Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

Smoothbore rifles?

Comments

7 comments

  • allen griggs
    allus thought the definition for rifle required a rifled barrel.
    and smoothbore would define a Shotgun or Musket

    You are right, pretty much.
    Although, there is such a thing as a rifled musket.
    These guys are not labeling their guns correctly, it is a smoothbore, not a rifle. It probably looks like a rifle.
    0
  • JohnnyBGood
    I can't speak for sellers terminology, but during their period of use smoothbore rifle referred to rifle sights on a smooth bore longarm.

    John
    0
  • Hawk Carse
    Agree with John, this is a known category of period weapon; styled and sighted like a rifle, but smoothbore. Cheaper than a rifle, with some capability to use birdshot but not as large caliber as a fowling piece.

    At one time Thompson Center made a gun of the type, a .56 smoothbore Renegade with good sights for use in one state where "primitive weapon season" required a smoothbore muzzleloader.

    (12 gauge is .729" or a bit more in those days to allow for wadding.)
    0
  • allen griggs
    Sorry minitruck, looks like I was wrong.
    You learn something every day.
    0
  • slumlord44
    My .22 smoothbore's do not have rifle sights. They have a shotgun bead on the front and my Stevens Crackshot 26 has a v notch in the back. My Remington 510 bolt action single shot is similar. The Remington has a Routledge bore. The front end of the barrel is counter bored ( about .30 Caliber) and has a choke in it. The Stevens was made for shooting bird shot for birds, mice, rats etc. Stevens advised against shooting birdshot in a rifled barrel because it would lead the barrel. The later Remington guns (other manufactrers also had smooth bores)were made for pests and aso for shooting a minature skeet game with small clay birds. I think Mossberg came out with a smoothbore garden gun a while back for small varmints also.
    0
  • minitruck83
    quote:Originally posted by allen griggs
    Sorry minitruck, looks like I was wrong.
    You learn something every day.



    Me too!



    Thanks everybody. Sometimes I need assistance to keep the ignorance at bay.

    This was what I came up with on the net, and what was listed didn't match them.

    http://tinyurl.com/noe97d

    Hawk. Dunno what I was thinking when I wrote 60 caliber... I knew better. [:I]

    Here's my attempt to post a chart I've got.

    Gauge
    (Bore) Caliber Weight of unalloyed (pure) lead ball
    (mm) (in) (g) (oz) (gr)
    A* 50.8 2.000 778.19 27.45 12010
    1?* 37.05 1.459 302.39 10.667 4667
    2* 33.67 1.325 226.80 8.000 3500
    3* 29.41 1.158 151.20 5.333 2333
    4 26.72 1.052 113.40 4.000 1750
    23.75 to 24.25 (Euro) .935 to .955 (Euro)
    8 21.21 .835 56.70 2.000 875
    10 19.69 .775 45.36 1.600 700
    12 18.53 .729 37.80 1.333 583
    13 18.04 .710 34.89 1.231 538
    14 17.60 .693 32.40 1.143 500
    16 16.83 .663 28.35 1.000 438
    20 15.63 .615 22.68 0.800 350
    24 14.70 .579 18.90 0.667 292
    28 13.97 .550 16.20 0.571 250
    32 13.36 .526 14.17 0.500 219
    67? 10.41 .410 6.71 0.237 1

    Didn't line up right. [:(]

    Oh well.


    Again Thanks.



    Allen
    0
  • Hawk Carse
    Well, by your own chart, a .60 cal is about a 24 bore - with allowance for wad or patch - which would be just about right.

    I have seen original and reproduction light fowlers and had I lived in Colonial days, that is what I would have wanted. Not as heavy as a rifle or as bulky as a musket, and with all the range I could use without glasses better than Mr Franklin's.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity