I have just finished reading an English translation of Espingarda Perfeyta (The Perfect Gun) first published in Portugal in 1718. Even in English this book takes some interpretation, but I think that a form of "jug" or "relief" choke boring is clearly discussed. Bird shot is called "hail-shot" and the section I quote is preceded by a wood cut of a hunter shooting flying birds with a flint-lock.

The translator and editor say the book was in process in the "17th century" (late 1600s) and the authors quote another book, Arte de Ballesteria by Spinar (possibly Spanish or Italian), which would date the information back to the late 1600s. Here's what they were saying about improving pattern by modifying the barrel at the muzzle, two centuries before Fred Kimble, in his senility post-1910, decided he had retroactively "invented" choke boring in 1868:

At p.361: "...Good adjustment of the barrel consists of firing far with the hail-shot close together and this length, that gives it esteem, until now the ultimate point to which art can cause a shot to go with undispersed ammunition, is fifty paces..."

The authors then discuss the proper boring of a ball musket and return to a "hail-shot" scatter-gun at P.371, quoting Spinar:

"'...The most proven remedy for correcting this ill [1], is to widen it at the muzzle two or three fingers within [2], in such a manner that this widening becomes an adarme [3], or an adarme and a half more hollow [4], than the remainder of the gun.'"

I other words: [1] The "ill" is blowing a pattern and not keeping the shot charge together to a killing distance;

[2] The gunmakers would go in the muzzle "two or three fingers" (being about 1 1/2- to 2 1/2-inches) and open up the bore size, making it [4] "more hollow," by about [3] "an adarme or adarme and a half," an adarme being a unit of weight of lead, or, in effect saying that a 12-balls-to-the-pound "12-bore" should be relief-choked a couple inches from the muzzle to ten-bore.

And Spinar, being quoted by the authors, explains: "'...This widening serves for two things, which are that the pressure, and force which the powder makes in the narrow part of the gun may be less with that widening, in order to give ease to the hail shot that it may leave well, and keep together, for in this I have great experience, and never err, and have therewith corrected many guns...'"

Then the authors of The Perfect Gun conclude their discourse on choke boring: "We could add other authorities, but reasons are unnecessary, where there is experience to teach the best manner..."

There it is: Choke Boring is described by method (bore-size relief behind the muzzle), effect (that the hail-shot should leave the barrel well and stay together), and by in-practice experience sufficiently well-known in the trade so the authors don't bother quoting additional authorities. This in a Portuguese book published in 1718 referring to another book published in the 1600s. EDM

An excellent book. One of the earliest surviving accounts.



Notice the anvil. Typical for an armour of the period. At the bottom of the image are gauges, used to measure the work. This type of gauge was still in use in the 1920's.



From the Beretta archive:


Again notice the anvil in the far left, from Jan Brueghel the Younger Venus at the forge of Vulcan.


Pete

Pete,
Beautiful pictures of barrel making. In your first picture I'm afraid that if it was left up to the two with the hammers that they would still be working on that barrel. I think they were props. The next two pictures show true workmen with heavy swings of the hammers.

David,

Those anvils and many of the tools had been developed to produce blade weapons and armor. Take a good look at what they are doing. Wrapping metal around a mandrel. This was the primary barrel making method for centuries. It remained the major production method for damascus barrels to the very end.

Here (circa 1924) the anvil has been specialized even further. It has grooves to hold the barrel as it is formed. This specialization had occurred much earlier.



Here is a modern (circa 1970) recreation of making barrels (circa 1750) by forge welding fluid metal around a mandrel. Notice the hammer, very similar to the one shown above.







What Ed notes is important. They had begun to "play" with choke boring. Something that most people think was a later development.


Pete

Here is a man who has not seen PeteM's 25 minute DVD of Damascus barrel making. Anyone and everyone who is interested in this sort of thing had better order one before they are gone. While it seems that PeteM could simply burn more DVDs, this is not the case on this seminal copyrighted 1920s foreign film.

As to which image fairly represents the process: The metal was heated to a plastic state and did not need to be beat into a pulp. The labor involved was heavy work, but not heavy-handed. The hammer forging of the iron plate around the mandrel is better represented by the first image. The skilled barrel forgers used the weight of various size hammers, which had to be kept perfectly under control to achieve the desired result.

The thing that impressed me most by PeteM's video was the ease, simplicity, and informality of the barrel forging process--no drama, no sparks flying, no automobiles exploding in a ball of fire--just workmen preforming every-day procedures with physical exertions much like doing steaks on a grill.

The exaggerated images of the forgers swinging their hammers overhead like pick axes in a rock quarry is as non-authentic as having a nude woman posing in the middle of the forging operation. EDM

just workmen preforming every-day procedures with physical exertions much like doing steaks on a grill.

I didn't see the film, and maybe the paintings have some exageration in the worksmans blows, but in the real picture the gent holding that 6-8 lb. hammer with the 24"+ long handle isn't for show. If he didn't need it that long he would have cut it. Forming steel and getting it round is not going to be done without some force, later on the need for heavier striking is over.
As far as the nude with the cherub, you know as well as I do that it was common then for the commissioner to have the painter include them.

