"smooth rifle" vs. fowler

[DutchmanDick]

I have seen, in both replica and original form, in flint and caplock, something called a "smooth rifle". Was there supposed to be an advantage of a "smooth rifle" over a normal fowler or fusil? What's the real difference, anyway, since they're both of relatively large bore compared to a conventional rifle (around 20 gauge or more, give or take some), and smoothbored?

 

[Dphar]

I have seen, in both replica and original form, in flint and caplock, something called a "smooth rifle". Was there supposed to be an advantage of a "smooth rifle" over a normal fowler or fusil? What's the real difference, anyway, since they're both of relatively large bore compared to a conventional rifle (around 20 gauge or more, give or take some), and smoothbored?

The smooth rifle is rifle stocked with rifle sights and theoretically the smooth rifle is easier to place shots with using a single patched ball. The fowler is a shotgun.
Smooth rifles were not any larger than rifles in most cases. Also note that a great many rifles have likely been bored smooth at later dates when they were enlarged from use to the point the single ball was too big to be practical.

Few original rifles of the Rev War era were over 52-54 caliber by reliable accounts of the time. So a 62 caliber rifle or smooth rifle is pretty rare by these accounts. They would also be very expensive to shoot compared to a 44-54 caliber rifle as was the fowler.

Dan

 

[Oldnamvet]

Normally I believe that the smooth rifle has both front and rear sights on it. Not so with a fowler. There may also be some balance differences with the fowler made to more easily swing on flying targets.

 

[tg]

A smoothrifle might also have a grip rail, cheek piece, rifle architecture, it is more than putting a rear sight on a smoothbore, it is made to aim from the get go,, not to be pointed, and the bores often were in the 50cal. range

 

[CoyoteJoe]

The differences between a smooth-rifle and a fowler are more apparent than the difference between a rifle and a smooth-rifle. I think those originally built as smooth-rifles never had double set triggers but many rifles also had single triggers. Smooth-rifles were more common in certain areas and eras. When I was researching Bucks county rifles it seemed about 1/3 were smooth whereas I've never heard of a Tennessee smooth-rifle, but having said that I expect I now will. :haha:

 

[BenCoogle]

I think the term used should properly be "Rifle Mounted Smoothbore".

Ben

 

[Dphar]

I think the term used should properly be "Rifle Mounted Smoothbore".

Ben

Smooth rifle is easiler to type.
Kindig's book shows Leonard Reedy making a "smooth rifle". If it really was a smoothbore is questionable I suppose since it could have been a rifle with no caving???
Dan

 

[zimmerstutzen]

I once had an original smooth rifle made near Norristown, PA around 1810 to 1820. It was exactly like a rifle, but without rifling. Thicker barrel wall than a smoothbore (trade gun)or a fowler. In my mind a smooth rifle has heavy barrel wall thickness like a rifle, a trade gun type smoothbore was for shot , buck or ball and had barrel wall thicknesses of about 1/8 inch at the muzzle. Fowlers were strictly for shot and often had very thin barrel walls at the muzzle, sometimes as thin as stove pipe. I'e seen examples of all three. Folwers tend to have plain shaped butt stocks, some times fish bellied. Trade gun smoothies, also have very plainly shaped stocks. Smooth rifle stocks have the same characteristics as rifle stocks with roman noses, crescent butts, cheek pieces, and often cast off. (cast off is the butt being angles slightly away from the centerline to accomodate the shooters cheek and to better get the eye in line with the sights. )

 

[Dphar]

I once had an original smooth rifle made near Norristown, PA around 1810 to 1820. It was exactly like a rifle, but without rifling. Thicker barrel wall than a smoothbore (trade gun)or a fowler. In my mind a smooth rifle has heavy barrel wall thickness like a rifle, a trade gun type smoothbore was for shot , buck or ball and had barrel wall thicknesses of about 1/8 inch at the muzzle. Fowlers were strictly for shot and often had very thin barrel walls at the muzzle, sometimes as thin as stove pipe. I'e seen examples of all three. Folwers tend to have plain shaped butt stocks, some times fish bellied. Trade gun smoothies, also have very plainly shaped stocks. Smooth rifle stocks have the same characteristics as rifle stocks with roman noses, crescent butts, cheek pieces, and often cast off. (cast off is the butt being angles slightly away from the centerline to accomodate the shooters cheek and to better get the eye in line with the sights. )

I wonder how many were bored smooth at later dates.
According to Kinding's book Leonard Reedy made 1 "smooth rifle" out of 48 guns 28+- were rifles.
Next we must ask was this a smooth bored rifle stocked gun or a rifle with not carving????

We will never know.
I find the A. Verner signed on the patchbox with
"This rifle made by A Verner Gunsmith" now a 48 SB amusing. Why did Verner cut "rifle" in the patchbox lid if it was a SB? Gun would be easier to cut.
While there is good documentation for rifle stocked smoothbores I believe the current percentage of smooth rifles to rifles is far out of line with what it would have been at the time the guns were built.
Paying for an unrifled gun with patchbox, set trigger and relief carving is silly when a fowler or musket was FAR cheaper and would do the same thing by adding a rear sight.
Dan

 

[George F.]

I'm just responding in general, and not to anyone in particular...
I think one of the nicest smooth bore/ rifles was that Issac Berlin I just finished. I have seen others do it, and it really is a nice looking gun. It did have a rear site and was in .69 cal. It's stock architecture is rifle. That being a square toe with toe plate, a trigger guard with grip rail, a metal nose cap, and a defined cheek piece. However it does have a octagon to round barrel, but so did rifles in some cases.
Where as Fowlers had a round toe without a toe plate, a trigger guard without a grip rail, most likely no nose cap, no cheek piece, and no rear sight. It either had a octagon to round barrel, or just a round barrel.
These are the basic differences in my opinion, at least to me. ...Geo.

 

[Mike Brooks]

Where as Fowlers had a round toe without a toe plate, a trigger guard without a grip rail, most likely no nose cap, no cheek piece, and no rear sight. It either had a octagon to round barrel, or just a round barrel.

Take a look at continental European fowling guns. Square toed, trigger guards with grip rails, horn or metallic nose caps substantial cheek pieces and a broad rear sight close to the breech.

 

[Capt. Jas.]

Where as Fowlers had a round toe without a toe plate, a trigger guard without a grip rail, most likely no nose cap, no cheek piece, and no rear sight. It either had a octagon to round barrel, or just a round barrel.

Take a look at continental European fowling guns. Square toed, trigger guards with grip rails, horn or metallic nose caps substantial cheek pieces and a broad rear sight close to the breech.

Beat me to it Mike. Those Germanic fowling guns especially seem to be the norm with those features.