M1842 barrel were made thick in anticipation of rifling?

[Marine Mike]

I received the July issue of Muzzleblast today and it has an article in the back that Armi Sport is selling a defarbed '42 with two locks for the 150th cycle. The author mentions that the original '42 barrel was made thick in anticipation of rifling. Capt. Minie releases two papers in '49, one on shallow rifiling and the other on his design of a ball with an expanding skirt. Are there some on-line links or dead tree references that mention this intentional thick barrel consideration between '38 and '42?

[fahnenschmied]

Re: M1842 barrel were made thick in anticipation of rifling?

I would say no, because the barrel of the US 1842 musket is not really any thicker than many of its contemporaries - and also, in 1842...for that matter, the barrel is virtually identical to the flint musket of the previous pattern....there was not yet any Minie system on the horizon to anticipate. Only the Delvigne system was really around at the time. Not until the 1850s was the true expanding skirt projectile being experimented with. The US didn't start rifling the 69s till we had the 1855 rifled musket. Our musket was somewhat inspired by the English, who shrank the bore size to give the same approximate weight of the old round ball cartridge to reduce the soldiers load and reduce recoil. I don't know of any links - except loads of links in French about these early balls and their development like http://books.google.com/books?id=AYl...misier&f=false

and http://books.google.com/books?id=vT0...0belge&f=false

Dont forget there was also at the time the rifle proper, in .54 caliber. I don't think there could have been any real thought at the time about rifling the smoothbores. Plus I don't think anybody was yet experimenting with the broad shallow rifling suited to the task...just my 2 cents worth...

[GrumpyDave]

Re: M1842 barrel were made thick in anticipation of rifling?

Which two locks is Armi-Sport including? If I may inquire?

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: M1842 barrel were made thick in anticipation of rifling?

I can't speak to the motivation as to why this is so, but...
Yes, the barrel dimensions of both the US M1835/40 and M1842 are thicker than those of the US M1816/22. What would be interesting is to determine if the dimensions of the US M1816/22 were downsized from prior US muskets. I have heard more qualified experts than I surmizing that the M16/22 was initially developed to be a musket to arm militia and, as such, a thicker barrel was not considered a necessity. Is this true, or is it balderdash, or unsubstantiated idle chatter over pipes in the workshop? Idunno... but there it is.

My spidey sense tells me that the thicker dimensions is either a conscious effort to make a barrel more robust than that of the M16/22 pattern, or to harmonize with the French muskets that US arms developers were emulating at the time.

An interesting tidbit: I have seen a number of US M1816/22 rifled conversions with their barrels split during their original period of use when a soldier attempted to fire a minie ball. Was the bore dirty, damaged, obstructed... Idunno. But they certainly weren't made in Pakistan! ;-)

[Bill]

Re: M1842 barrel were made thick in anticipation of rifling?

at the time.

An interesting tidbit: I have seen a number of US M1816/22 rifled conversions with their barrels split during their original period of use when a soldier attempted to fire a minie ball. Was the bore dirty, damaged, obstructed... Idunno. But they certainly weren't made in Pakistan! ;-)

I own an H & P conversion, that had been sighted, but not rifled. The barrel is quite thin. I have always wondered if it had been determined that the barrel was too thin to rifle?

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: M1842 barrel were made thick in anticipation of rifling?

Hallo!

I would recommend Peter Schmidt's excellent "U.S. Military Flintlock Muskets and the Their Bayonets: the Later Years, 1816 Through the Civil War" for a rather detailed and comprehensive study of those arms and collection of Period documents and correspondence talking about them.

But being brief...

When examining originals (as well as the Ordnance Department inspections of the two National armories and contractor pieces), we are spoiled or conditioned by the thicker walled Italain repro barrels into being surprised at the thinness of original iron barrels. For example, the 1829 OD inspections showed (due to their being hand made) .69 barrel diameters varying from a largest at .835 inches to a smallest at .815 or a range of .02

Shortly after the final round of improvements were made to the M1822 musket in 1828, the OD received a batch of French M1822 muskets in 1829 for comparison analysis. They fiddled with them for a few years, but then adopted changes to make the 24 prototype M1835 muskets. But the Secretary of War had a fit saying he would not approve the model unless it was reviewed by a board and not just the approval of the Chief of Ordnance.
It would be 1839 before that happened, and by then Springfield was already one step ahead with a new model, which would become the M1840.

But by the time that got started, "percussion" came in and the M1840 was morphed into the M1842.

Anyways, IMHO it is important to keep in mind that, by and large, they had to invent the Minie ball first, and then go with it on July 5, 1855. Part of that change, was to take a look backwards at exisitngn inventory of smoothbores, and rifle and rife-and-sight them with the new Minie system.