The beauty of the Internet is that everyone can get in their argumentative two cents, even if it is prefaced by "I didn't see the film..." I suggest you view the film and get back to us when you are thus informed.

What seems to have gone astray on this thread is my original point that I traced choke boring for a close pattern of "hail-shot" back to the continent in the late 1600s. Ho, hum. C'est la vie! EDM

Ed I got the point and found it very interesting and certainly that is the earliest report of choke boring I have heard of. It is interesting that it took 150 years or so for it to show back up in the gun trade.

Best.

Mike

I think they are referring to enlarging from the muzzle itself down a few inches like we would think of the inside of a blunderbuss. In other words a 12 bore barrel would be opened up to about a 10 bore from the muzzle down for a few inches. This was common on English fowling guns and the breech area was sometimes also enlarged and "roughed". This is not a jug or tula as we know it where you go back some distance behind the muzzle and enlarge an area for the shot to expand and then be contracted again.

According to J.N. George concerning smooth bores in the early 18th century in "English Guns and Rifles"... "The fowling piece proper was, moreover, distinguished from the "fusil" by the form of it's barrel, which was not only considerably lighter than that of the ball gun, but was flared or enlarged at the muzzle, instead of being bored in true cylinder.... "

EDM...as one who has had a couple of Flint single barrel guns Jug Choked and know how effective they are, I think this is an outstanding find that dates them, and appreciate you sharing it like you have...I'll refer a number of folks interested in Jug Choking to your posting as well

It shows how things have degraded over time. In 2008, a choke would be bored on a CNC tool of some sort, and the operator would be wearing safety glasses and loafers. In 1925, it was two guys with hammers in a dirty workshop. In 1718 it was a guy with a bunch of servants and a nekkid lady waiting in the wings. I assume this BB would not even allow a pic of what took place in 1589 to be posted.

On a more serious note, I have Pete's DVD and it is a wonderful film. Money well spent.

Keep in mind that I directly quoted a book published in 1718, that was said by the translator and editor to have been in the works for many years prior, and the book, in turn, quoted another named book from the late 1600s for the proposition that hail-shot patterns could be enhanced by the barrel maker. My point was (and is) that the manipulation of the bore diameter somewhere near the muzzle to produce a close shooting scatter gun was practiced long before Fred Kimble (with the help of Charles Askins and Wm. Hazelton) decided in about 1910 that he had invented the procedure in 1868.

A modern 12-bore restricted to 16-bore is full choke; a 17th century 12-bore fowling piece relieved to 10-bore is hardly a blunderbuss. It is not perfectly clear whether the author advised the barrel maker to relieve at 2 or 3 fingers behind the muzzle (thus allowing for a slight constriction at the muzzle), or to relieve starting at the muzzle in to 2 or 3 fingers deep. The point, however, was (and is) that the hail-shot patterns could be enhanced by manipulation of bore diameter somewhere near the muzzle.

As to "J. N. George," no such person is named in my bibliographic references of British or American gunning books from the beginning of time through 1950. When I spout off I quote original sources, and let the reader decide for himself. I have read the English scatter-gun-related books starting with Blome's Gentlemans Recreation starting in 1686, and have photocopies of most everything pre-WWI that I do not actually own as an original or reprint. But as to English books pre-dating Col. Hawker in 1818, almost all are acknowledged to be heavily sourced to foreign gunning literature, mostly French. And much of it was not very time sensitive, given the necessary translation.

The earliest reference to what one might call "choke boring" that I can find in the English language literature of our sport is Col. Hawker's Instructions to Young Sportsmen first published ca.1818 (I do not have the 1818 first ed. but do have the 1833 7th edition and 1846 American version of his 9th ed.). According to Hawker in 1833 (and possibly prior), a common 14-gauge double gun by Lancaster was bored cylinder for 21 inches from the breech, then "relief" for 6 inches, then "tight behind" for the remaining 6 inches to the muzzle. Hawker distinguished the boring of flint and percussion; the advent of percussion was in the 1820s (albeit invented in 1807), so the reference to "tight behind" was probably not in his first edition in 1818. But the relieving of the cylinder bore forward of the breech and then constricting the relief at the muzzle probably pre-dates the 1833 7the edition. Investigation continues.

Hawker let the choke-boring cat out of the bag as early as 1833, but going back to my English research documents of the 1600s and 1700s, I can find no rational discussion of manipulating the barrel bores to create close shooting. I believe it is a fact, however, that the English relied heavily on foreign makers and imported barrels until the days of Joe Manton (ca.1800 et seq). This is apparent in The Art of Shooting Flying by Thomas Page (London 1766) where the entire 12-page dialogue upon barrels relates to length versus pattern and credits the Spanish:

"[Are]...Spanish barrels really better than the English ones of the same weight...?" asks Friendly (the student/customer).

Aimwell (the teacher/gun maker) answers: "The repute of the Spanish barrels arose chiefly of their lengths...[yet]...the foreigners have found our foible in that if they are far fetched and dear bought, they are sure to please."

