Xyka 'tatumai yeah, fascinating gun. The Madsen LMG that came from it was very popular, but the video on the predecessor showed what was at the time a revolutionary rifle
'cause then you would have heard that the P stood for the first initial of the superintendant of the military inspector department when they accepted the rifle into service.
Ahh! The long awaited scholagladiatoria / britishmuzzleloaders cross over.... That was my Naval Rifle in the photo showing the bayonet lug... ;-) ... For those wanting more information, CH Roads' book "The British Soldiers' Firearm" goes to great lengths describing the Lancaster... Issued to the Royal Sappers and Miners, later the Royal Engineers.
I didn't know you existed, but I recently have been learning about really old guns. I'll be giving you a visit and a sub as soon as Mat gets done telling us about the context.
I never knew I needed a Forgotten Weapons or In Range collaboration with Scholagladiatoria until now. I'm sure Ian (and Karl if In Range) and Matt would provide context for days.
Excellent post. Another advantage is easy of manufacture. The Lancaster barrels were made using a mandrel and were much easier and less expensive to make than the single hook cut rifled barrels that predominated through the 1860s. They were not widely accepted at the time for the same reason that modern polygonal rifling still struggles to go mainstream in long arms despite all of the same advantages. People like to see rifling. When they can’t, they don’t think it’s as accurate. Today polygonal rifling has been largely accepted in handguns designed for military contracts, and there are high grade custom polygonal pistol barrels available too. But you almost never see it in modern rifle barrels.
The german Bundeswehr had crome-plated polygonal barrels for their MG3 about 30 years ago. Can't remember, though - maybe they only where for the gun turret of the Marder APC, where barrel replacement isn't as easy as with a hand-carried gun ...
The problem with firing shot out a rifled barrel is that the spin imparted by the rifling causes the shot to spread further because of centripital force. Even though that rifling is very mild, it would still increase the spread.
In addition to increasing the spread, it also tends to create a somewhat toroidal shot pattern, i.e. a pattern that looks rather like a doughnut. This can decrease the likelihood of a good hit at the center of aim, which isn't great if you have a small or distant target. This is a common issue for revolvers that are chambered for .410 shotgun shells, as by US law pistols are required to have rifling.
When you started describing it the first thing that came to my mind was "Whitworth." Looks like this came out 2 years after the Whitworth, and they are very similar ideas. The Whitworth was adored but it was notorious for being ridiculously expensive.
"Hi guys. Thanks for tuning in on another video on Schola Gladiatoria. I'm Matt Easton and today we'll be looking at the Lancaster patent muzzle loading rifle."
Except of course sporterising weapons didn't happen much before the 1960's. People simply did not customise weapons much back then because of the difficulty of getting spares.
I was not saying it did not happen, I was saying it did not happen half as often as it does now. Not even 10%. I cannot find any references to wide scale sporterising before the sell off of WWI and WWII era rifles in the 1950's and 1960's. If you have information I don't have I would love to see it as I'm more into the historical aspects of firearms than modern ones..
P under a crown is a proof. You can restore the stock with some work. A dovetail join, find the hardware and it's done. Can't help you with the bayonet lug. That has to be welded.
If it is indeed rifled then using it as a shotgun would have exactly the same disadvantages as using a rifled choke in the shot gun. That is that the cup the holds the shot will engage the rifling and spin exactly the same way any other projectile would. The cup imparts that spin onto the shot which will then have a much wider pattern than it would normally. If no cup is used (it is a muzzle loader) and the shot is packed tightly enough you *might* have a similar affect.
There were several other such smooth bore rifle designs in that era. What was usually unique to these designs was that the bullet was also shaped in accordance with the shape of the twist. I'll supposition that this rifle may have been furnished with a slightly oval shaped bullet in order to take spin from the twist and prevent blow, as a waste of energy, by of the expanding gases and explosion of the black powder charge. Of course the designers could have been relying on the bump up from a dead soft lead bullet to take the oval shape on powder ignition. This may explain why the oval is imperceptible to allow a round shaped projectile to fully bump up to the barrels internal shape. I've seen this with Snider rifles where you could see daylight around the bullet in the groves but accuracy being excellent for that type of firearm due to bump up of the bullet that would fill the groves upon firing.
Long quote from James McPherson's history of the American Civil War "Battle Cry of Freedom": "Rifling a musket increased its range fourfold by imparting a spin to a conical bullet that enabled it literally to bore through the air. This fact had been known for centuries, but before the 1850s only special regiments or one or two companies per regiment were equipped with rifles. These companies were used as skirmishers-that is, they operated in front and on the flanks of the main body, advancing or withdrawing in loose order and shooting at will from long range at enemy targets of opportunity. Given the rifle's greater range and accuracy, why were not all infantrymen equipped with it? Because a bullet large enough to "take" the rifling was difficult to ram down the barrel. Riflemen sometimes had to pound the ramrod down with a mallet. After a rifle had been fired a few times a residue of powder built up in the grooves and had to be cleaned out before it could be fired again. Since rapid and reliable firing was essential in a battle, the rifle was not practicable for the mass of infantrymen. Until the 1850s, that is. Although several people contributed to the development of a practicable military rifle, the main credit belongs to French army Captain Claude E . Minié and to the American James H. Burton, an armorer at the Harper's Ferry Armory. In 1848 Minié per fected a bullet small enough to be easily rammed down a rifled barrel, with a wooden plug in the base of the bullet to expand it upon firing to take the rifling. Such bullets were expensive; Burton developed a cheaper and better bullet with a deep cavity in the base that filled with gas and expanded the rim upon firing. This was the famous "minié ball" of Civil War rifles. The superiority of the rifle was demonstrated by British and French soldiers who carried them in the Crimean War. As Secretary of War in 1 8 5 5 , Jefferson Davis converted the United States army to the . 58 caliber Springfield rifled musket. Along with the similar British Enfield rifle (caliber . 577, which would take the same bullet as the Springfield), the Springfield became the main infantry arm of the Civil War."
I didn't catch mention of the bore size - that's covered by the numbers with the proof marks. In 1863 the "Army (Rifles)" report was published in the UK. Lancaster large bore (.577) and small bore (.451) rifles were included in the trials. Of the small bore rifles, the Lancaster faired OK in the trials but lost out to the Whitworth in precision. It was noted there was a tendency for the Lancaster to throw occasional wild shots. In the large-bore trials it was however a different story. The tendency to occasional wild shots was not found in the Lancaster. If it was decided to retain the present (.577) Enfield calibre, "the Committee are of the opinion that the adoption of the Lancaster system of rifling will be attended with considerable advantage to the service." Not long after this the quest for a breech-loading rifle commenced, which ultimately led to the adoption of the Snider-Enfield, a breech loading conversion of the muzzle-loading Enfield.
For historical reference only: in comparative trials between the Lancaster and Enfield in 1862 the Lancaster had the advantage in precision both when clean and fouled. This was using the service cartridge with a 530 grain bullet (dia. 0.55, wood plug), pure wax lubrication and 2.5 drams. of J2 powder. Major axis of the elliptical bore .580" and minor axis .572. Twist 1 in 36 at breech, increasing to 1 in 33 at muzzle. Competent assessment of the rifle needed before shooting it. facebook.com/ResearchPress/
You find the same type of barrel on some machineguns, for example the german MG3 (modernised version of the MG42). They are harder to make and overall heavier but will stand up to hard use a lot better than rifled barrels, at least that's the explanation given in the Army.
Smoothbores accumulate fouling quite badly. In fact, rifled barrels may have started as an attempt to give the fouling a place to go...but that's just speculation. However there is no question that a smooth barrel can fouly very badly, depending on the first of the projectile...
The principle is very similar to the polygonal rifling used on the Lee Metford for the same reasons, to minimise the black powder fouling that accumulated in a traditionally rifled barrel.
The oval while a great idea is expensive to produce and only a few short years later came the breech loading 1866 Enfield. Loading from the breech allowed for tighter fits between bullet and barrel negating the advantages of having a smoothbored barrel. In conjunction these two factors, expense and obsolescence would've killed the Lancaster.
Nice to see more firearms content from, I always enjoy seeing old guns. In the future, when doing more antique firearms videos or when covering any swords from the late 18th century (around American War of Independence) you should reach out to a CZcamsr by the name of BrandonF. He's an American, but an Anglophile, and he covers mainly the Revolutionary War period from the British perspective but does a little War of 1823 as well. He covers mainly the uniforms and equipment of British troops from the period because he's a reenactor but does cover weapons a bit too. He's a fan of yours and I know that he'd love to do a colab with you, I know because I mentioned it to him before. But he's reluctant to reach out to you because he feels that his channel is too small for you to want to do a colab with him. So, I figured I'd pitch the idea to you for him.
Sweet find. And you may be suprised of how accurate that firearm still is. And also if as nice as condition as you say shooting a near full load would not be dangerous at all.i have some older rifles in that Era and shoot them at 75/80% of original loads. Good stuff, interesting.
So it's essentially like polygonal rifling, but a twisting oval instead of a twisting hexagon or octagon. I wonder the Lancaster Patent influenced the choice to use Metford rifling in some later black powder Enfields.
Guns of that era were normally bored to 24 gauge or .577" caliber for Military use but could be bored to 20 gauge or .600" caliber for weapons intended for sporting purposes. If the gun checks out as being bored larger than those two calibers, say 16 gauge/.65 caliber to 12 gauge/.705" caliber then chances are the gun was intentionally rebored at some point in time and most likely it was done to refresh a worn bore barrel. If this was in fact done it is likely the oval boring was removed at this time and the gun should be considered suitable for ball or shot as a conventional smooth bore gun (Shotgun). HTH
I bet if somebody wanted to, they could develop muzzle loading disintegrating loads. Meaning you shoot ant quickly put a cylinder in again, shoot , and drop a premade cylinder again. I just bet you could develop one as a new invent
Interesting, I had never heard of that kinda "rifling" whick isnt the typical lans and grooves. But to me, it seems like making the ovate type rifling would make the barrel harder to make right. But it is interesting.
