Small bore or Musket bore Baker rifle?

[Farren55]

So I shall be purchasing a baker rifle kit from the Rifle Shoppe for myself and I have to ask has anyone had either?

My first inclination is the Musket bore baker but I've heard that they have a heavy recoil, does anyone have any experience with them, is it really that bad or were the troops just issued with a musket service charge of powder (220 grains I believe at the time of their introduction)

or would the carbine bore baker be better (more accurate, lighter) rifle to own?

 

[Larry Akers]

I think caliber would depend somewhat on what you are going to use the rifle for. If for hunting dangerous (African) game I go for the musket caliber (early issues of Baker). If for North American game or targets I'd opt for the smaller, later issue caliber. It's still big enough for any North American game and won't knock your teeth out with recoil.

Baker recommended a charge of 118 grs of "fine" powder for his rifle. Ordanance specified the same charge as used in the Bess--220grs. However, know that this Bess charge was composed of the same powder as used in cannon. I'd imagine a good portion of this coal was just blown out the barrel without igniting.

I think I'd use 90-110grs FFg and see what it does.

 

[Wes/Tex]

Service charges during the Napoleonic era for British firearms were in "musket grade" powder (probably about like our modern Fg grade.

SLP musket: 8 drams...212 grains
carbines (75%): 6 drams...164 grains
Baker Rifle:4 & 1/2 drams...123 grains


For ref.: The French 1777 Corrige An IX took a service charge of 12 & 1/2 drams or 340 grains of p'musket' grade powder due to the inferior grade of theirs compared to the English who had access to Indian saltpeter due to the supremacy of the Royal Navy.



As for the bores...I would prefer the rifled bore like the originals, obviously, but with wait times from The Rifle Shoppe running 5 to 7 years or more, teh decision is entirely yours!

 

[hrp103]

I have a baker in carbine bore (.62) made from a Rifle Shoppe kit. It has a colerain barrel and it shoots very well with 90-100 gr. of ffg.
I would advise the carbine bore for all the reasons that it predominated in British service. It is "more" correct for the peninsular campaign if you are a fan of the Sharpe's series.
Every home should have one....

Pep

 

[Wes/Tex]

The .62 was the typical bore size for most although some were made in musket bore, perhaps as experiment. Contrary to what many think, there were fixed sights versions even though rifle bored. The 95th, 60th, the Portuguese cazadores and light companies of the KGL plus many officers and NCOs carried Baker Rifles...how

 

[Farren55]

Thanks for all the replies, I found which rifle I'm going with (the answer is neither), I do some 1812 reenactment, and want a rifle I can purchase bullets and the like from my local hunting store (which has .32, .45, .50, and .54 calibers) so I'll probably end with american 1792 or 1803 rifles.

really I'm just impatient and don't want to wait for the Rifle shoppe to send me the parts in a few years, so I shall probably end with the one that has the most parts currently in stock.

 

[Commodore Swab]

FYI TRS is making barrels now so if you get a smoothie odds are it will be made in house and not a colrain.

 

[Farren55]

thanks

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I don't know where folks are getting the powder loads. Can somebody cite the reference, as I have Cuthbertson on page 118 specifying that for "Normal Exercise" the load would be 60 cartridges to the pint which would be about 115 grains, and for other times the cartridges should be loaded at 50 to a pint, which would be 140 grains.

That's in 1776, so if folk have a later reference, of a primary source like that of Cuthbertson, can they please cite it for me so I can add it to my lexicon.

thanks.

LD

 

[RAEDWALD]

The musket bore Baker was to permit a unit to use only the standard musket cartridges. Same reduced bore size as the later Brunswick. So the cartridge load would be the same as a normal musket ie with a .685" ball (124 grains in an average powder). With a loose ball and cloth patch it could use the blank cartridge separately.

I would imagine the recoil to be stout but not exceptional if you are used to full musket recoil. Remember that the period users (who allegedly complained of the musket bore's recoil) were far lighter than most of us. I sadly probably weigh 1.5 times the weight of an 1810 Royal Marine so the felt recoil is less for me than for my historical predecessor.