Friendly concludes that Spanish barrels are best by virtue of length and weight and strength, after shooting fifteen different guns with various loads at 20-, 30-, 40-, and 50-yards at a "large brown sheet of paper" and afterward counting shot holes. Never once is the manipulation of bore-size mentioned in this extensive source of ca.1766 British shotgun ballistics.

John Acton in his Essay on Shooting (London 1789-1791) has a number of chapters on forging, boring and dressing of barrels, and Chapter IX is titled: "Of the Means Which Have Been Employed to Improve the Shot of Fowling-pieces." Unfortunately I don't have a copy of this chapter in my file, but given that Hawker seemed to associate choke boring by relief and/or restricting) with the advent of percussion, it is probable that the English language books of the 1700s would not mention that which began this thread: The Portuguese gun maker's procedure of going in two or three fingers from the muzzle of a 12-bore and relieving it to 10-bore. And by the way, The Perfect Gun mentioned the intentional roughness of the barrel bore as affecting close shooting.

In conclusion, any conclusion by J. N. George in some latter-day book about early 18th century English scatter guns would be in the context of guns made in whole or in part on the continent. The English lagged the continental makers until Joe Manton and his contemporaries in England finally got up to speed ca.1800 et seq. All the barrels that struck the British fancy were sourced from Spain and Portugal (and other continental barrel makers), starting in the 1500s through , say, 1766 (so says Thomas Page of Norwich, England).

The book I cited--The Perfect Gun (Lisbon 1718)--is a worthwhile read if you can find a copy. Investigation continues. EDM

I think anyone who has delved into this at all would have to conclude that Kimble was not the first to fire a choke bored gun. Of course we have the question of, what do we define as "Choke bored". If we accept anything done to the bore of the gun with the intent of increasing the closeness of shooting, then for sure the work Ed has cited from the 1718 book would qualify. If on the other hand we apply it only to a reduction of bore dia at the muzzle then it may or may not. William Greener mentioned relieving bores from the breech, the muzzle or both for the purpose of increasing the closeness of shooting in his 1834 book, but do we call this choking. He incidently made no claims to being the originator of these methods, only spoke of them. I tend to think of choke as only the reduction of dia, but others may not. A Jug Choke fits this description even though applied to a true cyl bbl as after the recess is cut the dia is reduced "back down" to the original bore. If it can be determined this is what was referenced in the 1718 work then choking can be definitely dated to at least that point, keep digging Ed.

EDM, Thank you for your detailed post and response to my comments. This is a very interesting subject for me. I have tried to respond by placing my comments in bold after your statements. Since much can get lost in translation without being face to face, I want to stress that I am in no way trying to instigate a fighting match just because we disagree. In fact we do have an accord in some areas of thought on these historical interests.
I do not have the gift of eloquent writing and much of what I put in print comes off too abrasive even when I strive to prevent it so please take my comments as merely discourse for further knowledge in the truth.
I can tell we are both people who love the history and use of firearms. We share the enjoyment of many early original written resources. My primary focus is fowling pieces, their accoutrements and use during the 17th and 18th centuries. I would very much like to find evidence of early restriction choking such as jug choking but I still do not believe we have found it.


Keep in mind that I directly quoted a book published in 1718, that was said by the translator and editor to have been in the works for many years prior, and the book, in turn, quoted another named book from the late 1600s for the proposition that hail-shot patterns could be enhanced by the barrel maker.
Clearly understood and agreed.

My point was (and is) that the manipulation of the bore diameter somewhere near the muzzle to produce a close shooting scatter gun was practiced long before Fred Kimble (with the help of Charles Askins and Wm. Hazelton) decided in about 1910 that he had invented the procedure in 1868.
No disputes here but I don’t think the wording details a jug constriction like as suggested. Many are accepting that jug chokes go back prior to the 18th century as a hard fact. The material evidence does not exist in even one example but the method of relieving from the muzzle down a few inches (flaring) is clearly evident on surviving examples of the period.

A modern 12-bore restricted to 16-bore is full choke
The key to this statement is RESTRICTION and the text you quoted minus the editors comments does not lend itself to that conclusion when taking into account no existing examples, no further written documentation and multiple examples of bores flared starting AT the muzzle .

"'...The most proven remedy for correcting this ill is to widen it at the muzzle two or three fingers within in such a manner that this widening becomes an adarme or an adarme and a half more hollow than the remainder of the gun."

"'...This widening serves for two things, which are that the pressure, and force which the powder makes in the narrow part of the gun may be less with that widening, in order to give ease to the hail shot that it may leave well, and keep together, for in this I have great experience, and never err, and have therewith corrected many guns...'"

I find no evidence in this writing to suggest going inches below the muzzle and then relieving material. I do find however that it does say that it is widened "at the muzzle" down 2-3 fingers distance just like surviving examples prove.

