Why the "long rifle"?

B

bamaranger

New member
There's a longrifle show in our area this weekend, and a pal and I are going to attend. Got me to thinking though, why the LONG rifle? I've read the material, considered the usual comments, but the longrifle seems to me not a product of "form follows function", because the rifle is in fact so LONG. It did not take much time, with the expansion west, for rifles to shorten considerably. So what led the PA/KY, Appalachian 'smiths to craft these lengthy pieces for the frontiersman? Most of us have spent enough time afoot in the woods, to agree that the shorter a rifle is, the handier it becomes. Consider the typical 'woodsman carbines", the M94, the 336, the Rem 7.

The usual discussion considers accuracy with the longer sight radius, more efficient use of powder (?), ease of off hand shooting (balance?), higher velocity, likely other logic I've not heard. But the rifles were reliant on a long and slender ramrod, and had the long barrels would seem difficult to manufacture and maintain. And getting through any type of cover would be a chore.

I read once where a noted gun scribe thought the long barrels were conducive to resting off a convenient tree limb. Perhaps too, the woodlands of the 1700 were more open and mature and the long rifle was not as burdensome as it seems in the new growth forests of today.

I've shot a longrifle or two, never owned one or spent any time with one. What am I missing, and what other logic is there?
 
I think you hit all the correct high points for a long barrel. A look at the Lyman BP manual shows that the longer the barrel the better the velocity especially in the smaller bores. The bigger bores pretty much seem to reach max velocity with barrels around 30" but there always exceptions. Black Powder while it explodes is a slow burning powder and keeps pushing for a long ways and a longer barrel just takes advantage of that.

And I have read that even up to the turn of the last century guns with the longest barrels sold the fastest in a gunstore. Shorter barreled carbines and rifles must have been a carry over from the second world war. But thats just a guess.

And I bet those early hunters tried to hunt the woods with the most undergrowth they could find. I have been in several big woods with no undergrowth and saw almost no game. Not compared to the woolly stuff with browse and hideout places for rabbits and birds.
 
Ranger, I think it had a lot to do with the powder itself. When muskets started out as the very primitive matchlocks (think Mayflower era), the powder of that time was extremely crude. It was more suited to cannons than muskets. Muskets needed that long barrel to get the velocity up. As the musket evolved into the flintlock era, the powder hadn't changes that much. By the time westward expansion started, powder had improved and now shorter barreled rifles became more practical.

I'm no expert, so I can't say for sure - I'm just kind of reading between the lines when I examine history.
 
I think looking back at it from what we know now it’s hard to understand. 100 yard shot with an amateur and a 250 dollar Walmart rifle today is a chip shot. Back in the 18th century, a well placed shot at 100 yards was no amateur move. Smoothbores CAN be accurate to that distance... but it required knowledge and skill. Most smoothbores were probably limited to 50ish yards or so if one needed an accurate shot for hunting.

Long rifles came to be for most of the reasons you already hit on. Mostly I think because a smaller bore diameter was desirable to conserve lead. The longer barrel allowed for some decent velocity, and subsequently energy, gains with smaller bores. This added to the feasible max effective range. Longer sight radius’s also made the rifle easier to shoot accurately out to that max effective range. Cumbersome and heavy as they may be, increasing the max effective range of the average shooter from 75 yards to 150 yards was quite the evolution at the time.
 
Carbines

Were to meet the need of mounted troops. The Dragoons of the Napoleonic wars used short barreled muskets, the US mounted troops of the 1830's were armed with carbine versions of percussion conversions of the 1819 Hall. The Spencer Carbine was a Civil War cavalry weapon. After the Civil war lever action carbines were very prevalent for those on horseback in the west. So carbines are not as recent as the immediate post WW2 era.
 
Last edited:
Long rifles began around 1730 and were not muskets. Powder was not yet pressed so it took more powder to get the same velocities that powder produced after 1780 gave. Longer barrels gave a longer burn time and a longer sight radius made for more accurate shots.
 
"...think Mayflower era..." Matchlock used regularly were long before 1620. Matchlocks date from the 14th Century, in China. About 100 years later in Europe.
Anyway, BP requires the long barrel for a complete burn of the powder.
"...carry over from the second world war..." Nope. The Boer War. Money required to provide a long barreled rifle for the PBI(Poor Bloody Infantry) and a Carbine for cavalry. The No. 1 Mk I Lee-Enfield, AKA the SMLE was about that. Gave the Brits a rifle both the PBI and Cavalry could use.
"...woodlands of the 1700 were..." Only in some places. It's more about the amount of 'up' and 'wet' involved, but the Bush was thick with undergrowth.
"...getting through any type of cover would be a chore...." Not when you're following game trails like everybody else. North American Natives had thriving trade relations between the assorted tribes long before Columbus got lost on his way to China. Mostly river traffic but there were extensive trail networks all over.
 
The Jaegers and British got along without extremely long rifle barrels in the 18th century.

I figure one reason for long musket barrels was as a handle for the bayonet.
 
Yes, a long musket barrel allowed for a better defense against cavalry. In the English Civil Wars the pikemen had the mission to defend the musketeers against a cavalry charge, the bayonet rendered the pike obsolete and simplified drill and tactics. The British Square, e.g.
Plus-no chronographs back then, a lot of what they did was "by guess and by golly" and that elusive factor called "experience"-Kentucky windage, e.g. Perhaps some noted the long flash and figured that a longer barrel would burn that powder inside where it could do some good. And, as noted, powder often varied widely in quality.
 
Didn't Pennsylvania/Kentucky rifles tend to be of a smaller caliber than the earlier Jaeger rifles and later Hawken style plains rifles? A smaller ball would need to go faster to have the same power of a larger ball. I wonder if the price of lead on the frontier was higher when the long rifles were being made.
 
Didn't Pennsylvania/Kentucky rifles tend to be of a smaller caliber than the earlier Jaeger rifles and later Hawken style plains rifles?
Click to expand...

They ran from around .28 caliber up to .62 but most of them were between .40-.48.
 
longrifle show

Think gun show, but limited to traditional, sidehammer muzzleloaders, with the bulk of those being of the longrifle persuasion and many of those original, antique rifles. If I understand right, there will also be be a large assortment of accessories like bags, pouches, blades, etc. \

It's an annual thing, held at Joe Wheeler state park, sponsored by ( I think) the AL Longrifle Collectors Assoc. I cannot find the flyer for it at the moment but that is the broad picture. Never been, but looking forward to same.
 
For the majority of my target work and hunting, I prefer a long rifle. For hunting, I can get more performance from a heavier load of powder and the longer sight radius adds to the accuracy for me. The shorter and longer guns both have their places in muzzleloading...and it might just come down to personal preference.
 
A good thread...

Ned Roberts, in his fine, fine book, "The Muzzle-Loading Cap Lock Rifle," explains it this way:

"The American flint-lock rifle with its slender stock, its long, carefully rifled barrel using the patched round ball, came into use in this country early in 1700 and gave a degree of accuracy that had never before been known. The rifles that had been made in Europe during the preceding century, principally by the German and Swiss rifle-makers, failed absolutely to meet the requirements of the American pioneer who was then attempting to conquer a great wilderness. Those arms were too heavy, too large bore which was wasteful of both powder and lead, difficult to load as it required an iron ramrod and a mallet with which to drive home the naked round ball. After a few shots they fouled and leaded so badly that no one could guarantee to hit a man at 50 yards the first shot with them. They were really inferior as a practical arm and less accurate than a well-made smooth-bore using the round ball. What our pioneer needed was a comparatively small-bore rifle using a ball weighing about half an ounce that would shoot ACCURATELY (caps mine), have good killing power up to about 150 yards, not waste powder which was scarce in the Colonies, that could be easily and quickly loaded, would have a light report when fired so that the sound would not reach the ears of lurking Indians, and an arm that balanced well so as to make accurate off-hand shooting as easy as possible.