There is no evidence that M1822, M1840, or M1842's were made, or remade with barrels that were thicker to handle the increased pressures of a .69 Minie ball in a rifled bore. However, teh OD was aware, and concerend about breech pressures, and eventually "evolved" the cone-in-barrel and "side drum" alterations by cutting off the breech section and replacing it with one with an intregal bolster and cone moreorless akin to the M1842's.

Historically, they just very shallowly rifled the existing stock of useable smoothbore muskets.

IMHO, I believe the author mentioned is unknowledgeable, or mistaken, and has confused the the replacement breech thing with a replacement barrel thing. If not, I would like to see the historical documentation as it would be outside of where our Document Pool and Colelctive Knowledge hinge point now resides.

We do not know, and it is an interesting question.. why are some of the same type arms were rifled-and-sighted, while others are only rifled, while others are onlly sighted when not rifled?

I would guess that I had to do with varying contracts because if one goes by the Ordnance Department inspections of barrels on arms, there is only an .01 and .02 total variance in diameters. But one could theorize, and posit that the documents and correspondence may not have survived for us to know, that there might have been a Pass/Fail system in place.
Meaning, maybe, muskets with more than .01 were considered risky and not used, while only arms under .01 were selected for rifling? (A pre M1842 factor). If we had enough measurements, maybe we could shed some hypothetical light on the guess.

Curt
Firearm Heretic Mess

[gsusat]

Re: M1842 barrel were made thick in anticipation of rifling?

Good points and the book Curt mentioned is really a good one on the subject.

On the topic of preparation for rifling - The Ordinance Dept did a massive inventory and inspection of the 1816/22 muskets in inventory in the late 1840's in preperation for converting the weapons to percussion. The method chosen would not withstand the pressure created by firing a rifled projectile and rendered all those newly converted muskets second class arms. Later conversions such as the one performed by H&P early in the war used a new breech that was screwed on to the barrel.

As to the thicker barrel on the 1840/42 the barrel failure rate on the 1816/22 in proofing was pretty high during the manufacturing process. At some times Harpers Ferry had a barrel faliure rate approaching 50%. That is pretty staggering. During the time the 1816/22 were manufactured the process itself changed significantly. Barrels started out being hand forged and ground by hand on a large stone wheel. By the 1840's the process had been developed to make the barrels by machine. The thicker barrel may have come as a response to any or all of these issues.

[Marine Mike]

Re: M1842 barrel were made thick in anticipation of rifling?

I figured it was more a reflection of current technology in use and manufacture and not a future technology ten years hense. The opinion expressed seemed far fetched but thought I'd ask anyway. Thanks for all the replys.

Grumpy,
Springfield and Harpers Ferry dated 1847. I've not seen one so can not say anymore than what is in their advertisement. I'm sure that someone knowledgable about original and defarb will provide a detailed review in the next few weeks as one of the vendors mentioned in the Armi Sport ad has vendor space at Bull Run/Manassas.

[talkToTheHat]

Re: M1842 barrel were made thick in anticipation of rifling?

Note also that the powder charge for the .69 minie cartridge was 70 grains, compared to 110 grains for the spherical ball, buck and ball and buckshot. Is this huge reduction in powder purely down the better seal of a minie ball over the huge windage of a .650 ball in a .69 barrel, or partly a reflection of the reduced strength of the rifled barrel.

Note also that rifling concentrates stresses at the radius changes of the barrel, so the reduction in strength is by more than just the the enlargement of the barrel. This effect depends greatly on the profile of the rifling.

Percussion ignition tends to cause increased chamber pressure over flintlock ignition as there is both a better gas seal and better ignition spark penetration of the main charge. Note that an improved gas seal is a non-linear effect, as increased chamber pressure and temperature increases the reaction rate, which increases the rate of gas production.

Beyond doubt the M1842 was produced with a thicker barrel than its predecessors. Why well there are possible and plausible scientific reasons and the forward compatibility theory.

Endemic to re-enactment is the repetition of speculation as fact. It is a trap too many of us fall into, and hobbyists don't always exercise the rigour required of academic research. Is there a research paper or book published claiming that it was a design intent of the M1842 that rifling could be added? What sources do they reference? If there is no primary source then this can be dismissed as folklore.

[Bones]

Re: M1842 barrel were made thick in anticipation of rifling?

i likewise have a H&P 1861 conversion, rifled and sighted.the BBL is quite thin and youn can see stress marks on the outer surface from the rifling tool.

Bones Jarrett
Armory Guards