Macon Conversion Question

[danajhanson]

Does anyone have thoughts/theories/facts regarding the potential accuracy differences between a 30'", 34", 36" Macon or a full size three band '42. Would the length of barrel have anything to do with the ball hitting the mark? or is the barrel length of a smoothie purely a matter of shooter preference?

DJH

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Dana,

I cannot really speak to the 30", 34" and 36" Macon "razee" carbines, but I can speak about my observations between my 24" C.S. Richmond Cavalry Carbine and the full-length '42. I have only recently (this past year) switched over from a full-length musket to the 24" carbine despite numerous reports how others could not get any accuracy from the shorter 24" carbine, and everyone seemed to recommend the 30" Macon as the best shooter. Frankly, I don't have any problem keeping all my shots inside the black at 25 yards with either gun, or within the scoring rings at 50 yards, the 24" carbine has one heck of a recoil that you must get accustomed to sustaining each shot. Of course, mine is not one of the Armisport cutdowns but was a cutdown Harpers Ferry smoothbore musket that was already cutdown to a 24" barrel. That's why I didn't "restore" it to 30" or longer. But one nicer feature of the 24" carbine is that it has a regular front sight on the barrel, and not on the front band, so there is less chance of the band getting loose or moving off my zero. If it had a rear sight would really make it even more deadly.

But as I have mentioned in other posts, my full length 42 musket shoots so low, I have to use the muzzle to cover up the bull's-eye or clay in order to hit it, which means I cannot see the target or bull's-eye when I pull the trigger and break the round. That's one reason why I changed to the short gun. I also thought it would be faster to load, and it is ever so slightly faster, though starting a ball still takes a lot of time because of a tight fitting ball. Once I get the ball down about 4 inches, I can get it seated in one motion whereas with the long gun, if the ball doesn't get pushed back up by the buildup of pressure inside the bore, it still takes a couple of strokes of the ramrod to get the ball seated. All of that takes up valuable time that I could be aiming, shooting and breaking targets.

Below is the "before" image (when the stock was like in about eight separate pieces, not all shown):


And "after" restoration:

[danajhanson]

Here are some more thoughts...

Longer barrels give the powder more time to work on propelling the bullet...correct? With this said, would a longer barrels provide higher ball velocities? However, with a long barrel, would there will eventually be a point in which the bore friction and air pressure in front of the bullet becomes the same as the gas pressure behind it? I would think at this point, the velocity of the bullet would decrease??

Regarding sighting... if you have a long barrel, you end up with a longer sight radius. Is there less error potential with a longer sight radius?

Bottom line...I am trying to decide if I should cut the barrel down (and to what length) on my '42. But by gathering the pros and cons of long vs short, am I just splitting hairs?

Man, I really need to get out of the house and do some shooting!! :roll:

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Dana,

As was noted in another thread you may have missed or merely gleaned over, a shorter barrel produces a far greater recoil than a does a longer barrel because the shorter barrel has less internal volume for the gas to expand and is thus under a greater pressure when it vents than does a longer barrel which because of its greater volume contains a lower pressure when it is vented (i.e. when the projectile clears the muzzle).

Until this point, the internal expansion of the gas does not translate into any measureable motion within the barrel, and if any part of the explosive chain could be felt (depending on the relative mass of the barrel), it would perhaps be the movement of the projectile's mass within the barrel affecting the equilibrium or balance of the barrel but not causing or contributing to any kind of recoil force, least not until the projectile escapes from the cylinder.

So it is the internal gas pressure at the moment it escapes and expands from the barrel rather than the mass of the projectile that equates to the force of the recoil. The weight (i.e. mass times gravity) of the projectile is but a small portion of the total recoil force. Theoretically, if a barrel was long enough to fully compensate for the volume of the gas pressure, the forward motion of the projectile would literally stop and there would be no recoil.


viewtopic.php?f=24&t=12736&p=51684&hilit=column#p5 1684

So provided the powder charges are equal, a longer barrel gun does not have a higher muzzle velocity than a shorter barrel gun, but just the opposite. Certainly the long gun has the advantage on sight radius over a greater distance, but at the distance we shoot you're splitting hairs to say that the longer gun has any distinct advantage over the short gun. If that was true, everyone would be shooting 3-banders.

[RaiderANV]

...... you're splitting hairs to say that the longer gun has any distinct advantage over the short gun. If that was true, everyone would be shooting 3-banders.

My 3 bander is a yard closer to the target before I pull the trigger Green

[R. McAuley 3014V]

...... you're splitting hairs to say that the longer gun has any distinct advantage over the short gun. If that was true, everyone would be shooting 3-banders.

My 3 bander is a yard closer to the target before I pull the trigger Green

You only 18 inches closer but that ain't much of an advantage for a gun that has only about 57% the muzzle velocity of the 24" short gun; takes longer to load; weighs twice as much; and takes longer to shoulder... even longer to aim; and if discharged at the same time, my ball still gets to the target before yours! Like Gen'l Forrest said: "Get there the fastest with the most'est!"

[Greg Ogdan, 11444]

You all need to get out and shoot more. I would chat longer, but I have a roundball match Sunday for which I must prepare. I've got to shoot against several of my N-SSA teammates and that is a real challenge.

[Joe Plakis, 9575V]

It is not the gun that makes the marksmen, it is the practice! I shoot, and try to shoot often. Find what fits you and go with it! You might find the 1842 CS Richmond Smoothbore to light, and you "spray" the backstop. The full length 1842 might be to heavy or you might be to short to load it fast. You might find anything in any situation, pros and cons. Hell, I would say there is a disadvantage cause there is no rifling Green

Bottom Line find what fits well and practice!

[Greg Ogdan, 11444]

D*mn, Joe, you do have a way with words!

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Yeah Greg, the way he uses that word “spray” makes me think he was issued an M3 “greasegun” SMG when he was in the military? Wonder if he was awarded the expert marksmanship metal for it, like I got for the M79? It was a smoothbore too. First thing we did with them was to knock the rear sights off, and placed our HE rounds it by ear.