Is a crown over a CP? The "C" over and entwined with the P? That is a Black Powder proof mark for shotguns. If you email I can send a PDF that has a lot of common markings.
You used a torch to look down the barrel? I would have used a flashlight. Ha Ha. Sorry Matt I just had to say that. I watch your videos all the time, learned a lot.
Would I be right in assuming that you would need to use oval bullets in this barrel? If so, that could be the reason why it passed into history along with the other systems requiring specially shaped ammo, Brunswick, Whitworth etc. Cheaper ammo is always going to be a big selling point for those government contracts. Here's a thought - if you put it on your FAC for a while, when you take it off it reverts to being an antique under current rules and you can keep,display or sell without restriction. I don't know if the same is true if you were to register it as a shotgun. Worth checking!
Matt any time you ask why didn't they use this instead of that 99.999% of the time the answer is money. Lancaster's Patent barrels probably cost more than traditional rifled barrels.
That thing is probably fine for full charges. Get a gunsmith to check it out for you to make sure, but as long there aren't any structural problems.... black powder really doesn't produce crazy pressures. If there is any kind of decent rifling in it, I wouldn't use it as a shotgun.
There is a modern equivalent of this too. More accurate and slightly higher muzzle energy for the same charge. They are not used for two reasons. Firstly cost. This type of rifling is way more expensive (I believe double). The second is the "not invented here" brigade. Always a pain in the grunnocks. There is also for the military the cost implication of changing over, when what they already have works.
Oops looks like I miss-read some info. Polygonal rifling is not ogival rifling. It looks similar but is actually not the same (I assumed it was). That said Sabatti's version is rounded so would look like ogival (and I really don't know what the difference is). www.italianfirearmsgroup.com/news/sabatti-mrr-multi-radial-rifling
I think the reason this rifling didn’t catch on was that it was designed for Minnie ball specifically - with hollow skirt expanding to catch the oval rifling. Typical modern bullet doesn’t have that.
As a XVII-XIXth century History and blade addict I was like "what on Earth is this muzzle-loading gun?", cannot be Enfield or a German rifle; way too long for a a "chasseur à cheval" carbine. Well I guess the Lancasters didn't reveal all their tricks back in the late XVth century! More seriously what system was behind the bullet acceleration then? Edit : Thank you so much for sharing Matt awesome found, too bad I don't have any license in this field since my Navy years
I would hazard a guess for P under a crown to be the monogram of Pedro V of Portugal. He’s the only European monarch of the right time period to have a name starting with P. If so, this would be an exported firearm, more history to this thing I guess. Can anyone confirm or deny this hypothesis?
I'm pretty sure that P would just stand for "Proofed" or "Proof". I.e. that the rifle had been tested at a proof house & passed whatever the standard was at the time.
Crown with a P under it is the definitive black powder proof mark for the London proof house. The crown with a V is the view mark (an acceptance mark I believe) also for the London proof house. Birmingham proof house used a similar mark but with a B.
What was the purpose of sporterizing firearms? I understand that fowlers (sporting smoothbore firearms) developed away from muskets to be better used in hunting birds and small game in trees and in the air. But those guns sacrificed their forestocks in to lessen the added weight of longer barrels. But if you aren't increasing the barrel length, what benefit comes from chopping off the forestock? Also, if it was possible to keep a bayonet lug on a short-stock firearm, why did the crown not instruct its governors to subsidize the cost of adding boyonet lugs to the fowlers used by provincial troops, rather than issue out obsolete plug bayonets? Did the crown foresee the American Revolution, and see the issuance of plug bayonets as a security measure. Was it similar to the pre-Reagan US policy of only selling less capable us tanks and warplanes to allies while prohibiting foreign sales of the best equipment. Or was it more like the deliberate choice, during the Gulf War, to mainly expend surplus unguided bombs?
The stock was cut down to save on weight; you reduce the weight when you reducing the amount of stock. Makes it easier to carry, faster to put on target, and easier to track running game. For a civilian hunting firearm, it matters more that it is light and nimble vice able to get into a rifle slamming brawl like the military needs. Additionally, that part of the stock is not structurally significant. As for the bayonet comment, I am not sure if you are asking why it has no lug. He addressed this by saying the lug was likely removed, which would be after it entered the civilian market.
As you have just been shown, that is not the case! In the second half of the 19th century there was a lot of popular interest in fire arms technology - everyman and his brother were trying to comeup with some tweak that would make their fortune as the inventors of some new super rifle. Range, accuracy, rate of fire, cost of production - there were people exploring all of these and more. Hence the number of patents, most of which never amounted to anything.
