From “SHOOTING AND FISHING", July 5, 1888
THE AMERICAN RIFLE
(Development of 40 years)
BY H. WARNER
(Copyrighted)
FALLACIES ENTERTAINED BY RIFLEMEN.
In these days of almost universal rifle practice by the young and middle-aged men of the United States, and the interminable discussion of questions incident thereto, one would naturally suppose that the requisites for a fine shooting rifle should ere this be well defined and fully understood by the majority of our marksmen.
Yet this is not the case. There are certain characteristics generally supposed to be indispensable in the make-up of a perfect shooting rifle, because so often described and dilated upon by would-be authorities on the subject, that the shooting world has come to regard them as necessary, or in the line of facts established, which may govern in all cases.
Many of the conclusions thus forced upon the shooting fraternity are misleading in their nature and at variance with facts.
Fallacy No. 1. -Among the fallacies thus established, none is more prevalent than the belief that a rifle designed for the finest shooting must be finely finished on the inside of the barrel.
Mr. W. W.Greener, of England, in a work on rifles thirty years ago, fully committed himself to this theory, and more recently Dr. E. H. Pardee, a noted rifleman on the Pacific coast, in a dissertation on “Ancient and Modern Fire Arms” (published in the Breeder and Sportsman of San Francisco, Cal.), reiterated the same opinion, in words so like those of the author first named, that they would appear to be a quotation without credit.
It is doubtless safe to assert that ninety-nine out of every one hundred marksmen of the present day adhere to the same belief. For, what is more common amongst riflemen after examining the inside of some new gun just brought to their notice, than the remark: “That gun is finely finished inside. It must shoot well! See what a polish it has!"
Notwithstanding this unity of opinion and general belief in the efficacy of high polish as an adjunct to fine shooting. I make the assertion that an extremely fine finish on the exterior of a rifle barrel is not necessary, nor even desirable, for in many (if not most) cases it will be a fruitful source of erratic shooting.
If asked to give my reasons for drawing such a conclusion, the most natural and direct answer would be that it is the result of repeated test and experiment-simply, I have found it so in practice.
To the inquiring mind such an answer would probably be unsatisfactory, and, if still disposed to controvert the deductions arrived at by experiment, and, ask me to explain why a high polish should give inferior results in shooting, the answer must necessarily partake largely of nature of opinions or theories, the correctness of which it would be difficult to demonstrate or establish in any other manner than by experiment. Theories can never stand when opposed to facts, but a little elucidation of both may serve to modify a seeming difference, and bring them nearer together.
In this view of the case I will proceed to give some other reasons for the faith that is in me.
All who are familiar with the subject will agree: First-That uniformity of condition, in gun and ammunition, during a series of shots will be more conducive to uniform shooting than a varying or changeable condition of the same.
Second-That in repeated firing, heat is the most important, if not the only element that enters in to disturb the normal condition of the gun-that friction generates heat, and therefore, the rapid passage of the projectile along the inner walls of the rifle barrel must be regarded as an accessory to the heat developed by the explosion.
This combined action of the two agents produces a heat most intense, and its influence on the barrel and projectile being as rapid as thought, it would, if of any considerable duration, be sufficient to melt a leaden projectile, but the passage of the bullet out of the barrel being so short, it seldom terminates in melting, although I have thought on two or three occasions, several years ago, that I obtained such results with extremely heavy charges of powder, in a long, heavy-barreled rifle having a chamber in the breech much larger than the bore of the gun. Be this as it may, the effect of heat on all, or nearly all, metallic substances is to expand and soften them, more or less, according to the intensity of its application. It is not, then, unreasonable to suppose that its influence as applied in the process of discharging a rifle would be sufficient to materially change the density, size and fit of the bullet. Such changes would affect the flight of the bullet just in proportion to their magnitude, and their magnitude would depend entirely upon the amount or degree of heat developed.
Heat, then, seems to be the chief obstacle we encounter in our efforts to secure uniform shooting. Could we find an explosive, which developed no heat, and a projectile, which encountered no friction, we should have made a decided advance in the science of gunnery.
Since we are unable to overcome the influence of heat, the best we can do is to reduce it to a minimum. It is plain we cannot dispense with, or greatly modify the explosive in general use to day, and therefore cannot hope to make much reduction in the heat developed from that source. There seems to be but one direction in which we may look for improvement.
As I have previously stated, friction generates heat, and the friction of the bullet in passing along the barrel is therefore a natural ally of the explosive in producing an element so detrimental to uniform shooting, and, the worst feature of it is, that the very considerable augmentation of heat thus produced, occurs in the very spot to make it most disastrous (i.e.) on the abrading surfaces of the patch, and culminating near the muzzle of the gun, where it is so desirable that the delivery be easy and perfect.
This frictional heat is often so intense as to scorch and weaken the patch. It is to be deprecated always, and guarded against as well as circumstances will permit. Hence the frequent resort to lubricants of some kind by many of our prominent marksmen. From the above it would appear that whatever tends to reduce friction, or render it uniform, is an aid to good rifle shooting, and this brings me up to the point under discussion, and the proposition previously stated, to wit: “Extremely high polish is detrimental to fine shooting."
I make this statement as a fact, substantiated by thorough test, but I offer in explanation to those who doubt it, the assumption that two surfaces finely finished and perfectly fitted to each other will adhere to each other more firmly and produce a sharper friction when moved rapidly and forcibly across each other than they would if the surfaces were more coarsely finished.
In point of fact, two pieces of fine metal with flat surfaces may be so closely fitted to each other as to make it extremely difficult to separate them, or to slip one upon the other. Two surfaces fitted so closely as to exclude air or any other substance become almost like a solid piece, and the same principle holds good when applied to a gun and its projectile.
If the inner walls of the barrel be polished down to a finish so level and smooth that there is no scratch on the surface deep enough to contain air or lubricant while the projectile passes over it, the result will be extreme friction-great generation of heat-a burnt patch (if there be one to burn) and an erratic shot, quite frequently, for it must be remembered, that the explosion of the powder will upset and fit the bullet to the gun, although it may not have fitted closely when put in. After the explosion the surface of the bullet will conform exactly to the surface of the gun, even to the exclusion of air which might have been between them before, and the fit thus made is not likely to become any looser on the passage out. On the contrary, the heat, generated by friction, as well as that imparted by the burning powder, would have a tendency to expand the bullet and make it fit more tightly if possible. It is this tendency to expand, and present increased obstruction to the propelling forces, thereby inducing a second upset of the bullet on its passage out, that results in wild shooting.
This expansion by heat is more likely to occur in highly polished guns than in those of coarser finish, which give better facilities for lubrication, or the presence of a little air occasionally between the surface of bullet and walls of barrel.
Amongst riflemen of ripe experience it is well understood that that guns by much use become (to use a common expression) “shot out” (i.e.) there is a falling off in their shooting qualities. This is usually ascribed to a worn condition of the interior, that is, to a certain extent, true; but not in the ordinary acceptation of the term worn; for, while the rifling may still be of proper depth and form, to give good results, the surface has, by continued wiping out and shooting, acquired so high a polish as to prevent it. One who is familiar with this phase of gunnery will have no difficulty in detecting it, even without looking through the rifle, as he will readily detect it in wiping the gun, or even in the report, if he listens carefully for any considerable number of shots.
The remedy in such cases is to carefully work over the surface again with proper tools in such a manner as to break up the high polish and replace it with a coarser finish.
No argument intended or entertained.
joe b.
