Thoughts on long-barreled smoothbores

[Shorthanded]

I find I got better follow thru with the 42" barrel, once I startle swing it's hard to stop. just the way it works for me.

 

[Artificer]

'Yet another 'take' on the long barrel's potential benefit. A fellow I built a Hudson Valley Fowler for claimed his shot pattern tightened when he used 1F powder. The thought here was that the slower 'push' type burn of the courser powder as opposed to the 'punch' ignition of finer grades was more conducive to holding the shot column together as it exited the muzzle. I've never tried it but it could conceivably make some sense.

It does make sense both in the coarser granulation not giving too hard of an initial blow to the shot column and also possibly it helped depending on what kind of wadding that was used. The wadding did and does help absorb some of the initial push of the shot column. The poorer the wadding, the more noticeable this would be.

Gus

 

[Flintlock]

Up until the 30's military rifles were still commonly used with a bayonet, better a long gun than say a M1 carbine. In europe guns were usually owned by wealthy people and powder was more uniform. On this continent powder was (stepped on) and inferior often because of crooked importers and dealers. I've read tests comparing trade powder (or powder given to natives) and English military powder and trade powder must have been .75% charcoal. And yes style has a lot to do with it but remember, the brush we have today for the most part is a modern thing, we didn't have nearly as much till the country was looged off flat.

 

[Artificer]

I find I got better follow thru with the 42" barrel, once I startle swing it's hard to stop. just the way it works for me.

This is why long barrels stayed popular well into the modern era for Duck and Geese guns, even though its been demonstrated a 28 inch barrel gives the maximum performance in them.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

godutch said:
'Yet another 'take' on the long barrel's potential benefit. A fellow I built a Hudson Valley Fowler for claimed his shot pattern tightened when he used 1F powder. The thought here was that the slower 'push' type burn of the courser powder as opposed to the 'punch' ignition of finer grades was more conducive to holding the shot column together as it exited the muzzle. I've never tried it but it could conceivably make some sense.

It does make sense both in the coarser granulation not giving too hard of an initial blow to the shot column and also possibly it helped depending on what kind of wadding that was used. The wadding did and does help absorb some of the initial push of the shot column. The poorer the wadding, the more noticeable this would be.

Gus

Something else that goes along with this theory is what Forum Member Spence 10 has reported helped him gain more accuracy with a smooth bore and ball at longer distances. He has mentioned his favorite longer range load has (I believe) a shot card over the powder, then a wad, then either a patched ball or a ball that closely fits the bore size and a card over it.

I never thought about trying a wad to shoot a round ball when I competed with my Brown Bess Carbine. Wished now I had.

Gus

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

@TreeMan's good thread on short-barreled smoothbores got me thinking about barrel lengths in general and long barrels in particular.
I understand short barrels and how performance relates but my main question is this: Why on earth do so many of pre-1860 firearms have barrels in excess of 40 inches? I would think all that barrel length would have a negative impact on portability....especially dense woods such as I'm familiar with in the PacNorWest. Is it balance? Powder charge? Fashion? I dunno. Really.
I bought a 12 gauge fowler from a member but my word, the length (42"). Most early fowlers though have that +40" barrel and I'd like to understand why besides balance. All of my unmentionable modern "fowlers" are all 30 inches and less. Help me wrap my noggin around this.

wm

I have a 10 bore fowler with a 48" barrel and have no problems with it in brush. The longer barrel seems to produce tighter patterns and a bit higher velocity. I seriously doubt that fashion had anything to do with using long barrels

 

[martin9]

I don't think fashion is quite the right word. More like expectations or a persons perception of what looks right. In that context it's really just what you grew up with or are used to seeing. Germans made some of their guns shorter, Dutch longer and Americans kinda in the middle.

Just imagine if some of the big manufacturers Winchester, Ruger, Browning, etc...rereleased some of their old classics and drastically altered the barrel lengths.....it'd look weird and out of place to most of us but if you've never seen one or they had always been made that way....no big deal.

