Post by: JD45 on September 23, 2008, 12:01:33 AM
I've read a little about appalachian gun makers and their history. Most of the so-called "hog rifles" were around .40 cal and had long barrels. But they were slim.
Other than paying a fortune for a custom rifle, how can someone get a slim, shorter(hawken length) barrel caplock in .45 or .50 cal? Will you have to find a barrel and build it yourself?
Post by: oomcurt on September 23, 2008, 12:20:48 AM
Just my two cents....
Post by: Uncle Russ on September 23, 2008, 12:56:44 AM
I have several other .50 caliber rifles and I don't have any thing near that kind of problem with that small of a caliber.
I guess what I'm saying is "be very careful what you wish for".
You might want to try a few of those slim, slender, sleek looking rifles before you invest any big money...they just might give you a whole new perspective on that big Renegade.
(If you have the Renegade in .50, with a full 1" barrel, there are a lot of people out there who would like to own that gun....that 1" barrel is very sought after many shooters.)
Anyway, Welcome to the forum.
I'm sure you will find a lot to like here.
Respectfully, Uncle Russ...
Post by: Christiaan on September 23, 2008, 03:00:53 AM
Secondly, because of litigation madness they even make the .54 too big just to be on the safe and too heavy side.
Thats what I understand from the manufacturers.
Post by: vermontfreedom on September 23, 2008, 01:17:55 PM
safety: I would have no qualms about putting a double-charge in a factory barrel (say a Lyman trade rifle or great plains) on a flintlock. that kind of manufacturing warrants against such unfortunate consequences
ease of production: make one barrel profile and just drill out the bore to the desired caliber
I will say this, nothing no one here doesn't know already - weight generally equals accuracy, all else being equal. Heavy rifle, less recoil, more accurate/precise. just the way it is.
Post by: Minnesota Mike on September 23, 2008, 03:09:09 PM
But as was stated earlier - there is a reason for heavier barrels. Usually the heavier the barrel, the more steady you hold it on target.
On the other hand, depends on how long you're dragging it thru the woods as well.
Get the weapon the match the need.
r/
MM
Post by: riverrat on September 23, 2008, 07:10:03 PM
Post by: Gambia on September 25, 2008, 02:29:07 PM
Post by: Andy Anderson on September 26, 2008, 10:21:46 PM
Andy
Post by: JD45 on October 01, 2008, 12:28:17 AM
Everyone is correct that lots of rifles back then had long barrels(very long) and were muzzle heavy. Anything that long is going to be muzzle heavy, and also just plain-out heavy.
But many of those barrels were not thick. They did not measure one-inch O.D. at the muzzle. They were just long.
Take a slim barrel and cut it to 26" and you could have a easy carrying rifle.
Post by: Captchee on October 01, 2008, 10:47:12 AM
a long barrel does not make a rifle muzzle heavy . if built correctly it will balance correctly .
Even a rifle that’s in the 10 -15 lb range , when built correctly and balanced well , is a joy to shoot . While they are heavy , they do not become cumbersome .
there also is a reason for building a rifle that is balanced farther forward.. It hangs much steadier on the target then a rifle balance back . But that’s for another discussion .
Originally barrels were made of iron . Better barrels were also very soft .
I have read where Hacker Martian” granted still a 20 century smith “ would when making a barrel , make it so soft that the flats could be drawn with a knife blade . Now that’s pretty soft .
American rifleman used to do a whole section on muzzleloading in it printing back in the 1930-40’s .
In many of those articles , especially when speaking of target rifles folks would use large barrels bored for a small caliber . There are many references also referring to softer barrels being most desirable .
A couple weekends ago I actually found an original long distance rifle that was probably built in the lat 1890- early 1900 time frame. It was in very good condition and if I could have afforded the asking price which was very reasonable , I would have snapped it up .
The rifle was bored to 40 cal but the barrel was 1 3/4 across the flats .
I bet the rifle weighed in at around 15lbs give or take . But the balance was perfect. When I sighted down the barrel on a target the sights were rock solid.
What a wonderful piece ..
If we move back in our time line where iron barrels become the norm . IE the era of the plains rifle . We notice that these barrels are very heavy .
Once of the reasons is IMO that this was a mind set of the time . Things were built strong , and robust . They were built to last a lifetime with the intent of items being capable of being refurbished . Barrels produced in calibers 50 and greater are commonly found with measurements greater then 1 inch across the flat . they needed to be this way to hold the charges they were using . Not to mention the amount of shooting that many of these rifle were doing
Further back where rifles were built lighter and IMO more graceful we find barrels that are also very large across the flats when it comes to larger calibers . Remember that back then a 50 was a large caliber and as that caliber grew , so did the barrel thickness .
This holds true especially for muskets where the breach section is often very large but only for a leaght , then its thinned down . The reason for this is based on the characteristics of BP itself .
This very thick area is the location where the pressure spike of ignition takes place . It takes the most beating . Forward of that , the peak pressure within the barrel is actually dropping . As such the barrels needed to be thick to withstand the charges used in those weapons .
So way are the barrels in reproductions , today so thick ?
Well one has to understand that even though modern steals are used over iron , those rifles are still made with an eye to being along the lines of examples of the day . Even if most times very loosely.
Basically because its whats expected .
With the modern designs , we see the barrels getting smaller , thinner . But really IMO this is because , again , its whats to be expected . The guns are designed and built to be more like a center fire in shape , feel and heft .
Another reason for this also could be said that because the weapon is a muzzleloading weapon . The manufacture has no way of knowing just how the rifle will be used . Just how much powder will be dumped down the barrel . Will it be cleaned and taken care of . Will the barrel hold if short started or an obstruction accurse. As such they try to look at the worst end to some existent. But even then we still see barrels fail .
But then also , depending on the rifle your looking at as a compression, the barrels today can actualy be much smaller . But again that depends on what your looking at as a compression as well as what calibers your comparing it to .
There is no doubt that barrels could become even smaller do to modern technologies concerning steels
But I think most folks just associate traditional muzzleloaders having thick barrels . Its whats expected and thus whats provided .
In closing , I would like to say this .
We should keep in mind that BP can produce VERY high pressures when all the variables align. Because of the nature of how our rifles are designed and the way we load , the chances of that happening can be seen to be greater then those same things happening with say a cartridge rifle .
That should always be taken into account in the manufacturing of barrels for mussleloading use
Post by: FG1 on October 01, 2008, 11:29:47 AM
Pbox release needs some attention as you can see
(http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b74/ModocWrangler/Tenn003.jpg)
(http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b74/ModocWrangler/Tenn001.jpg)
Post by: vermontfreedom on October 01, 2008, 09:27:15 PM
A quick look through my own gun cabinet confirms this: a 20-gauge Remington 870 about 30-40 years old has a modestly thick barrel. [I note this gun has machined parts rather than stamped as in more modern guns - not sure that's important]. Two Winchester Rangers (one 20, one 12-gauge) both have very heavy/thick barrels. A 2002 Benelli SBE (Italian) has a rather thin barrel - but it's the only one of the 4 that has proof marks (the others show "NP", which I'm assuming means "not proofed").
My wife's Lyman Trade Rifle in .50 has a 28-inch barrel. It weighs 8 pound 12 ounces, 2 ounces more than my .54-cal that has a 44-inch Rice barrel (C profile, if I remember correctly).