I realize the above is a translation but the wording is to widen AT the muzzle.
Here are just a few measurements I just happened to have on my desk of existing fowling gun barrel measurements from the late 17th early 18th century period to show the degree of flare at muzzle. This is common on some fowling pieces that are not of cylinder bore while a restriction of any kind is non-existent.
.714 at muzzle narrowing down 2” to .682
.709 at muzzle narrowing down 2” to .681.
.737 at muzzle narrowing down 1.5” to .708


; a 17th century 12-bore fowling piece relieved to 10-bore is hardly a blunderbuss.
My intention of mentioning a blunderbuss in my original post was not to suggest such a radical degree of flare but to example where the bore relief exists on fowling pieces, which is the same area that a blunderbuss would be flared… starting the muzzle narrowing down.

It is not perfectly clear whether the author advised the barrel maker to relieve at 2 or 3 fingers behind the muzzle (thus allowing for a slight constriction at the muzzle), or to relieve starting at the muzzle in to 2 or 3 fingers deep.
Agreed, maybe a translation problem but the text translates “AT the muzzle”. When including all the existing examples, and no such one is found with relief except AT the muzzle, this is where I make my conclusion to be flare at the muzzle being described. If in fact a restriction form of choking were being written about, it would have made waves in the shooting world but did not… anywhere in the world.

The point, however, was (and is) that the hail-shot patterns could be enhanced by manipulation of bore diameter somewhere near the muzzle.
Agreed. They had a grasp that they could somehow alter the bore to increase the pattern but this method has been questioned during the 18th century as to it's performance and considered by some in testing to be wishful thinking.
Here is a quote from An essay on shooting [based on La chasse au fusil by G.F. Magné de Marolles].
By Essay, Gervais François Magné de Marolles
Published by , 1789

"Some make the barrel wider for three or four inches at the muzzle; and theis bell-mouthed form is of very ancient date.
Espinar,whose treatise has already been mentioned,says he has generally found this succed in making barrels throw their shot closer. Were this true, we should expect to find this form of barrel more generlly used than it is at present and not hear so many complaints among sportsmen about their pieces. We cannot ourselves perceive teh slightest ground for perceiving it, nay we are decidedly of the opinionthat it is rather of disadvantage to the shot of the piece and for the following reasons: As hat is seldom employed for wadding, it is scarcely possible that more or less of the flame will escape past the wadding of tow or paper and insinuate itself among the grains of shot; this flame will expand itself laterally as soon as it arrives at the widened part,and by driving the grains along the sides of the muzzle, will communicate a whirling motion to them, that will increase their divergency considerably.
When we consider that the grains of shot which are in acutal contact with the sides of the barrel, compose upwards of half the charge,we cannot be surprised if enlarging the surface of the caliber at the muzzle and therby increasing the number of grains that touch it, will tend to make the shot be scattered more widely..."

As to "J. N. George," no such person is named in my bibliographic references of British or American gunning books from the beginning of time through 1950.
I am always reluctant to stray away from original sources as well but Mr. George and others like him have had the opportunity to examine and own the “original sources”…. the actual original guns.
Mr. George was a British, published firearms collector and researcher and contemporary/ friend of the Keith Neal and DHL Back. He died while serving his country in WWII. Students of firearms history, particularly British firearms (of which many have Spanish and Portuguese barrels) are familiar with his collection and writings.
His quote is significant to me as he owned and handled the original pieces we read about in original sources. His first-hand knowledge of the firearms is pertinent since he had his hands on more originals than most ever will.
George is not the know-all, end-all by any means but merely a chosen example I had at hand who has had the ability to examine many pieces. The examination and evaluation of the actual firearms bores must be included in research such as this for a more complete conclusion.

Here is the complete quote from George concerning the flare and roughening based on his first hand examination and use of the original guns along with his research using the same original sources cited. To me, it parrots the quote you provided in The Perfect Gun …
"The fowling piece proper was, moreover, distinguished from the "fusil" by the form of it's barrel, which was not only considerably lighter than that of the ball gun, but was flared or enlarged at the muzzle, instead of being bored in true cylinder. The object of this "flare" was to give the shot greater velocity a the moment of leaving the muzzle by easing the friction between its wad and the inside of the barrel during the last few inches of it's passage., while at it's breech end the interior of the barrel was "roughened" to produce the opposite effect of making the wad offer a strong initial resistance to the powder, and so ensure that the latter should become fully ignited."


When I spout off I quote original sources, and let the reader decide for himself.
I have read the English scatter-gun-related books starting with Blome's Gentlemans Recreation starting in 1686, and have photocopies of most everything pre-WWI that I do not actually own as an original or reprint.
I am familiar with the original sources you mention and I love them all. I am a stickler for the original sources as well in all my research but without considering material evidence one can come to the wrong conclusion very fast.

But as to English books pre-dating Col. Hawker in 1818, almost all are acknowledged to be heavily sourced to foreign gunning literature, mostly French. And much of it was not very time sensitive, given the necessary translation.
I agree with your conclusion of their content but the reason for that is they were quoting the latest and greatest continental expertise.