I also think maneuverability is worried about too much. I hunt a lot, live in the south so will hunt some pretty thick stuff. I've never thought...better take the shorter gun to hunt there cause' it's so thick. On the contrary my 44" barrel guns are good at laying the briars down so I can walk over em

 

[Woody Morgan]

Sorta lends a new meaning to "walk softly and carry a big stick".

wm

 

[megasupermagnum]

It is a good question, and nobody has a good answer. The velocity thing, we can never prove. Even if someone came up with genuine 18th century powder to shoot, you can always argue the resulting 200+ years have certainly effected its performance. The powders we have today are fantastic. There seems to be this idea that blackpowder needs more barrel length to burn, than smokeless. It simply is not true. Blackpowder, like smokeless, is either burning right away, or it isn't. The pressure curve of Goex FFg is pretty much a match for a lot of modern smokeless powders like Bluedot, although it peaks at a much lower pressure. When it comes to shotguns, I've tested from 18 1/2" to 32", and there just is not a monumental difference. It's almost identical to the kind of differences you see with smokeless powders. It's the same thing with my 54 caliber rifles. The difference from my 10" pistol to 26" rifle is a fair, but not earth shattering difference 1050 fps to 1200 fps in this case. Then 32" was something like 1250 fps. So just like smokeless powders, the majority of the speed you are going to get from blackpowder is had in 18"-20" of barrel.

I lean towards the style argument. As much as I want to say a 44" longrifle is the finest muzzleloading hunting rifle, it really isn't. Like any piece of gear, you can work around it, and it isn't that tough. Also keep in mind, the OAL's of these rifles aren't that astronomical. The 42" barrel longrifle I'm building is only about 59" long. My favorite modern goose gun is just over 54" long. You can haul these through brush, no problem. The issue is shooting within that brush, and that is something you can't get around. It wouldn't matter for grouse, or pheasant, or similar where you are in the open. It would definitely be a hinderance for rabbit and turkey. You would have to make sure you walk in a line that allows a huge area to account for your long barrel for rabbit. For turkey, you would have to find cover that allows you to move that barrel where it is needed, and I'm not sure how one would do that in farmland, USA. There's always a stick to work around, and the turkey is always just to the other side of it.

So I think they hunted how they needed to. Turkey calling wasn't a sport. I've seen plenty of mention that shooting a turkey on the ground was considered unsporting. They were upland game, just like the other birds. They liked the way the long barrels looked, maybe they thought they were an advantage, etc. Right or wrong, if they thought it was good, then it was good. It's the same thing today, confidence is a big thing in any firearm. As for patterns, until I see someone who has compared a good 30 or so honest calculated patterns, maybe 10 each of 3 different loads, at a fixed yardage, on paper, then I'm not buying it. Every scientific test I've ever seen on barrel length and shotgun patterns show zero correlation. A 60" barrel gives you exactly 30" extra range over a 30" barrel.

 

[Eterry]

My father's 36" Long Tom 12 gauge will indeed shoot certain shot charges much farther than shorter full choked guns.
We set up a pattern board and using my 28" full choke 12, and his 36" full choke 12, he shot much better patterns at 40yards than I. That was with #8 shot. No 4 my shorter barrel was better. I have no idea why, but that's what we found. I have killed cotton tail rabbits at such ranges with his long Tom I dare repeat it.

Maybe they knew these things in 1690.

 

[Mark Herman]

I've got a HBF that Ken Netting made for me with a 72" barrel. Haven't fired shot but did shoot some round balls. A bit awkward to shoulder but with a stick it did okay. Scaled it down to a 20 gauge and weighs 11#.

 

[Ironoxide]

(...)
The powders we have today are fantastic. There seems to be this idea that blackpowder needs more barrel length to burn, than smokeless. It simply is not true. Blackpowder, like smokeless, is either burning right away, or it isn't. The pressure curve of Goex FFg is pretty much a match for a lot of modern smokeless powders like Bluedot, although it peaks at a much lower pressure. When it comes to shotguns, I've tested from 18 1/2" to 32", and there just is not a monumental difference. It's almost identical to the kind of differences you see with smokeless powders. It's the same thing with my 54 caliber rifles. The difference from my 10" pistol to 26" rifle is a fair, but not earth shattering difference 1050 fps to 1200 fps in this case. Then 32" was something like 1250 fps. So just like smokeless powders, the majority of the speed you are going to get from blackpowder is had in 18"-20" of barrel.
(...)

There is always the matter of which time in history we're discussing. I'll assume 18 hundreds.

If you judge today's powders by their consistency (specially brands like Swiss) then I could agree they are fantastic, but with regard to their strengths an argument can be made that there was "sporting powder" that was almost double the strength of our 3f available in 18-hundreds. This argument is based on loads and their velocities given in old books like Forsyth's, the Field trials etc. Although this is in the later half of the century. English authors had no problem obtaining good quality powder in India, but if I remember correctly even Forsyth mentions about importing powder from London. I'm not sure what the situation was in Americas at the time.

Regarding speed difference you mention a difference of 1050fps vs 1200fps. That is huge. It is 33% more energy (for a 67 grain buckshot ball for example) as energy increases with square of speed. The numbers perhaps don't seem drastically different, but I imagine for someone who carries all his supplies on his back being able to use 33% less powder to achieve same performance is worth carrying that rifle. Then you mentioned 26in barrel had 1200fps to 1250fps in 32in barrel.The energy difference with 1 ounce of shot is 9%. Is that a lot? If powder is expensive and you are getting other perceived benefits from a longer barrel (longer sight radius, more stability when aiming) and you like the look of it... This then results in fowlers with 44in barrels.

So my opinion is a combination of all those factors resulted in those long barrels.

Pattern wise I can't see a difference in pattern spread between my cylinder bore musket with 44in barrel and a cylinder bore in my side by side double with 29in barrel.

However, I can definitely see a difference in pattern spread between a 10in smoothbore barrel, and a 29 in one.

 

[bud in pa]

When I cut my fowler barrel down to 36 inches I patterned it again. At 25 yards I found no discernable difference in the pattern. I still get the best patterns with 1F and it penetrates the tuna can at 25 yards. My normal load with this fowler was 70 grains of 3F, I increased it to 8o grains of 1F. since there are no pheasants around I don't worry abought follow through.

 

[godutch]

When I cut my fowler barrel down to 36 inches I patterned it again. At 25 yards I found no discernable difference in the pattern. I still get the best patterns with 1F and it penetrates the tuna can at 25 yards. My normal load with this fowler was 70 grains of 3F, I increased it to 8o grains of 1F. since there are no pheasants around I don't worry abought follow through.

Ah hah ! You're only the second guy I've heard of using the 1F ! The other fella reported the same improved result. I have Got To try this. Thanks for posting!

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

I don't think fashion is quite the right word. More like expectations or a persons perception of what looks right. In that context it's really just what you grew up with or are used to seeing. Germans made some of their guns shorter, Dutch longer and Americans kinda in the middle.

Just imagine if some of the big manufacturers Winchester, Ruger, Browning, etc...rereleased some of their old classics and drastically altered the barrel lengths.....it'd look weird and out of place to most of us but if you've never seen one or they had always been made that way....no big deal.

I also think maneuverability is worried about too much. I hunt a lot, live in the south so will hunt some pretty thick stuff. I've never thought...better take the shorter gun to hunt there cause' it's so thick. On the contrary my 44" barrel guns are good at laying the briars down so I can walk over em

The longer barrel also provides a longer sight radius. And that is very useful.

 

[tenngun]

Indeed, I should have mentioned earlier that they knew there was an advantage in gaining more velocity in longer barrels until the barrels reached around 7 or more feet, but no one was going to use that length for a hand toted rifle or smoothbore gun.

Gus

It’s only about 10 FPS per inch. So a foot is only about 120 fps. If your initial velocity was 1600 vs 1500 fps at fifty yards your only abou 50 fps faster and at a hundred 20- 30 fps faster
Beyond about three and a half feet you have to start increasing the powder charge to get an advantage as at lower charges there is a velocity loss in longer barrels

 

[Woody Morgan]

It’s only about 10 FPS per inch. So a foot is only about 120 fps. If your initial velocity was 1600 vs 1500 fps at fifty yards your only abou 50 fps faster and at a hundred 20- 30 fps faster
Beyond about three and a half feet you have to start increasing the powder charge to get an advantage as at lower charges there is a velocity loss in longer barrels

Ah. Hence the many at 42"?

wm

 

[Artificer]

There is always the matter of which time in history we're discussing. I'll assume 18 hundreds.