Xyka 'tatumai There's a difference between variants and distinct patents. I think the term your looking for is derivative. In terms of firearms, a variant is generally a slightly different version of a gun that's made by the same company e.g the mp5k is a variant of the standard mp5. This is different from the many different AR15s that are manufactured by companies other than Colt, who I believe own the patent.
David Powell None of the qualities you mentioned have any relation to patenting. You can change the range, accuracy and cost of a gun with zero changes to the patent. Rate of fire is something you could alter with a completely new patent but in most cases that doesn't apply to flintlock and percussion firearms.
@scholagladiatoria Interesting video. You really ought to do something with the excellent British Muzzle Loaders channel who does British 19th Century military firearms. czcams.com/users/britishmuzzleloaders I seem to recall there were Lancaster Cannon used in the Crimean War 1854-56.
If you want to see more Lancaster patent firearms, Ian from Forgotten Weapons has this great video about Lancaster Howdah pistols. czcams.com/video/WWGII108sOU/video.html
6:07 Fortunately Ian from Forgotten Weapons has a super long and informative video on proof marks! czcams.com/video/HCJ4pLmOOjM/video.htmlm55s Seems to have been reproofed sometime between 1925-54, possibly for resale?
Wait, this isn't ForgottenWeapons...
IPostSwords i know right.
p.s. did you see Ian's video on the madsen rifle?
Xyka 'tatumai yeah, fascinating gun. The Madsen LMG that came from it was very popular, but the video on the predecessor showed what was at the time a revolutionary rifle
'cause then you would have heard that the P stood for the first initial of the superintendant of the military inspector department when they accepted the rifle into service.
Ohhhh I'm thinking crossover episode. We've got to Ian to the UK or Matt to the US lol
Just watched FW about the Madsen LMG and came here...
Ahh! The long awaited scholagladiatoria / britishmuzzleloaders cross over.... That was my Naval Rifle in the photo showing the bayonet lug... ;-) ... For those wanting more information, CH Roads' book "The British Soldiers' Firearm" goes to great lengths describing the Lancaster... Issued to the Royal Sappers and Miners, later the Royal Engineers.
I didn't know you existed, but I recently have been learning about really old guns. I'll be giving you a visit and a sub as soon as Mat gets done telling us about the context.
That's a fine looking rifle
Haha, I hope you don't mind me grabbing your image.
Yes! Can we get Matt to Canada for some black powder shooting and bayonet drills? Start a GoFundMe:)
Agreed.
I never knew I needed a Forgotten Weapons or In Range collaboration with Scholagladiatoria until now. I'm sure Ian (and Karl if In Range) and Matt would provide context for days.
Cameron Buckner context and deep penetration while correctly applying the butt and giving point when sliding along the shafts ;)
Excellent post. Another advantage is easy of manufacture. The Lancaster barrels were made using a mandrel and were much easier and less expensive to make than the single hook cut rifled barrels that predominated through the 1860s. They were not widely accepted at the time for the same reason that modern polygonal rifling still struggles to go mainstream in long arms despite all of the same advantages. People like to see rifling. When they can’t, they don’t think it’s as accurate. Today polygonal rifling has been largely accepted in handguns designed for military contracts, and there are high grade custom polygonal pistol barrels available too. But you almost never see it in modern rifle barrels.
The german Bundeswehr had crome-plated polygonal barrels for their MG3 about 30 years ago. Can't remember, though - maybe they only where for the gun turret of the Marder APC, where barrel replacement isn't as easy as with a hand-carried gun ...
The problem with firing shot out a rifled barrel is that the spin imparted by the rifling causes the shot to spread further because of centripital force. Even though that rifling is very mild, it would still increase the spread.
Harvest N however, that's not always a bad thing in every *context* ;)
I kind of what to test that on a large target now....
The period advertising said that these were also able to be used as shotguns.
In addition to increasing the spread, it also tends to create a somewhat toroidal shot pattern, i.e. a pattern that looks rather like a doughnut. This can decrease the likelihood of a good hit at the center of aim, which isn't great if you have a small or distant target. This is a common issue for revolvers that are chambered for .410 shotgun shells, as by US law pistols are required to have rifling.
scholagladiatoria Even at 10yd or so, you will get a donut shaped pattern.
So, it's sort of like the Victorian-equivalent of polygonal rifling. Neat.
Not exactly. Polygonal rifling was also around during that time, mostly in artillery. Later on the rifling in the Lee-Metford was polygonal.
When you started describing it the first thing that came to my mind was "Whitworth." Looks like this came out 2 years after the Whitworth, and they are very similar ideas. The Whitworth was adored but it was notorious for being ridiculously expensive.
Minnie ball didn’t need to be tight fitted. Maybe you were thinking of Napoleonic Round balls in rifles.
