Keith
City-dweller
Bushfire close but safe now. Getting some good rain.
Posts: 990 
|
Post by Keith on Feb 17, 2020 1:09:01 GMT -7
|
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Feb 17, 2020 6:50:58 GMT -7
The explanation of greater recoil when the ball passes into a "tight spot" of the barrel strongly suggests the author did not know how smoothbores and rifle barrels were reamed during the period. They always began at the breech end and as the paper shims under the reaming cutters wore down a tiny bit as they traveled down the bore, the bore would not be reamed as much near the muzzle as at the breech. This meant the barrels were not "straight bored," but rather "tapered bored" to a slightly smaller diameter at the muzzles. Gunsmiths must have recognized this fact as barrels were always reamed from the breech end.
Also, British Smoothbore/Shotgun gunsmiths recognized straighter stocks caused less felt recoil then on stocks that were "considerably bent" during the early 19th century, if not before.
A badly fouled bore will cause more recoil, but it is hard to imagine most folks would actually feel the difference.
Still, there is some good info here during the period when they were figuring these things out without much scientific equipment.
Gus
|
|
|
|
Post by spence on Feb 18, 2020 14:39:38 GMT -7
Interesting article. Do you know if it was presented as original work in the Shooter's Guide? If so it shows plagiarism was alive and well in early 19th century, because it is lifted very nearly exactly from An Essay on Shooting by Wm. Cleator in about 1789.
Reminds me of another such case. In 1812 Wm. Duane published _A Hand Book for Riflemen_. It is an exact copy of _Instructions for Light Infantry and Riflemen_, published by Col. Neil Campbell in 1809.
Spence
|
|
Keith
City-dweller
Bushfire close but safe now. Getting some good rain.
Posts: 990
|
Post by Keith on Feb 18, 2020 15:31:34 GMT -7
Interesting article. Do you know if it was presented as original work in the Shooter's Guide? If so it shows plagiarism was alive and well in early 19th century, because it is lifted very nearly exactly from An Essay on Shooting by Wm. Cleator in about 1789. Reminds me of another such case. In 1812 Wm. Duane published _A Hand Book for Riflemen_. It is an exact copy of _Instructions for Light Infantry and Riflemen_, published by Col. Neil Campbell in 1809. Spence I have both of these books Spence, & I think at least "An Essay on Shooting" was copied from an earlier French publication. So yes, It stands to reason that the later one was probably using information from the earlier publication. Keith. |
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Feb 18, 2020 17:17:44 GMT -7
Reminds me of another such case. In 1812 Wm. Duane published _A Hand Book for Riflemen_. It is an exact copy of _Instructions for Light Infantry and Riflemen_, published by Col. Neil Campbell in 1809. Spence Spence, As we have discussed in the past, Wm. Duane copied Col. Campbell's work, but added some things on his own and when he did, he usually screwed things up. Your point on period plagiarism is certainly valuable. I have a booklet on Early American Furniture Finishing Techniques that spoke to this point. The author had period quotes from the 17th through early 19th century and mentioned it was clear later writings were directly plagiarized from earlier ones. Matter of fact the author wrote in his opinion, it was done so often that they didn't see a major problem with it or even any problem at all. Gus P.S. BTW, thanks again for informing me of William Cleator, the Perfect Gun and similar sources in the past. |
|