The earliest reference to what one might call "choke boring" that I can find in the English language literature of our sport is Col. Hawker's Instructions to Young Sportsmen first published ca.1818 (I do not have the 1818 first ed. but do have the 1833 7th edition and 1846 American version of his 9th ed.). According to Hawker in 1833 (and possibly prior), a common 14-gauge double gun by Lancaster was bored cylinder for 21 inches from the breech, then "relief" for 6 inches, then "tight behind" for the remaining 6 inches to the muzzle. Hawker distinguished the boring of flint and percussion; the advent of percussion was in the 1820s (albeit invented in 1807), so the reference to "tight behind" was probably not in his first edition in 1818. But the relieving of the cylinder bore forward of the breech and then constricting the relief at the muzzle probably pre-dates the 1833 7the edition. Investigation continues.
Very possibly as were are now getting closer to the actual documented use of choke types. Ongoing experimentation was developing but if this had been implemented anywhere in the world (even if exclusively in Portugal) hundreds of years prior, there would have been quite a stir and a change which we do not see that would have certainly been present.
Hawker let the choke-boring cat out of the bag as early as 1833, but going back to my English research documents of the 1600s and 1700s, I can find no rational discussion of manipulating the barrel bores to create close shooting. I believe it is a fact, however, that the English relied heavily on foreign makers and imported barrels until the days of Joe Manton (ca.1800 et seq). This is apparent in The Art of Shooting Flying by Thomas Page (London 1766) where the entire 12-page dialogue upon barrels relates to length versus pattern and credits the Spanish:
"[Are]...Spanish barrels really better than the English ones of the same weight...?" asks Friendly (the student/customer).
Aimwell (the teacher/gun maker) answers: "The repute of the Spanish barrels arose chiefly of their lengths...[yet]...the foreigners have found our foible in that if they are far fetched and dear bought, they are sure to please."
Friendly concludes that Spanish barrels are best by virtue of length and weight and strength, after shooting fifteen different guns with various loads at 20-, 30-, 40-, and 50-yards at a "large brown sheet of paper" and afterward counting shot holes. Never once is the manipulation of bore-size mentioned in this extensive source of ca.1766 British shotgun ballistics.
The desire of the aristocrats for Spanish barrels and the like was due to their craftsmanship and construction techniques as well as the exotic flavor. Most of the hype was valid and some was myth but those barrels did seem to be superior and shot harder. To my knowledge all those wonderful Spanish and Portuguese barrels do not provide us with one example of a restricted choked bore but they do provide us with multiple examples of the flared feature, of which seems to have been an established accepted form for performance early on judging by these examples.


John Acton in his Essay on Shooting (London 1789-1791) has a number of chapters on forging, boring and dressing of barrels, and Chapter IX is titled: "Of the Means Which Have Been Employed to Improve the Shot of Fowling-pieces." Unfortunately I don't have a copy of this chapter in my file
See quote from that book above describing the detail of the "flaring" and discounting it as hogwash
, but given that Hawker seemed to associate choke boring by relief and/or restricting) with the advent of percussion, it is probable that the English language books of the 1700s would not mention that which began this thread: The Portuguese gun maker's procedure of going in two or three fingers from the muzzle of a 12-bore and relieving it to 10-bore. And by the way, The Perfect Gun mentioned the intentional roughness of the barrel bore as affecting close shooting.
You mention again “going in two or three fingers from the muzzle” which implies that is what the text actually says. You state above that “It is not perfectly clear whether the author advised the barrel maker to relieve at 2 or 3 fingers behind the muzzle (thus allowing for a slight constriction at the muzzle), or to relieve starting at the muzzle in to 2 or 3 fingers deep.” Material evidence along with the quote…."'...The most proven remedy for correcting this ill is to widen it at the muzzle two or three fingers within in such a manner that this widening becomes an adarme or an adarme and a half more hollow than the remainder of the gun." seems to show me otherwise.
“Roughing” was done mostly at the breech end of the bore to provide the opposite effect of flaring at the muzzle.

In conclusion, any conclusion by J. N. George in some latter-day book about early 18th century English scatter guns would be in the context of guns made in whole or in part on the continent. The English lagged the continental makers until Joe Manton and his contemporaries in England finally got up to speed ca.1800 et seq. All the barrels that struck the British fancy were sourced from Spain and Portugal (and other continental barrel makers), starting in the 1500s through , say, 1766 (so says Thomas Page of Norwich, England).
All the barrels were not sourced from Spain and Portugal but were preferred. For the sake of simplicity and to center in on just barrels from Spain and Portugal as examples, excluding any other place of manufacture we can find no evidence of anything but flaring the barrel AT the muzzle down two to three fingers width deep.
Any conclusion by one who has had in his hands,measured,examined and shot the guns written about is valid for consideration at least as much as any conclusions by us

The book I cited--The Perfect Gun (Lisbon 1718)--is a worthwhile read if you can find a copy. Thank you for bringing the book to the attention to those who have a passion for these old firearms.

Investigation continues. EDM
That's the good part. Please post any further findings and I will do the same. I plan to go through some of the existing gunmakers records one day and maybe that will shed some light as well.

Just wish to say a large 'thank you' for sharing your findings w/us.