"Hi guys. Thanks for tuning in on another video on Schola Gladiatoria. I'm Matt Easton and today we'll be looking at the Lancaster patent muzzle loading rifle."
Matt needs to don a wig and fake moustache for the full experience
That musket is inappropriately showing its rod.
rip for the sportized stock :(
I'm with you. Except possibly for weight reduction, I can't understand why one would eliminate so much of the stock, on a rifle (?) with a ramrod.
I don't know why people don't just replace the stock with a sporterised one and keep the original intact. I certainly would.
Except of course sporterising weapons didn't happen much before the 1960's. People simply did not customise weapons much back then because of the difficulty of getting spares.
I was not saying it did not happen, I was saying it did not happen half as often as it does now. Not even 10%. I cannot find any references to wide scale sporterising before the sell off of WWI and WWII era rifles in the 1950's and 1960's. If you have information I don't have I would love to see it as I'm more into the historical aspects of firearms than modern ones..
I love the color of the wood.
The amount of effort you put in these videos is much appreciated. Please keep doing what you're doing.
Does the "P" have an odd looking curl on it? Crown/V is a view mark. Crown/P is a London proof mark.
P under a crown is a proof. You can restore the stock with some work. A dovetail join, find the hardware and it's done. Can't help you with the bayonet lug. That has to be welded.
Apparently the american Greene breachloading rifle used the same oval 'rifling' system.
If it is indeed rifled then using it as a shotgun would have exactly the same disadvantages as using a rifled choke in the shot gun. That is that the cup the holds the shot will engage the rifling and spin exactly the same way any other projectile would. The cup imparts that spin onto the shot which will then have a much wider pattern than it would normally. If no cup is used (it is a muzzle loader) and the shot is packed tightly enough you *might* have a similar affect.
Absolutely positively love your videos on anything Victorian military related.
That superdry shirt has a really cool design. May have to order one for myself
A smoothbore rifle? Sgt. Superdry, you just blew my mind.
There were several other such smooth bore rifle designs in that era. What was usually unique to these designs was that the bullet was also shaped in accordance with the shape of the twist. I'll supposition that this rifle may have been furnished with a slightly oval shaped bullet in order to take spin from the twist and prevent blow, as a waste of energy, by of the expanding gases and explosion of the black powder charge. Of course the designers could have been relying on the bump up from a dead soft lead bullet to take the oval shape on powder ignition. This may explain why the oval is imperceptible to allow a round shaped projectile to fully bump up to the barrels internal shape. I've seen this with Snider rifles where you could see daylight around the bullet in the groves but accuracy being excellent for that type of firearm due to bump up of the bullet that would fill the groves upon firing.
This is a great channel normally, but made even more so with stuff like this.
I didn't know how bad I wanted a bloke on the range-Scholagladiatorial collaboration till now
I watch Bloke on the Range, live near Bisley and have an SMLE, so would be totally up for it :-)
Long quote from James McPherson's history of the American Civil War "Battle Cry of Freedom":
"Rifling a musket increased its range fourfold by imparting a spin to a
conical bullet that enabled it literally to bore through the air. This fact
had been known for centuries, but before the 1850s only special regiments
or one or two companies per regiment were equipped with rifles.
These companies were used as skirmishers-that is, they operated in
front and on the flanks of the main body, advancing or withdrawing in
loose order and shooting at will from long range at enemy targets of
opportunity. Given the rifle's greater range and accuracy, why were not
all infantrymen equipped with it? Because a bullet large enough to "take"
the rifling was difficult to ram down the barrel. Riflemen sometimes
had to pound the ramrod down with a mallet. After a rifle had been
fired a few times a residue of powder built up in the grooves and had to
be cleaned out before it could be fired again. Since rapid and reliable
firing was essential in a battle, the rifle was not practicable for the mass
of infantrymen.
Until the 1850s, that is. Although several people contributed to the
development of a practicable military rifle, the main credit belongs to
French army Captain Claude E . Minié and to the American James H.
Burton, an armorer at the Harper's Ferry Armory. In 1848 Minié per
fected a bullet small enough to be easily rammed down a rifled barrel,
with a wooden plug in the base of the bullet to expand it upon firing to
take the rifling. Such bullets were expensive; Burton developed a cheaper
and better bullet with a deep cavity in the base that filled with gas and
expanded the rim upon firing. This was the famous "minié ball" of
Civil War rifles. The superiority of the rifle was demonstrated by British
and French soldiers who carried them in the Crimean War. As Secretary
of War in 1 8 5 5 , Jefferson Davis converted the United States army
to the . 58 caliber Springfield rifled musket. Along with the similar British
Enfield rifle (caliber . 577, which would take the same bullet as the
Springfield), the Springfield became the main infantry arm of the Civil
War."
If some one hasn't answered this all ready, the Minni ball, or Minni Bullet, it has a cup in the base that expands it to grip the groves of the rifle.
