muzzle diameter and not "choke" in the sense of pattern constriction as we think of it.

It is hard to see some of this not be a jug type of choking by just reading text and having modern knowledge of shotgun choking but when you see the above described barrels in person it all comes together.
I have in my possession a barrel as described.
Many of the old fowling pieces were given that bell in the muzzle and some were also relieved in the breech as well.

Could a jug have been done in the 18th century? The technology was certainly there to perform the actual simple task but to my knowledge not one material example or documentation of same exists.

Greener later goes on to say "It is, therefore, apparent that the gun-makers knew the need for increasing the
range of their guns and concentrating the shot to the centre of the target, and,
knowing this, it is probable that they sought to effect an improvement by altering the
shape of the bore; but from the statement of Deyeux -and his statements are
similar to those of other writers of the time it would seem that the methods had little success."

I dont have access to the context of the "open behind" reference in Hawker. Can you post it?

 

[pmwest]

I dont have access to the context of the "open behind" reference in Hawker. Can you post it?

Link to google books for second edition.