It makes for some very interesting thoughts, particularly when one reads 'Experts on Shooting' [close to the correct title anyway, I'm not home at present]; in it there is ref to the trials held in England for both patterns and penetration through some then standard cards and it is evident that the jug choking you found was lost to the players in those games between the various Brit makers. One can surmise that the best patterning bbls. had through some fluke of internal finish a bit of choke resulting in the term 'improved cylinder', at least that has been my interpretation.

Once again, a big 'Thanks!' for the insight and the ref.

EDM & Fowler,

Thank you both for shareing you insightful discoveries!
I'm printing this information, and slipping it into the pages
of "Shooting Flying" as an addendum!
It appears you two could sit down together and carry on
a long conversation,that would be very insightful if
one could listen in. Thanks again. Best regards. R Rambler

That's how I read it.

I find fowler's textual analysis convincing and Muderlak's not so convincing but one thing I need explained to me is how a flared muzzle can produce a "close shooting" (i.e. maintained compactness of a full choke pattern) barrel. I think I remember some concern producing screwins of bore+ I.D. I don't remember any hint that those tubes produced anything but a pattern which opened very early.

jack

Well put! I second!

Jack, Just like today, everyone has a "gimmick". Just because someone makes a claim to have the best idea and reports wonderful results does not always mean they or correct, Sometimes deceit is evident but many times they just convince themselves. How many people do you know who have the "magic" gun just because they have made a few shots that were in reality luck? Many times true breakthroughs come from gimmick concoctions and they were at least on track that bore manipulation could have an effect on pattern. This was a gimmick that some bought into for quite a while. Into the 18th century,some guns were produced with this flare. As pre-cut wads became the standard after the double gun took over, these barrels were a pain to get the components down flatly. Jim Hash, a master contemporary gunbuilder built such a gun for a client and had to make a form of false muzzle so he could use standardized wads and cards and be able to get the down the barrel without getting sideways.

I am including again the quote from "An Essay on Shooting" from the 1780's which discounts this flaring process as useless.

"Some make the barrel wider for three or four inches at the muzzle; and this bell-mouthed form is of very ancient date.
Espinar,whose treatise has already been mentioned,says he has generally found this succeed in making barrels throw their shot closer. Were this true, we should expect to find this form of barrel more generally used than it is at present and not hear so many complaints among sportsmen about their pieces. We cannot ourselves perceive the slightest ground for perceiving it, nay we are decidedly of the opinion that it is rather of disadvantage to the shot of the piece ..."

Just a speculation. I remember reading memoirs of a XIX-century Russian gunsmith, the man was evedently a good handiman but short on theory. So, apparently, his most common job was honing. Like, the customer isn't satisfied with how the gun patterns? Hone it! No improvement? Hone it again! So, what I'm driving it is, can it be that flaring started out as a method to fix some muzzle defect. So that the guns actually patterned better after it, and it started the myth that all flared barrels shoot better than all non-flared ones?

EDM: I quoted the "Table of Contents" of John Acton's English language book, An Essay on Shooting: Containing the Various Methods of Forging, Boring, and Dressing Gun Barrels, Practiced in France, Spain, and England (1789). According to my bibliography, Shooting Flying by Robin Chute (2001), Acton's 1789 Essay... is "...largely a translation of La Chasse au Fusil (1781)." Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the entire English language book, originals of which which tend to be offered at $750 to $1,500 by antiquarian book dealers. Maybe someday....

Salopian,s post of 07/07/2008 , "History of choke boring"
covers some aspects of this topic. It is recommended that those interested review relevant posts.

rabbit: What you need to do is re-read my post. I simply quoted an old book, and I said that the translation left it somewhat unclear as to whether the author's original Portuguese phraseology was that the the relief was started two or three fingers behind the muzzle--"within"--thus resulting in some constriction at the muzzle, or starting at the muzzle going to two or three inches "within." The author was not perfectly clear, and a simple two letter word ("to") would have done it. I expressed no opinion one way or the other; I just quoted the book, which is not as clear as one would wish, and observed the alternate possibilities.

Interestingly there is a cross-section of a barrel at p.366 of The Perfect Gun (1718) that shows relief at the breech and muzzle ends and constriction at the mid point; a ball touches at the mid point but is loose at the ends. Yet this seems, in context, to be an example of a smooth-bore musket, not an example of boring a fowling piece for "hail-shot" (unless the pictured balls are just to illustrate the bore-diameter variations?).

W. W. Greener in The Gun... has line cuts of various barrel cross-sections; three are "old style" being pre-"choke boring" (at p.441, 2nd ed. 1884), and example #2 shows relief at both ends and constricted in middle, exactly like the image in the 1718 book, the only difference being that Greener's barrels are for shotguns, not ball muskets.

Based on other old books, especially W. W. Greener's The Gun... (I have the 1884 2nd ed. et seq), I may think the relief imperfectly referred to in The Perfect Gun was from the muzzle inward, but I stated that my "...point, however, was that they were manipulating bore diameters to concentrate hail-shot in the 1600s." I expressed no opinion one way or the other--I simply quoted an old book for interesting historic info.

