doubles

[Mean Gene]

Just was thinking of early ammerican double barrel muzzleloaders wondering to my self why it seems they weren't more popular then single shot rifles back in the day, you think it may have been because they were heavier or was it cost? :hmm:

 

[Stumpkiller]

Weight.

 

[Len Graves]

I think it may have been a little of both, cost and weight. It may favor cost. WE were a poor nation. Another factor may have been how many smiths would have made one, or have been able to make one?

 

[coloradoclyde]

I think it's like the difference between a Vice-grip, Channel locks, and a Crescent wrench...
They are all different tools designed for different jobs.....but they will all remove a nut.

 

[coloradoclyde]

WE were a poor nation.

Not according to my research...

 

[azmntman]

I have not researched it but trust ya. I often think how in the good ol USA for the last several hundred years if you had a hungry kid you could at least steal a meal or a loaf or what have you. Many counties today are so poor they cant even find a bite to steal. I think were terribly rich NOW

As for why little dbl brls? maybe they didnt need a second shot? I could use a triple most outings myself :redface:

 

[Lonegun1894]

I'm thinking it probably also has to do with the complications due to barrel regulation, as in making both barrels hit to the same point. That is a problem to this day, even when modern technology is used. Often times, even double barrel shotguns don't shoot both barrels into the same pattern, so you can imagine how much more difficult with making a double rifle shoot to the same POI.

 

[dodger]

There are many reasons but I think a major factor would be cost . The skill required to make a double barrel gun and keep the gun slim at the locks and the weight to acceptable levels would be much higher . A gunmaker of such standing would demand much higher payment for his work and his natural inclination would be to produce guns of the highest quality .
This would put them out of the price range of an average person .
Obviously a usable double barreled shotgun is easier to make than a d/b rifle and easier to regulate as the expected effective range is much shorter; barrels can be much lighter too ..
Even today d/b rifles are considered short range dangerous game rifles and the emphasis is on reliability rather than accuracy .

I think that the average citizen was much better off in the fledgling new nation of the US than his counterpart in the old nation of the UK and was able to buy arms freely [and had greater need of them for providing food and protection] .
In the UK the landowning class were the only ones able to shoot game and had the wealth to be able to indulge themselves with high quality sporting guns .

 

[Mean Gene]

I imagine the cost would be pretty high however I was unaware of the POI issues with doubles, I guess that's why some were both shotgun and rifle.

 

[shunka]

here are some numbers regarding costs:

We can see from the Fur trade records what the costs were.

from Inventory of merchandise, etc. delivered to the Northwest Company, at Okunaakan, and Point Matthews, November 22d and December 3d, 1813.

a common musket, new : $11.00 used: $10.00

lock, stock for ketland gun new $3.00
----

Saint Louis March 28th 1832 R. Campbell
Bought of J & A Kerr -

6 doz Butcher knives No 4778 @$1.58
5 Rifle Guns @$13.00
---------------

much later, in 1883
BOWN, James & Son ”” (James and William H. Bown), Enterprise
Gun Works 136-138 Wood St., Pittsburgh, Pa., from 1871; 121
Wood St. in 1883; bought out by Brown & Hirth in or before
1886. In 1883 advertised percussion fullstock rifles at $15, half-
stocks at $12 and $20, double rifles at $35, and double rifle-
shotguns at $30.
---------------

So, between 1813 and 1833 a common musket cost $11, a "rifle gun" cost $13.

in 1883, for comparison purposes, half stock percussion guns sold for $12, fullstock for $15 and
double shotguns for $30.

Since a double barrel gun would require 2 barrels, 2 locks, a more complicated trigger, a more complex
tang and breechplugs, and most important, soldering and correctly regulating the barrels together.
Not to mention twice the weight.

Thus we see the cost of a double would be *more* than twice the cost of a good single, and considerabley more than
a "common gun".

Double barrel shotguns were preferred by the Traders for night guard duty on the trail,
but were bought by the Company.

 

[nkbj]

Cost is the only reason I don't have a flinter double with one very slow twist rifle barrel and one smooth, one set of sights and the bore diameters set with the smooth slightly larger than the rifled. Thinking on this one is that for shot there would be one close and one far. Same for round ball.

 

[BrownBear]

I'm a 58 caliber guy at heart, and have too many or not enough depending on whose yardstick you're swinging. Either way, owning five rifles in the same caliber takes some justifying.