I didn't catch mention of the bore size - that's covered by the numbers with the proof marks. In 1863 the "Army (Rifles)" report was published in the UK. Lancaster large bore (.577) and small bore (.451) rifles were included in the trials. Of the small bore rifles, the Lancaster faired OK in the trials but lost out to the Whitworth in precision. It was noted there was a tendency for the Lancaster to throw occasional wild shots. In the large-bore trials it was however a different story. The tendency to occasional wild shots was not found in the Lancaster. If it was decided to retain the present (.577) Enfield calibre, "the Committee are of the opinion that the adoption of the Lancaster system of rifling will be attended with considerable advantage to the service." Not long after this the quest for a breech-loading rifle commenced, which ultimately led to the adoption of the Snider-Enfield, a breech loading conversion of the muzzle-loading Enfield.
For historical reference only: in comparative trials between the Lancaster and Enfield in 1862 the Lancaster had the advantage in precision both when clean and fouled. This was using the service cartridge with a 530 grain bullet (dia. 0.55, wood plug), pure wax lubrication and 2.5 drams. of J2 powder. Major axis of the elliptical bore .580" and minor axis .572. Twist 1 in 36 at breech, increasing to 1 in 33 at muzzle. Competent assessment of the rifle needed before shooting it. facebook.com/ResearchPress/
You find the same type of barrel on some machineguns, for example the german MG3 (modernised version of the MG42). They are harder to make and overall heavier but will stand up to hard use a lot better than rifled barrels, at least that's the explanation given in the Army.
Smoothbores accumulate fouling quite badly. In fact, rifled barrels may have started as an attempt to give the fouling a place to go...but that's just speculation. However there is no question that a smooth barrel can fouly very badly, depending on the first of the projectile...
If you do end up shooting it, would you mind filming it at all?
The principle is very similar to the polygonal rifling used on the Lee Metford for the same reasons, to minimise the black powder fouling that accumulated in a traditionally rifled barrel.
The oval while a great idea is expensive to produce and only a few short years later came the breech loading 1866 Enfield. Loading from the breech allowed for tighter fits between bullet and barrel negating the advantages of having a smoothbored barrel. In conjunction these two factors, expense and obsolescence would've killed the Lancaster.
Facinating... I now want one.
Nice to see more firearms content from, I always enjoy seeing old guns. In the future, when doing more antique firearms videos or when covering any swords from the late 18th century (around American War of Independence) you should reach out to a CZcamsr by the name of BrandonF. He's an American, but an Anglophile, and he covers mainly the Revolutionary War period from the British perspective but does a little War of 1823 as well. He covers mainly the uniforms and equipment of British troops from the period because he's a reenactor but does cover weapons a bit too.
He's a fan of yours and I know that he'd love to do a colab with you, I know because I mentioned it to him before. But he's reluctant to reach out to you because he feels that his channel is too small for you to want to do a colab with him. So, I figured I'd pitch the idea to you for him.
"Sportized." We call that bubba'd across the pond. ;^^)
They're the same thing, just "sportized" makes it sound better than reality.
Huh, Murcott. My buddy just picked up a Snider Mk II style commercial carbine by Murcott. Shoots well.
Wow, I have never heard of that one before, thank you.
You can get some cheap calipers from a hardware store & you can check the ovality of the barrel.
*unless the ovality is all on the ID, which would be interesting...
you got a loicense fer that?
Use your callipers to measure muzzle diametres vertically/horizontally. Then you can tell it's oval or not.
Too bad someone ruined it by removing the extra wood up the barrel...
I must admit that I'd prefer it if it was original spec.... but this is cool as well.
That is a nice antique musket!
Sweet find. And you may be suprised of how accurate that firearm still is. And also if as nice as condition as you say shooting a near full load would not be dangerous at all.i have some older rifles in that Era and shoot them at 75/80% of original loads. Good stuff, interesting.
So it's essentially like polygonal rifling, but a twisting oval instead of a twisting hexagon or octagon. I wonder the Lancaster Patent influenced the choice to use Metford rifling in some later black powder Enfields.
An oval barrel. What a fantastically creative idea. Didn't quite catch on, eh?
She's a beauty.
Guns of that era were normally bored to 24 gauge or .577" caliber for Military use but could be bored to 20 gauge or .600" caliber for weapons intended for sporting purposes.
If the gun checks out as being bored larger than those two calibers, say 16 gauge/.65 caliber to 12 gauge/.705" caliber then chances are the gun was intentionally rebored at some point in time and most likely it was done to refresh a worn bore barrel. If this was in fact done it is likely the oval boring was removed at this time and the gun should be considered suitable for ball or shot as a conventional smooth bore gun (Shotgun). HTH
I bet if somebody wanted to, they could develop muzzle loading disintegrating loads. Meaning you shoot ant quickly put a cylinder in again, shoot , and drop a premade cylinder again. I just bet you could develop one as a new invent
Interesting, I had never heard of that kinda "rifling" whick isnt the typical lans and grooves. But to me, it seems like making the ovate type rifling would make the barrel harder to make right.