Most people can just take the information and digest it; others prefer to add value judgments. Finding my raw facts "not so convincing" shows you should start over and read it again. Fowler made some good points.

As to how the relieving at the choke produced a tighter pattern, again, read my original post: The author of the old book believed that "...This widening serves for two things which are that the pressure, and force which the powder makes in the narrow part of the gun may be less with that widening, in order to give ease to the hail shot, that it may leave well, and keep together..." (The key word here is "believed.")

I read this to mean that the relief at the muzzle, in the author/gun maker's experience, reduced the "blown pattern" effect by reducing pressure and "easing" the shot out of the muzzle, thus improving the shot count in relation to a similar bore-size and length barrel without relief at the muzzle. Fowling piece barrels were quite long at the time, four foot and more, and the burning characteristics of the black powder often depended on luck of the draw vis a vis source of supply. And if you think about it, constricting the muzzle would have made loading more difficult in the days before breechloaders. EDM

AHHHH, For me the lights just came on!
EDM, I think you just hit the nail right on the head!

I and others were trying to rationalize how opening a muzzle could tighten "normal" patterns, they probably weren't normal, they were actually "blown". AHH, I see said the blind man.

Ed brings up several very good points. Even the proof houses eventually recognized there was variation between batches of black powder. Eventually tools like this were developed so they could measure the difference.



The early workman did not have the most precise instruments available. For a long time only rough gauges were available to them.


Add to this that the measure of a bore depended upon the pound. A pound was not the same every where at all times. There was a variation that occurred from country to country.

Pete

Well, Ed, did the Portugee go in three fingers depth and jug choke it or not? One (not necessarily only the singular me) might be tempted to almost swear you suggested that he/they did at least twice in two separate posts but one won't now that one is apprised of the the intellectual--and possibly moral--dangers of speed reading. Thanks for straitening me out!

jack

And the answer is...(pause for drama)...I don't know.

But what I do know is how difficult it is to translate accurately. For example, remember JFK's gaff in Berlin, when in a fit of German/American solidarity he declared something like, "Ich bein Berliner," which in colloquial Kraut talk was to say:

"I am a jelly doughnut."

I thought the quoted "Portugee" passage could be read either way, sort of like an ink blot test. But additional collateral reading leads me to believe that jug choking ca.1600s/1700s was less likely (or more unlikely) than simply relieving at the muzzle to a few inches in. It would have have been much easier, and if my "blown pattern" rationale is valid...well, how many henweighs of fairies could dance on the head of a breech-loader hinge pin.

What's a henweigh?

About a pound and a half without the feathers. EDM

The answer is...(pause for drama).....not according to what they wrote.

Bull man takes of horns?

jack

W.W. Greener in "The Gun and Its Development" 1896 states on page 250 "The invention of Choke-boring has been claimed by many and is usually attributed to American gunsmiths. Mr J.W. Long in his book on "American Wildfowling" states ... the earliest person to whom I have been able to trace a knowledge of it being Jerimiah Smith, a gunsmith, of SouthField, R.I. who discovered is merits in 1827..."

I have deleted part of this passage decrease typing time.

Greener describes various claims of improving the shooting of shotguns in the 1780's but apparently none were what we would call choke boring today that actually worked. this on page 249-250.
One appears to be a foem of choke "recessed" choke but the writer refers only to using a file type tool to scratch the bore back from the muzzle. It is further pointed out that this simply increased powder and lead fouling.

Greener also shows "relief boring" as being tapered from both ends and describes it as being done by boring from each end with a straight bit.
He calls a "jug choke" a "recessed choke". The tool for doing this was patented by an American in 1872.
I can fine no mention of choke boring at all in "The Gun" by W. Greener 1835. Perhaps he simply did not mention it. It is available online from Google books BTW.
Below are pages 250 and 253 from "The Gun and Its Development) 1896
Dan

H.B.C Pollard in his book; History of Firearms, published in 1926, page 104 , describes the following gun in his collection:
"A hammerless flintlock sporting gun made in Bohemia in 1730, by Stanislaus Paczelt. the gun has a very thin steel thimble brazed into the muzzle as an internal liner to the barrel. This is the first known specimen of a choke or restriction at the muzzle to concentrate the pattern of shot." An example of this gun exists in the Tower of London collection.
The book, "One Hundred Great Guns",by Merrill Lindsay, page 186 carries an illustration of the hammerless flintlock made by Paczelt.
My appologies for repeating this post,but it represents a very important step in the development of choked barrels.

Its an excellent citation and apology is not required. But a choke makes the use of a ML very difficult and apparently caused more harm than good to the shooting qualities.
ML arms are not BL arms and things that work very well for BLs may not work for MLs. Thus chokes seem to have NOT been in common use in the 18th century and at the time reports were that a carefully bored cylinder shot as well or better than the choked guns. I suspect its because loading the wads through the choke makes them undersized at the breech.