After a close and nasty encounter with my namesake I took it in my head that I really needed a Pedersoli 58 caliber double, and maybe one of their 62 caliber Howdahs hanging at my side.

Finally got to handle one of the 58 caliber doubles. Didn't reach for my wallet after realizing I'd rather be bear scat than lug the heavy beast over hill and dale. A howdah might sneak into my life one day, but more for geewhiz fun than bear scat deterrence. :rotf:

 

[nkbj]

Yeah, they're too heavy. A double needs to have the weight in the breech and the metal thinning way, way down as it goes forwards.

 

[bpd303]

I have seen some original over/under doubles on the auction sites. As a matter of fact, I picked one up a while back. Mine weigh's in at 12.5 pounds so yes they are a little heavier but mine balances well. http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/282290/post/1308866/hl//fromsearch/1/

 

[Mean Gene]

Thanks for sharing those pictures of your doubles, have you been able to establish about when the rifle was made?

I had an idea it would weigh more and cost more, great looking rifle I wasn't aware that mule ear locks were that old of a design, I thing it was the perfict choice to use on that gun.

Thanks again!

 

[BrownBear]

Yeah, they're too heavy. A double needs to have the weight in the breech and the metal thinning way, way down as it goes forwards.

Yeah. With the extra weight comes a requirement for superb balance. The Pedersoli double 58 in fact weighs no more than my 58 caliber GRRW Hawken with its 36" barrel tapered from 1 1/8" at the breech to 1" at the muzzle. But the taper shifts the weight back and the GRRW mounts and swings more like a shotgun, in spite of the longer barrel. Heavy in the hands when you're fondling it, but "light" up against your shoulder, if you follow that.

I had the good fortune in my youth to handle and shoot a whole lot of superb double rifles in the collection of a family friend. All of them were heavy, especially for a strapping lad, but they shouldered and aimed easily due to their exceptional balance.

That early experience made me expect the same from the Pedersoli. Not happening. Felt like a crowbar tied to a stick, there was so much weight out front.

 

[RedFeather]

Try handling one in .50 if you like a workout. I have the .54 and can see why doubles were not more popular in relatively large bores. One reason the Kodiak may be ungainly is they appear to be based on the 12 gauge shotgun, so barrel dimensions are the same. A trimmer gun might be just the ticket but I suppose it was cheaper just to use what they already had as the basic platform. Still, I've seen where small caliber swivel guns are said the be nose heavy. Just the price for having to go with thicker barrels due to the metallurgy of the day.

 

[TFoley]

I get to shoot not one, but three BP double rifles, two of them cartridge arms, and so outside the scope of this forum.

However, I can reliably inform this audience that the making of even a double muzzleloading percussion rifle is not something that the average Joe would entertain, given the degree of skill and mechanics needed to make one. The least expensive double that I shoot cost the equivalent of $15,000 when it was made in 1872, and it's a plain ol' thing for sure. The other two, both cartridge-firing [sorry] hit the pocket at between 40k and 80K when they were made - still £10K - £20K even now - at over a hundred years old.

tac

 

[RedFeather]

Yes, why the two sights on the Kodiak. Regulating is expensive. CVA tried to do it for years. Laser aligning, finally an adjustable muzzle collar. And cartridge doubles come with specific loads to guarantee shooting to common poi. I guess it is why there seem to be more shotgun/rifle combinations. Cheaper for the farmer, etc, than owning two guns. About the only guns like that to have survived the transition to modern arms are drillings and Savage .22/.410's, etc. Just not a big demand.

 

[OLUT]

With regard to Mean Gene's original question on early American double barrel guns, here is a collector's view: As the owner of many percussion over under guns, I agree with several of the contributors, especially Shunka's comment on cost. The other disadvantages of weight and typically no forearm stock (mighty cold hanging onto the metal barrel up here in NH in the winter) were offset by advantages by those with the funds to buy one: Two rapid shots without reloading and the choice of two barrels ( two rifles, or a rifle and a smooth rifle, or a rifle and shotgun combination), so the owner might get away with just one gun in his arsenal. There were also local buyer preferences, with most old percussion over under guns made and sold in Pennsylvania, New York State, and then in Michigan (usually by a gunmaker who migrated from NY). Likewise the buyer could select the type(s) of firing actions from a single lock on a swivel breech gun, or two side mounted locks, or a side mounted mule ear lock, and even a traditional back action sidelock with the second barrel fired by an under hammer action. Lots of choices for those that could afford them!