Swamped vs straight 1st build

[jethro224]

I've been trying to convince myself that I should try my hand at rifle building.

Having never done it before, should I consider a swamped barrel or stick to straight?
I'm thinkin' precarved/preinlet fullstock, 42" .45 caliber barrel, flintlock.

Any thoughts?

 

[Swampman]

Swamped is way better. Unless you're building a 2nd quarter or later 19th c. rifle, I use a swamped barrel.

 

[Roy]

If you are considering a Kit I would choose the swamped barrel, most of your work would be done for you. :thumbsup:

 

[tnlonghunter]

I'd second that. With a kit, I didn't really notice any extra work involved with the swamped that was above what you'd have with a straight. The only major concern, I guess, is if you had to move the barrel back in the stock to get good placement for the touch-hole liner. Even with that, I was able to move my swamped barrel back about 1/4" without any noticeable problems with the barrel-to-inlet fit.

 

[Slowpoke]

Jeth,
I always recomend a pistol kit for a first time builder. But if you're dead set for a rifle... go with a swamped I guess.

 

[msb]

Have been shooting less than a year and decided to build my own rifle. Went with a 42" swamped barrel early lancaster and everything is going great so for. I was worried after reading posts on the forum. Had me thinking I would be in over my head with a project of this caliber.

 

[Zonie]

Well, I guess I'll be the odd ball in the group and suggest that you could save about $100 right off the bat by going with a straight barrel.
As you say it would be a .45 caliber, I would suggest using the 13/16 inch barrel.
This light weight 13/16 barrel is not muzzle heavy (one of the reasons for buying a swamped barrel) and I have built several guns with this size barrel and they are exceptionally accurate.

You chose the easy type of lock to build with as as the lock to barrel relationship is not as critical as the Precussion lock to nipple.

I don't know if your "into" the "Period Correct" thinking but even if you are, if you choose one of the Late era Long Rifles of the 1790-1830s the straight barrel is not unknown.

If your not "into" the PC thinking, and your building the gun for yourself, I can honestly say that you will be more than happy with the end results even though the gun has a straight barrel.

At this stage of the game, be sure to spend the twenty bucks or so to buy a good book which tells you how to build one of these guns.
I have THE ART OF BUILDING THE PENNSYLVANIA LONGRIFLE by Dixon and it comes highly recommended. In fact, IMO, even if you don't build the gun, the book is worth having.

 

[jethro224]

Thanks to everyone for your input.
I'm sorta surprised by the answers. Figgered straight would win the opinion poll.

The extra $100 is a factor to consider but not the ultimate decision maker.
Nor is the weight. I was thinking 13/16" or possibly 7/8". Either way shouldn't be too heavy.
I would like to stay "Period Correct", but Zonie, you hit the period right on the nose. 1790-1830. I have not yet decided on the exact style and I won't be upset if it ain't exactly "correct" so long as I like it.
I want to end up with a reliable, accurate, and good-lookin' rifle! The good-lookin' part is what worries me.
I like the looks of a swamped barrel, but not if I booger it all up trying to get it all fit together. Since I've never done this stuff before, I don't want to get in over my head and ruin a good stock or worse.

I did get a book. Building The "Golden Age" Pennsylvania Long Rifle A Workbook For The Beginning Gun Builder by A. Lee Robertson - Master Gunmaker
I'll probly read a couple more before I do this project.
So far the book makes it look easy. But I'm only about 1/3 of the way thru so far.

Got a TOW catalog too. Been droolin' all over that. So many guns just itchin' to be built...