This meant that the rifle must have a long barrel containing as much metal as possible to absorb the sound when fired, the bullet must be lubricated in some way to facilitate easy and rapid loading and the rifle must use small charges of powder and lead as a sufficient quantity of these must be carried upon the person to last for long periods of time when in the wilderness and many miles from a source of supply. About 1710 there came to the eastern part of Pennsylvania many German and Palatine Swiss, many of whom at home had been rifle-makers and were ingenious, skillful workmen in both iron and wood fabrication They soon grasped the idea of the type of rifle that was needed for use in the Colonies; the pioneers and these gunsmiths consulted and experimented, making changes and improvements here and there as experimentation suggested, until about 1730 there appeared an American rifle so far superior to any that the world had before known that it was in a class by itself, and for about one hundred years maintained its superiority as the most practical, most deadly accurate rifle at ranges up to about 150 yards that had been produced...

Never before had the world known a REALLY ACCURATE (caps mine), practical rifle for use in hunting, or war, or by the pioneer settler in the wilderness. Here was the birth of the rifle that was destined to later make history, to conquer the great wilderness from the savage Indians and wild beasts, to establish eventually a new, independent nation and still later to be developed into the superbly accurate target rifle of 1845 to 1895. And even today, 1947 (so dated when written), in spite of all our boasted improvements of smokeless powders, metal cased bullets and high velocity arms, we have yet to produce a more accurate rifle..."

Also from Ned on the patch for the round ball:

"Who invented or designed the "patch" for the rifle bullet? No one knows just who this person was, but it certainly was a master-stroke in the improvement of the accuracy and ballistics of the rifle as well as ease of loading the arm. More improvements were gradually made in the construction of the rifle, particularly in the shape of the lands and grooves and the fitting of the patched ball to the bore so that it was easily loaded without deforming it, which combined to bring the typical American flint-lock rifle, later called in the dialect the "Kaintuck," or properly the Kentucky, to its highest development by about 1760."

If your interest in muzzle-loaders and their history is a bit more than just passing curiosity, Ned Roberts' book, "The Muzzle-Loading Cap Lock Rifle," is one I highly recommend for the firearms section of your personal library. It's readily available these days when last I looked. It's a real and factual trove of information from a true, American firearms Icon.

Happy New Year, TFL folks!

reinert
 
Attended a muzzleloader show today.
A bewildering variety of flint and caplocks old and New.
Much fine workmanship on display.
 
Yes indeed!

I'll add that all those with tables and displays were extremely anxious for folks to ask questions and in a lot of cases, handle the firearms on display!. A very passionate bunch of folks about their hobby and the art and craftsmanship associated with the longrifle. Great bunch of folks.

That was in stark contrast to the vendors at a lot of contemporary gun shows I've attended who would do little more than grunt and look annoyed if questioned.

Watson was his usual intelligent self and in a pretty good mood as well!
 
Its also a factor that a reload may be required while its in your best interest to keep an eye on the game or adversary(s) you are shooting at.

And this reload needs to be done efficiently as your foe or potential food are likely putting you under time constraints.

With the butt placed on the ground,a rifle long enough to place the muzzle someplace around your chin to your nose accommodates your eyes keeping one on pouring powder and seating ball while the other keeps track of the fellow coming at you.,or which way the deer disappeared.

With a longer rifle,a lingering ember causing an unexpected discharge is more likely to send the ramrod in front of your nose instead of under your chin and out your noggin.

Folks who traveled by foot might prefer the longer rifles. Those on horseback were more likely to use a shorter rifle.

On foot,your rifle can carry pointed down the trail. On horse,its likely across the trail.

A longhunter flyng a pair of moccasins might be concerned with how much lead he could carry. He woud have more 32 to 40 cal round balls in a pound of lead.The smaller ball was less likely to pass through,so could more likely be recovered and re-cast.

A man n horseback with a packhorse could afford to feed a 45 to 54 or even 58 cal. Out West he might be favoring lethality facing elk,bison,Grizzlies,and men who resented his presence.

This tended to show up on early vs late Hawkens,for example.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top