But it is interesting.
Oval "rifling" seems like it might have longer barrel life. Rifling eventually wears out.
Is a crown over a CP? The "C" over and entwined with the P? That is a Black Powder proof mark for shotguns. If you email I can send a PDF that has a lot of common markings.
If you use digital callipers, you can measure the diameter of the oval barrel.
You used a torch to look down the barrel? I would have used a flashlight. Ha Ha. Sorry Matt I just had to say that. I watch your videos all the time, learned a lot.
Would I be right in assuming that you would need to use oval bullets in this barrel?
If so, that could be the reason why it passed into history along with the other systems requiring specially shaped ammo, Brunswick, Whitworth etc. Cheaper ammo is always going to be a big selling point for those government contracts.
Here's a thought - if you put it on your FAC for a while, when you take it off it reverts to being an antique under current rules and you can keep,display or sell without restriction. I don't know if the same is true if you were to register it as a shotgun. Worth checking!
It is rifled, it just uses oval polygonal rifling system.
Do some accuracy tests!!!!! it would be cool to see how it patterns as a shotgun too
Matt any time you ask why didn't they use this instead of that 99.999% of the time the answer is money. Lancaster's Patent barrels probably cost more than traditional rifled barrels.
When Matt Easton doesn't just use swords, he also uses ARMS OF FIRE!
That thing is probably fine for full charges. Get a gunsmith to check it out for you to make sure, but as long there aren't any structural problems.... black powder really doesn't produce crazy pressures. If there is any kind of decent rifling in it, I wouldn't use it as a shotgun.
Lol. just got to the part about the lack of rifling. Enjoy your shotgun.
lol. Lancaster rifling... I should just watch the whole video before commenting.
There is a modern equivalent of this too. More accurate and slightly higher muzzle energy for the same charge. They are not used for two reasons. Firstly cost. This type of rifling is way more expensive (I believe double). The second is the "not invented here" brigade. Always a pain in the grunnocks. There is also for the military the cost implication of changing over, when what they already have works.
Interesting, thanks.
Oops looks like I miss-read some info. Polygonal rifling is not ogival rifling. It looks similar but is actually not the same (I assumed it was). That said Sabatti's version is rounded so would look like ogival (and I really don't know what the difference is). www.italianfirearmsgroup.com/news/sabatti-mrr-multi-radial-rifling
I think the reason this rifling didn’t catch on was that it was designed for Minnie ball specifically - with hollow skirt expanding to catch the oval rifling. Typical modern bullet doesn’t have that.
As a XVII-XIXth century History and blade addict I was like "what on Earth is this muzzle-loading gun?", cannot be Enfield or a German rifle; way too long for a a "chasseur à cheval" carbine. Well I guess the Lancasters didn't reveal all their tricks back in the late XVth century! More seriously what system was behind the bullet acceleration then?
Edit : Thank you so much for sharing Matt awesome found, too bad I don't have any license in this field since my Navy years
How is a spirally bored oval milled? That may be why they did not catch on, too difficult to manufacture.
It's not. It's forged around a mandril.
I would hazard a guess for P under a crown to be the monogram of Pedro V of Portugal. He’s the only European monarch of the right time period to have a name starting with P. If so, this would be an exported firearm, more history to this thing I guess. Can anyone confirm or deny this hypothesis?
I'm pretty sure that P would just stand for "Proofed" or "Proof". I.e. that the rifle had been tested at a proof house & passed whatever the standard was at the time.
Benjamin Keepfer But then it shouldn’t be under a crown. The crown is a royal symbol and is usually only reserved for royal functions…
Crown with a P under it is the definitive black powder proof mark for the London proof house. The crown with a V is the view mark (an acceptance mark I believe) also for the London proof house. Birmingham proof house used a similar mark but with a B.
witemore rifles are anther smooth bore rife but not oval, they are hexagon.
Very cool! Thank you!
interesting I've heard of hexagonal rifling but never oval shaped rifling.
Matt - The markings are explained here www.tapatalk.com/groups/britishmilitariaforums/p-61-enfield-lancaster-patent-with-pics-t1090.html
Could this have been rebarelled for use with minie bullets? That might explain why you can't find any trace of oval rifling or a bayonet lug.
What was the purpose of sporterizing firearms? I understand that fowlers (sporting smoothbore firearms) developed away from muskets to be better used in hunting birds and small game in trees and in the air. But those guns sacrificed their forestocks in to lessen the added weight of longer barrels. But if you aren't increasing the barrel length, what benefit comes from chopping off the forestock?