 

[DrTimboone]

:applause: I also like the looks of the swamped barrel. I built my first rifle with a swampped barrell and precarved stock. It requires a little inletting at the breech but I really don't think it is any more difficult to build than a straight barrel that is precarved. I suggest that you go with your desire for the look you want, otherwise you will always be like someone who is not Irish....wishing they were!! :hatsoff:
Tim

 

[LRB]

I hate to disagree with Zonie, but I don't think straight barrels were available until sometime after the first quarter of the 19th C.
The swamped is not only lighter, they are much better balanced and are the only way to get the correct shaping in a long rifle stock. In an artistic sense, the eye abhors parallel lines and you cannot get a properly shaped lock and wrist area with a straight barrel. If you are buying a precarve, it is not that much more difficult to set the swamped than a straight barrel and I guarantee that you will be much happier with your finished gun. Just take your time with your work. Go at a snails pace with all of the gun. Use Davy Crocketts' motto. Be sure you are right, then go ahead. Speed is your worst enemy in a first gun, and sometimes hard to control as you get antsy wanting to see it finished. Go slow, sure, and easy, and it will come.

 

[rich pierce]

Barrels as thin as 13/16" are scarce as hen's teeth on originals. Even 7/8" at the breech is rare, rare, rare. The barrel width affects the wrist and buttstock architecture as well as the forearm. We have a bias toward lightweight guns, most of us having grown up with 5 pound .22 rifles, 7.5 pound shotguns, and 8 pound scoped centerfire rifles. But the little bitty Colonial guys weighing 125-160 pounds could and did haul 9-11 pound guns around. And they shot them well. Just something to keep in mind when you think about barrels, as that's where the weight is in a gun.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

I had my swamped barrel channeled, Im sure glad I did. There is no way I could have done that good of a job.

 

[mikelange]

I agree with the statement that swamped barrels are by far more common than straight ones on 18th century guns, and also with the point that, on a precarved stock, assuming the job was done right, the difficulty of inletting the swamped barrel is by and large eliminated. Also, when purchasing a kit gun of any quality, the difference in price between the swamped and straight-barrelled options is, in relative terms, fairly insignificant.

My apologies to those for whom the extra hundred or so dollars is, as it very well might be for me, an insurmountable obstacle, and a heartfelt :cursing: to those who seem to believe that, when it comes to this sport/hobby/obsession, money issues can never be permitted to overrule PC considerations.

That said, straight barrels on documented 18th century rifles were not utterly unknown. Rifle #95 in ROCA, attributed to George Schroyer, has a .48 caliber barrel that's 7/8" at the breech; it's possible that it's swamped but far more likely that it's straight. Rifle #50, signed by Jacob Dickert, and also featured in "Kentucky Rifles and Pistols, 1750-1850", is either a .50 or .45 caliber (depending on which book is right) and is described specifically in "Kentucky Rifles, etc" (I don't dare abbreviate that title!) as having a straight octagonal barrel.

If the concept of "commonality" -- the use of only that which was common at the time -- is your ideal, more power to you, and in that case these two rifles don't count. As stated on several occasions before, though, I personally am not going to disqualify indisputably original guns and equipment as possibilities for reproduction, simply because in some sense they don't fit a modern definition of generic correctness.

 

[rich pierce]

Good study skills. In general, most builders agree that straight octagonal barrels are not found on Revolutionary War era guns, or earlier guns.

Most students have found mixing of swamped barrels and tapered barrels and straight barrels in the post-war period until about 1790 or maybe 1800. By 1810, a swamped barrel in a gun would usually be a "used" barrel, not newly made, or the swamping would be pretty subtle.

Tapered barrels were used as late as in the Hawken era.

We all make choices and compromises based on what we can afford, time wise and money-wise, and there is ample evidence that gunmakers have always done so. It's not a big deal. Many builders and shooters prefer swamped barrels for many reasons, including the fact that they evoke an early style more strongly than straight barrels do.