European collections have many one off/very low production guns made for royalty or as journeyman/master gunsmith pieces to show a level of proficiency. This does not mean they were in common use or even practical or even meant to actually be fired. So finding a one off/low production gun in a museum in Europe is not an indication of its actual use or practicality.
Its a "See this neat thing I made, I should be a master gunsmith" statement in a great many cases.

If chokes worked in ML guns all the guns made in England after wing shooting became a popular sport with royalty and landed gentry would be choked. There is nothing to show that this is the case.
Gunmakers from the 1780s on were doing all sorts of things to improve the patterns, velocity and quickness of ignition (both locks and the breeches of the barrels). Almost all the improvements in reliability and speed of flintlock locks stem from this "arms race". The competition was so extreme that newspapers were running cartoons about "improved guns" and the patents filed. But the choke is not there in surviving guns or in the literature of the time.
This speaks VOLUMES. Had they had a surefire way of making a 30 yard gun into a 60 yard gun EVERYONE would have been doing it. To say that there was a lot of competition in this would have been a gross understatement. Having the ability to put "Gun maker to HRH" behind your name was a MAJOR plus and not only provided more business but allowed higher prices to be charged.
Thus based on surviving guns of this period we have to say that the choke bored shotgun was not considered practical in the 18th century and into the 19th and probably until the advent of the pinfire shotgun. The fact that Greener attributes the choke to an American gunsmith of the 1820s bears this out.

Dan

It would seem to me that a 'jug choked' ML would pose no particular 'problem' loading, but would certainly add to the effectiveness of the gun at distances beyond 25~35yds.

If someone had figured out that methodology early on they would sure 'nuf had a leg up on the rest of their fellow fowlers.

BTW,HJ, those are wonderful pics and explanations on your turkey adventures, thanks for sharing them w/us.

Yes, people jug choke MLs all the time *NOW*, it works. But there are no surviving examples of 18th century guns or even 19th century that I know of. There are no mentions of choking in ML guns by people like the Greeners (W circa 1835 and W.W. in the 1890s) at least not prior to 1827 when choke boring was apparently invented (reinvented?).
We do have examples of people trying to choke guns in the 18th century but failing to improve the patterns or even making them worse according to the page reproduced above.

Dan

I've read some 'Ole English' type verse that refers to controlling the dispersement of the shot by changing the ratio of the powder charge to the shot charge and in effect choking the barrel. I've tried pattern testing this theory myself and noticed a change but didn't go far enough with my testing to draw a conclusion about its effectiveness.

The old books and pulp weeklies are full of discourse on experimentation with the trade off of powder and shot with particular emphasis on penetration. The shooters of the 19th century were more "hands on" than we are now. Brass shells were always home-loaded and loaded paper shells made their debut in the mid 1880s, as I recall.

I have a trap out behind my barn and I blow-off a lot of el-cheapo ammo like $4.99 per box, 1200 fps 1 1/8 oz 7 1/2s; for pheasants I use $9.99 per box, 1220 fps 1 1/4 oz no. 5s. I'll bet the "choke" of my Parker GH would "measure" quite different if I counted the percentage of shot in a 30-inch circle at 40 yards for the two similar fps loads.

It takes time to shoot patterns and counting all those little holes is quite boring, thus most of the choke boring banter we hear is on the relative merits of sticking a dime or some similar bore-diameter measuring device into the muzzle and declaring the job well-done: it's Full Choke!

Someday curiosity is gonna get the best of me and I'll find out how my selected ammo really patterns...and then the manufacturer will surely discontinue it. EDM

In 1827 the French inventor, Jenour sold the rights to his patent wire cartridge to W.C.Eley. Within a year Eley had launched their range of patent wire cartridges calling them,"the greatest improvement ever produced in gunnery." With the wire cartridge,dispersion of shot was delayed until the cartridge had travelled some distance from the gun,thus considerably extending range.The advent of these cartridges eliminated the necessity for choke boring of muzzle loading guns to make long shots! The cartriges were produced in three grades, with the Green Cartridge intended for wildfowl shooting at long distances. Col Hawker[see his diary] provided Eley testimonials and recommedations related to these cartridges.

And now they try to build a choke tube to strip the wad--go figure.

jack

In my experience,plastic wads do act as a shot concentrator;such that even in a cylinder bored gun resultant patterns approach that expected from a barrel with .015-.020 inches of choke when using cartridges with fibre wads.Is anyone else of the the same opinion?

Yes...I've experimented with paper shot cups in a cylinder bore to get a better pattern at longer distances and they do add a few more yards...my trouble was that try as I might, every now and then I'd get one that didn't open and it would sail through the target like a 'slug'.
As difficult as it is to get a turkey in range, I decided it wasn't worth the risk and had a barrel Jug Choked 'Full' instead.....now its just powder/wad/shot/card.....and enjoy.

Plus...with the cost of all the gas for range trips, and powder/wads/shot used for pattern testing, I could have had 4-5 barrels Jug Choked...

Yes, I find that plastic wads do tighten patterns compared to felt overpowder wads and crimps. In fact the Tula chokes in my Perazzi skeet gun basically do not work, as in a spreader mode, with plastic wads, and the gun works well at sporting clays, even at longish distances.
Mike