I don't know that anyone is sure for whom they were made but the Royal Navy had a track record of preferring larger bores (eg the Heavy Naval Brunswick) and no carbine bore cartridges would be no longer needed on board ship. Only musket and pistol paper cartridges.

Were I to buy a Rifle Shoppe Baker it would be a Musket bore simply to have it use the same cartridges and ball as my musket. The heavier ball would extend it's effective range somewhat.

 

[Farren55]

Ok did some research and the .69 Cal Baker if you follow the grain match caliber rule for shooting can be a well shot gun.

but up it to service charge loads and you get something pretty stout.

the 10 bore (.77 caliber) muzzle loader is the type of gun you would use for large game (Kudu, african boar, Moose, Bear) with a large (150-200 grain charge). Giving a just brutal load (that will kill anything that moves).

 

[Wes/Tex]

First one I found was on The Rifle Shoppe's site in a quote from J. Morton Spearman's work "The British Gunner". The figures are from 1828, but are still those of the Napoleonic era and before as he noted. They had been so since Congreve's development of improved powder in the 18th century had dropped the service charge from 8 drams to 6 drams.

Musket
proof: 23.34 drams
service: 6 drams (my previous post was a typo)
exercise: 5 drams

Carbine (rifle bore)

proof: 15 drams
service: 4 drams
exercise: 4 drams

Carbine (musket bore)

proof: not stated
service: 5.5 drams
exercise: 4.5 drams

Spearman commented in the 1828 edition, "The service charges given in this table, although established by authority, are too great, and might be reduced by about one-fourth. They have not been altered since 1775, while the strength of powder has been increased by in nearly a two-fold ratio since that period."

With the coming of percussion Besses in teh 1840's the service charge was further reduced to 4.5 drams.

 

[tenngun]

Often god awful charges went in to guns of every sort. They thought it would make it more powerful. Hc or not there is no reason to 'load for bear' today, even when your hunting bear. It's hard on you and the gun, and generally won't shoot as well.

 

[Wes/Tex]

Remember that part of these charges were intended for priming adn powder then was less potent than what we have now. In fact, the powder issued to Santa Anna's army in the 1830's was of such poor quality the charges are thought to have topped 300 grains. Several period call it 'charcoal powder' and the Texians usually poured it out but saved the balls and paper for reuse.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Well I should think that with the improved powder the amount of powder would decrease.

There is a third reference in Cuthbertson of 45 cartridges to the pint, so those drams are pretty close to the 18th century recommendations.

Thanks Wes for the source.

LD

 

[Artificer]

FWIW, Bailey and others noted the Musket charges changed quite drastically in the 18th century.

FIW - 165 grains

AWI - At first 180 grains and then up to 220 grains, BUT Bailey also noted how often the British Army complained of especially poor powder and some noted it was not as good as it had been in the FIW

The improved powder in the 19th century meant they could use smaller charges.

Gus

 

[Farren55]

I'm pretty sure for the Napoleonic/1812 war(s) the British were still at the 220g of powder (which is my preferred period for reenactment/muzzleloading arms.

 

[RAEDWALD]

I think that the relevant charge is that based upon modern powder. The muskets with the .703" Lovells Improved Bore used standard musket cartridges. The percussion muskets used 124 grains down the bore so that should be treated as a maximum (except with Swiss) and allow the priming pan to be filled from a separate container as is modern practice. How much below 124 grains can only be determined by actual trials but it should be accurate to 300 yards with the heavier ball and I have seen respectable shooting at 300 yards with a Rifle Shoppe standard Baker even though it is sighted only up to 200 yards. Post 1815 the service charge for the standard Baker was 4 drams/110 grains raised from 3 1/2 drams/95 grains so 4 1/2 drams does not appear excessive for the task of moving the heavier ball. BTW the Rifle Shoppe barrel is .69" which I presume to be to use an off the shelf US boring but does mean that a sized .69" minie is ballistically better, readily available and as used in back action Bakers in the USA. Trials with Brunswicks and winged conicals gave effective ranges of 800 yards and beyond in volley firing so the minie (properly Burton) should be as good and far superior to the service ball. The standard musket paper cartridge ball of .685" will be a snug but sliding fit with the paper further reducing windage but will soon foul with .685" ball + the paper.