 

[LRB]

I could be wrong, would not be the first time, but I do not believe that you will find a gun that is documentable to the 18th C., with a straight barrel. Tapered, yes. Straight, no. At that time is would be very difficult to make a straight barrel, as opposed to a swamped one, if we are talking uniformity. It would be the opposite of today. A straight barrel would require much skill to produce by hand, and a swamped would be easier, because no two are the same, and did not need to be, and no one expected them to be. Just fairly close, were it required for some reason, such as a pair. Hand made swamped barrels are never really uniform, if one starts measureing. Close, maybe, but not uniform from flat, to flat. Most modern ones are not perfect either. Just my opinion, but forget flat, if you want an 18th C. gun.

 

[Zonie]

jethro224: With reguard to your comment:
"I want to end up with a reliable, accurate, and good-lookin' rifle! The good-lookin' part is what worries me.
I like the looks of a swamped barrel, but not if I booger it all up trying to get it all fit together." reguardless of which style of barrel you order, be sure to have the supplier cut the barrel channel. This is especially important if you order a swamped barrel as trying to do this task on your own would spell certain disaster.

Even when you pay the supplier to inlet the barrel, usually the barrel channel will not be completely done. The area at the breech often has the fillets left by the cutter which will have to be finished by you using your new, super sharp, "best that you can afford" chisel.
With either style of barrel, this work will need to be done.
The only other thing that often needs to be done is to enlarge the channel slightly using sandpaper and a small block of wood as a backing for the paper.

 

[jethro224]

Zonie,
I'll definitly get the barrel channel pre-cut.
Any recommedations for the "best" chisels?
The best I own now are old Craftsman. And I need to sharpen those fer certain.
I also have a Dremel tool. Useful for this?

I think I'm going to have to go with a swamped profile barrel. Don't want to be otherwise wishing I did. Y'all got me convinced.

Now all I gotta do is figger out exactly which style of gun to go with... :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:
Shouldn't be very hard to decide... :bull:

 

[DrTimboone]

As a beginner without a lot of woodworking tools accumulated over the years, nor a shop for making many, it was easier for me to spend $100 to buy a few pfeil Swiss made gouges and chisels from woodcraft. A skew chisel, a gouge whose size can't remember, and a flat chisel about 1/4 inch wide. I also bought some furniture scapers. Thy do the work fine. I personnaly wouldn't go near a stock I am working on with a Dremel tool. Mistakes happen fast and are difficult to refill.

I found the woodcarvers who work a Woodcraft to be extremly helpful when I took my stockin and showed them what I needed to do...They were all fascinated! :thumbsup:

 

[Zonie]

Carrying on with what DrTimBoone said, a Dremel tool is very good at some things, but working on a expensive stock is not one of them.

Do I use a Dremel? Yes. For cutting the clearance in the lock mortice for the tumbler, bridle, sear, and mainspring a Dremel with a Routing attachment can be handy but even here, I do not use it for cutting the mortice for the lockplate. It is just too difficult to control when you want to remove one or two thousanths of material.

IMO, you need to buy a good 1/4 inch wide chisel and as the Dr said, a good woodworking store will have them. The cutting edge will be polished to a mirror like finish and they are as sharp as a razor blade.

While I'm recommending tools, I think you really should buy a Exacto knife which uses the #2 pointed blades. The one with the large plastic handle is easy to control and gives the leverage you will need when working with the typical gunstock woods. Buy some extra blades while your at it.
(helpful hint #759: buy a whetstone and use it to dull up the last 1/4 inch of the blades edge up next to the handles collet. Failure to dull up this area of the blade can result with stains on your wood as you work. You may notice some red fluid appearing on the stock and wonder where that came from and what it is. Then you will realize your bleeding finger is where it came from. I speak from experiance. )

By the way, I would suggest that you buy Maple. IMO, Walnut tends to chip out too easily because of its course grain.

 

[jethro224]

Ok, I'll leave the Dremel in the box. :nono:

Thanks for the tool tips. There is a woodworkers shop near me. I'll check 'em out.

I have an Exacto knife already. Good tip on dulling up the blade Zonie. I don't wanna bleed on my nice curly maple.
Never even considered walnut. Maple is just so purty.