If you judge today's powders by their consistency (specially brands like Swiss) then I could agree they are fantastic, but with regard to their strengths an argument can be made that there was "sporting powder" that was almost double the strength of our 3f available in 18-hundreds. This argument is based on loads and their velocities given in old books like Forsyth's, the Field trials etc. Although this is in the later half of the century. English authors had no problem obtaining good quality powder in India, but if I remember correctly even Forsyth mentions about importing powder from London. I'm not sure what the situation was in Americas at the time.

Regarding speed difference you mention a difference of 1050fps vs 1200fps. That is huge. It is 33% more energy (for a 67 grain buckshot ball for example) as energy increases with square of speed. The numbers perhaps don't seem drastically different, but I imagine for someone who carries all his supplies on his back being able to use 33% less powder to achieve same performance is worth carrying that rifle. Then you mentioned 26in barrel had 1200fps to 1250fps in 32in barrel.The energy difference with 1 ounce of shot is 9%. Is that a lot? If powder is expensive and you are getting other perceived benefits from a longer barrel (longer sight radius, more stability when aiming) and you like the look of it... This then results in fowlers with 44in barrels.

So my opinion is a combination of all those factors resulted in those long barrels.

Pattern wise I can't see a difference in pattern spread between my cylinder bore musket with 44in barrel and a cylinder bore in my side by side double with 29in barrel.

However, I can definitely see a difference in pattern spread between a 10in smoothbore barrel, and a 29 in one.

Good post!

Ironoxide hit on something here we may have been

It’s only about 10 FPS per inch. So a foot is only about 120 fps. If your initial velocity was 1600 vs 1500 fps at fifty yards your only abou 50 fps faster and at a hundred 20- 30 fps faster
Beyond about three and a half feet you have to start increasing the powder charge to get an advantage as at lower charges there is a velocity loss in longer barrels

What length barrels are you talking about the difference above and what caliber or gauge?

Velocity loss does not occur until barrel lengths exceed what a human is willing to carry on foot.

Gus

 

[Des52]

When I cut my fowler barrel down to 36 inches I patterned it again. At 25 yards I found no discernable difference in the pattern. I still get the best patterns with 1F and it penetrates the tuna can at 25 yards. My normal load with this fowler was 70 grains of 3F, I increased it to 8o grains of 1F. since there are no pheasants around I don't worry abought follow through.

I too use 1f for shot loads in my Bess and Charly for the same reason, I get better shot patterns with 1f. I use a felt or veggie wad over the powder and make shot cups from brown bags. Works great for squirrels and bunnies.

 

[tenngun]

Good post!

Ironoxide hit on something here we may have been


What length barrels are you talking about the difference above and what caliber or gauge?

Velocity loss does not occur until barrel lengths exceed what a human is willing to carry on foot.

Gus

Well Lyman’s black powder ballistic shooting a .54 on 90 grains 3 f have a 28” barrel at1531 fps. A 43”barrel at 1685 a gain of 155 fps. But a 34” 1591, 60 fps faster then the 28” … 60 fps for 6”
A .50 in 28” on 70 grains 3f go gets 1587 while in 43” 1725, about 140 fps for 13” just over ten fps per inch
80 grains in a .45 in a 40” barrel Lyman got 2093, going to 43” 2106. 13 fps for 3”
At 1800 fps for a .54 velocity drops to 1375 at fifty yards. At 1700 fps a ball drops to1300, a 100 fps drops to 75, at a hundred yards it’s 1062 vs 1020. That’s the difference between a 120 grain charge in a .54 43” vs 120 grains in a 30”. Same charge in a 34” is 1853, you get 54 fps for nine inches, about 6 fps per inch.