Why the "long rifle"?

As a full-time gunsmith who makes 95% of my living from the making of muzzleloaders, I have become well educated on the history and function of the old arms.

The #1 factor in the"growing" of the rifled barrel from the short "Jaeger" styles made and brought over by German and Swiss emigrants in the early to mid 1700s was the fact that the powders available in Europe were quite refined and very high quality, but those made in "the colonies" were somewhat crude and often fill of impurities. DuPont started the manufacture of American Powder to a sight standard in the USA in Delaware, but that was not until 1802. There were some makers of powder in the colonies that could produce very high quality, but only in small batches as compared to what was made in Europe.

Early gun makers in American found that by making a barrel longer, the less-than-perfect powders available in America had more time to burn and could give as high a velocity (sometimes higher) then what you could get with European rifles and powders, but the rifled barrels of between 42 to 50 inches long. The average length of a Jaeger type rifle barrel from the areas of what is now Germany and the Czech Republic was about 27" to 32" long.

With the added length also came the benefit of a longer sight radius which made precise shots easier. In Europe, rifles were not yet thought of as weapons of war as much as they were toys of the rich. Shooting matches and hunting were not something the average citizen could do in most places in Europe. (that has not changes much in most of Europe to this day)

In the frontier of American not hitting your target usually meant not eating, and it may mean not living.

So the Long-rifle was a development of need, not style. The style followed the need, not the other way around.

The fancy artwork that came later was simply the market competition of every free market. If I can make a prettier rifle then the guy down the street I may get more business because my skills are more evident. By the end of the American Revolution, gun making was a business that was becoming far more specialized. There were entire shops that specialized in long making or barrel making, and some that made mostly castings for butt plates and trigger guards, an in so doing the market for gun makers was opened up to a far larger degree because a maker could now buy major components and he himself could then specialize in the assembly of the rifle instead of also having to be a foundry-man, wood man, artist, black-smith, rifle-barrel maker and lock smith. Such were the skills of the Pre-Revolution American gun maker. He was most often the most educated and skilled man in an area because he "could do everything" -but make many rifle.

As the shops began to specialize even the old masters saw the opportunity to make more rifle using high quality American barrels and there was then competition from Europe and England for the better locks for the first time. No longer could the importers charge higher prices for locks then what could be purchased in the States, so healthy competition was established and in the days before labor unions, real capitalism was the norm. If lock A was the same quality as lock B and lock B was less expensive, smiths bought lock B.
Or of lack A was a higher quality lock then Lock B, but both cost the same, lock A sold and lock B didn't.
(that how it would still be today if not for bribes from large corporations and involvement of government officials who can be bought, with all items on the market)

As far as barrels go, by the era of the 1770s the American made rifle barrel had set a new standard of quality. There were many made in Europe as good, but may others were considered good enough is they could reliable hit a 4" circle at 30 paces every time. Plenty good enough for game brought to bay by dogs and shot from horseback at close range. The American barrel on the other hand was considered "good enough" when you could hit the head of a squirrel with it at 100 feet 100% of the time. So some European rifles were very accurate, but most American rifles were very accurate.

With the higher velocity afforded by the long barrel, they also had accuracy at longer distances too, and that proved to be noteworthy for a man on the frontier. In a very few battles of the Revolution it proved to be a very dangerous factor against the British, but it was not until the last battle of the war of 1812 that the world (starting with the British) really had to admit the rifled barrel was going to be the way of the future. The severe mauling and horrid defeat of the British in the Battle of New Orleans was so dramatic that they could no longer avoid the truth of the technology.

The Swiss German gunsmith was the one that brought the concept of rifling to the world but it was the American Rifleman that showed the world how effective it was, not just for hunting and target shooting, but for battle when needed.
 
Great Read

Wyosmith, Thanks much for the short, concise explanation. I read all the posts on this site every day. Im 74 years old and learn much from guys like you., Keep posting .
 
Last edited:
Woods may have had far less undergrowth in the 1700s. I remember reading once that there were few or no earthworms in North America before European settlers brought them in root balls. Because of this forests were very different, especially in northern states, with little to consume the fallen leaves. These fallen leaves prevented a lot of undergrowth from taking root.
 
the less-than-perfect powders available in America had more time to burn and could give as high a velocity (sometimes higher) then what you could get with European rifles and powders

An old article about the Mountain Men at Rendezvous said they were glad to pay "the hellish price of a dollar a pound for English Diamond Grain powder."
 
"English Diamond" was a powder imported in the 1830s. I am not sure how far back from then it was imported, but it was sometimes brought out to the Rendezvous by the fur companies. The cost of $1 per pound was very high, but much of that was not the cost of the powder in the port. It was the cost of the powder at the rendezvous. I assume that is was made in England for many years before that time, but I can't prove the availability of that specific powder being imported much before 1820. That is not to say it was not imported earlier, just that I am unaware of any bill of lading that still exist to prove it.

The black powders we can buy today are far fewer in numbers than what was available in the late 1700s and early 1800s (and also better then much of what was made in American then) and until Dupont set up his factory, the best powders mostly came from Europe. As I said above, there were a very few American makers that produced powder as good an any out of Europe, but the batches were made a few hundred pounds at a time instead of by the multiple tons, as they were in Europe, so "the good stuff" was rare no matter what , and from any source------ until about 1815.

A long barreled rifle shooting good European powder would do better in velocity then it would with crude American powder, just as the gain would also be there shooting the American powder in the long rifle compared to the short "Jaegers". But a long barreled American rifle firing American powder would do as well or better then a short barreled Germanic rifle firing German, Austrian Swiss or Italian powder. Adding that extra 14 to 18 inches of barrel made a world of difference if you had to use the crude powders.

The "growth" of the longrifle from it's ancestors the Germanic rifles, was because the American powders were what was available at a cost the American rifleman could afford, but also because for the most part, American powders were all he could get even if money were not hard to come by. No trucking, fed-ex or ups in those days.
:)
 
Powders improved... for a while.

There was the gunzine writer who tried the story of the .32 Winchester Special, said to be meant to shoot smokeless factory loads and reloads with black. His rifle shot like any other 1894 with smokeless but was disappointing with fresh Goex.
He found an old can of DuPont powder. How old he didn't say, but old enough that an antique collector wanted the empty can for its label. Business picked immediately. The old powder gave higher velocity, less fouling and better accuracy.

When I got into BPCR, the smart money was on Swiss powder. I know I could not get equal performance from Goex. Goex then brought out Express powder with improved milling. It was getting a good reputation but did not stay on the market long. This was along about the time Hodgdon bought up Goex and I wonder if it were a product line consolidation measure.
They now offer Olde Eynsford as an upgrade.
I still have some Swiss if I want to get back into that game.
 
So......

So Jim, your logic is that the longer barrel allowed for better use of the variable quality of powders of the day.......am I following right?

Thus....powder quality, or lack of it, was primarily driving the long barrel design?
 
Back
Top