Also, if it was possible to keep a bayonet lug on a short-stock firearm, why did the crown not instruct its governors to subsidize the cost of adding boyonet lugs to the fowlers used by provincial troops, rather than issue out obsolete plug bayonets? Did the crown foresee the American Revolution, and see the issuance of plug bayonets as a security measure. Was it similar to the pre-Reagan US policy of only selling less capable us tanks and warplanes to allies while prohibiting foreign sales of the best equipment. Or was it more like the deliberate choice, during the Gulf War, to mainly expend surplus unguided bombs?
The stock was cut down to save on weight; you reduce the weight when you reducing the amount of stock. Makes it easier to carry, faster to put on target, and easier to track running game. For a civilian hunting firearm, it matters more that it is light and nimble vice able to get into a rifle slamming brawl like the military needs. Additionally, that part of the stock is not structurally significant.
As for the bayonet comment, I am not sure if you are asking why it has no lug. He addressed this by saying the lug was likely removed, which would be after it entered the civilian market.
It's a helical oval smoothbore:)
How difficult is it to get guns of this vintage in the UK
The airgun industry could implement this!
Was this video demonetized?
would this barrel patent not usefull for a modern multy use schotgun.
Damn this is cool
when you click on a thumbnail thinking the video is from forgotten weapons and hear the scholagladiatoria intro...
That exposed ramrod looks like it would be a liability, and possibly catch on things.
You can always check if the gun is loaded, by looking in to the barrel and pulling the trigger. If the gun goes "bang!", then the gun was loaded.
What's the function of modifying it that way?
It's quite common when converting guns from military to sporting - to reduce weight and make it quicker to pick off moving animals etc.
A thousand yards with a musket?
They couldn't hit an elephant at this dis-
What auction place do you use? :D
I am looking for 1855 Lancaster bayonet …
Which gun licence does that require? Can you go through them in a video? Maybe use the word "bang sticks" instead of guns to avoid demonetisation.
I think if you want to shoot a single projectile from it - it will need to go on your firearms certificate rather than your shotgun one.
I never really understood how there are so many different patents for the old flintlocks and percussion guns, they're all nearly identical.
Sam Lemke almost but to be fair, tanke andy common modern assault rifle properly has atleast 50 different varrients.
That is very far from true.
As you have just been shown, that is not the case! In the second half of the 19th century there was a lot of popular interest in fire arms technology - everyman and his brother were trying to comeup with some tweak that would make their fortune as the inventors of some new super rifle. Range, accuracy, rate of fire, cost of production - there were people exploring all of these and more. Hence the number of patents, most of which never amounted to anything.
Xyka 'tatumai There's a difference between variants and distinct patents. I think the term your looking for is derivative. In terms of firearms, a variant is generally a slightly different version of a gun that's made by the same company e.g the mp5k is a variant of the standard mp5. This is different from the many different AR15s that are manufactured by companies other than Colt, who I believe own the patent.
David Powell None of the qualities you mentioned have any relation to patenting. You can change the range, accuracy and cost of a gun with zero changes to the patent. Rate of fire is something you could alter with a completely new patent but in most cases that doesn't apply to flintlock and percussion firearms.
More black powder guns!
What kind of wood is best for rifles?
Walnut is the most common and optimal.
Here is a great short article on that subject:
www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nuts/2012/10/more-wood
@scholagladiatoria Interesting video. You really ought to do something with the excellent British Muzzle Loaders channel who does British 19th Century military firearms. czcams.com/users/britishmuzzleloaders I seem to recall there were Lancaster Cannon used in the Crimean War 1854-56.
Very ned kelly
Also easier to clean.
So it basically has very a early polygonal barrel!
That's quite cool, actulally.
hi matt, do you need a firearms license to own these old weapons ? thanks 😬
No, not if antique and not used for shooting. If I want to shoot it then I do need to put it on my firearms certificate.
thankyou for the reply :)
If you want to see more Lancaster patent firearms, Ian from Forgotten Weapons has this great video about Lancaster Howdah pistols.
czcams.com/video/WWGII108sOU/video.html
6:07 Fortunately Ian from Forgotten Weapons has a super long and informative video on proof marks! czcams.com/video/HCJ4pLmOOjM/video.htmlm55s
Seems to have been reproofed sometime between 1925-54, possibly for resale?
What's the purpose of shortening the stock? Weight?
Arioch IV Yes. Hunters and target shooters don't need the added durability of the full stock, and the weight savings are a blessing on a long hike.
Is it possible they changed the barrel when they cut the stock? That would explain the absence of the bayonet lug
Unlikely, given the proof marks on it.
I missed that detail. Thanks for the education.
Hmmm neat
The Russians have just launched some new rifles with Lancaster rifling.
clangerbasher Huh? Do you have a link?
www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/10/10/update-russian-9-6x53mm-lancaster-cartridge/
So basically a howda pistol.
I think it'd be on your FAC rather than your SGC.... aren't all muzzle-loaders considered firearms in that respect?