Modern double-barelled flintlock rifles... Do they exist?

762mm

762mm

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
35   0   0
Location
The Maple Carneyval
Hello gentlemen,

For some time now, I was wondering if there are any modern flintlock rifles (not shotguns) still being manufactured using a twin-barrel design. In my honest opinion, I think that would be the best SHTF scenario gun to have, as it is the type of firearm that requires the least "modern technology" to make it shoot. A flint, some melted lead and propellant, that's all... with the only nagging limitation being that one shot, of course. ;)

I have a Lyman Deerstalker flintlock in .50 that's pretty short, lightweight and not very flashy (which is a good thing in my opinion) and was wondering if I'd be able to get something similar, except with two barrels instead of one.

Here's a picture of what I have now (off the Lyman website) :

296217.jpg


Thanks in advance for any input you can provide!

:)
 
I think there are kits for making wenders ---- double barrel and single lock. You fire the top barrel then rotate and fire the second one. There are also a few custom made over/under double rifles. I don't think that either are common

cheers mooncoon
 
Thanks... so nothing's being made in a side-by-side setup with a double hammer/double trigger? Darn... that's a bit disappointing. You'd think that pretty much anyone who hunts with a flinter during muzzleloader season would appreciate having an immediate second shot. And where there is potential for a huge demand, there should be a product.

Anyway, I hope Lyman's, Traditions' and other corporate spies are reading this thread carefully and taking notes. Hopefully we'll see such flintlocks being offered soon, lol! :D

Thanks for the reply, mooncoon!

:)
 
They are far more expensive to make than single barrels because of the need to regulate the barrels. I hear that Baikal is making a modern double rifle with a wedge part way down the barrels which you can screw in or out and do your own regulation. Ingenious idea

cheers mooncoon
 
I 'think' the left or inboard lock on a side x side when shouldered on the right, may be a little hard on the eyes/ face when it went off? If the actions were moved further ahead then where they traditionally sit on the stock maybe this would alleviate the problem I perceive......
Both going off at the same time might create a blizzard?.........& a sore shoulder......
 
I know there is a double rifle percussion rifle with external hammers and triggers. I Saw it on the Wolverine table at the Brandon Gunshow. It was a kit gun.
 
kickassnikov47 said:
there are a few custom flintlock makers down here in the states that have built a few of them

they do make some nice swivel breach flintlocks, kind like double barrel

http://www.davidpriceflintlocks.com/id38.html
Click to expand...

That is a beautiful gun... it looks like a work of art more than a firearm! Thanks for posting the link.

However, I was referring to a side by side type of setup more than any other type of rifle. To me, the least amount of hinges or other moving parts there are, the better. ;)

Here is a picture of a 16GA English Fowler in a double setup, circa 1815... if it was possible to do this with a shotgun in 1815, then why not with a rifle today? The setup definitely makes sense... but the real question is why no one seems to make flintlocks like it anymore? I'd definitely be in the market for one of them... and so would many others, I suspect.

:confused:

VMF25a%20smith16.jpg


VMF25bxl.jpg
 
Here you go:

http:// ww.middlesexvillagetrading.com/MDBF.shtml

One did not sell on GB with a reserve of 400 IIRC. I have noticed a few of them on there. Do a GB search for completed auctions. It was in the last 3 months or so. Seller probabley still has it.

For my money I'd rather carry two guns but it is very neat piece.
 
have'nt seen one but maybe you could line that one. Liner is cheap. regulating the two might be an impossible nightmare.
Why not just try it as is with RB? If you are interested in an all around gun you can't beat being able to choose the range of loads the smooth bores will fire. I am starting to notice that alot of big game has been taken with RB. Hardly seems worth the bother of hurting yourself with 400 grain projectiles. If you really want to get crazy pick the liner that will launch 250 grain .45 cal bullets in a big sabot. You can probabley mount a decent looking/working scope inbetween those hammer, adjust comb to suit and have a wicked hunting rifle.
If you go simple here is some encouragement:
A fellow who I trust not to tell tales held his hands about a foot apart when I asked him what kind of hunting accuracy he gets at 75 yards with his 54 cal smooth bore. A bit of that foot must be his shooting so really a RB is accurate to where you can see well and clear and where you'll see game.
 
I know I was looking for a commercial one twenty years ago with no luck....
I would probably still buy one if reasonably priced.... The idea is not new & a solid one for hunting with a flint'er in good weather still appeals to me.
 
Thanks, David... I will consider that as well.

The reason why I was inquiring about rifled designs was accuracy at long ranges. My rifled .50 cal Deerstalker is said to be primarily a round ball gun which can also fire sabots and minie projectiles. During colonial times, Washington's troops decimated the Brits with extremely precise round balls fired from rifled muskets, which is something that the Brits lacked. Eventually that lead the american militia to victory, despite being outnumbered something like 10 to 1 in the beginning. So, before I settle for the 'real old school', I just wanted to make sure no better options are available.

All in all, I'll consider getting a smoothbore if everything else fails... but I think it would be really cool if someone made them with rifled bores. As for a sighting system, maybe an independent sight on each barrel would suffice? I don't know, as I don't have much experience with double-barreled guns... yet.

;)
 
I hear your logic but take a look at the ballistics tables for a BP Muzzle loaders. Beyond the useable range of a RB you are gonna need a range finder hanging off your already crowded belt to get any utility out of the extra accuracy available from the rifled barrel. Your smooth bore RB might drift a foot but your rifled projectile will fall 3! That is why I was suggesting going with a sabot twist.

The myth of the rifled american militia man is just that a myth. Yes there were some skirmishes where the rifled musket was used to effect but the rifled barrel told very little in the outcome of the revolutionary war. Try firing 4 rounds in that rifled barrel you'll be stuck on a brit bayonet before you get the last ball started! Unless you can load and fire faster then a motivated man can cover 100 yards at a sprint accuracy does not count for anything.
The success of the land grabbing revolutionaries had as much to do with taliban tactics as with accurate shooting. The brits faced the same challange then as they do now. If you get hung for selling milk to a brit hospital or have your wife raped for paying taxes then what happens on the battle field is of little long term consequence. Hearts and minds you know. If accurate rifle fire could carry the day then the current conflict in afghanistan would be long over. No terrorist can match coalition capacity for accrate ordannance yet the war continues.

How about a rifled barrel on one side and a smooth bore on the other?
 
some folks speculate that there are some potential problems with the middlesex village guns! something about them being made in india, and the steel in the barrels being not up to snuff, and bulging when fired! thats what has kept me away fromt hem, but then again, i have never seen one in person, of fired one! so it might just be some black powder snobs rummor!
 
david doyle said:
I hear your logic but take a look at the ballistics tables for a BP Muzzle loaders. Beyond the useable range of a RB you are gonna need a range finder hanging off your already crowded belt to get any utility out of the extra accuracy available from the rifled barrel. Your smooth bore RB might drift a foot but your rifled projectile will fall 3! That is why I was suggesting going with a sabot twist.

The myth of the rifled american militia man is just that a myth. Yes there were some skirmishes where the rifled musket was used to effect but the rifled barrel told very little in the outcome of the revolutionary war. Try firing 4 rounds in that rifled barrel you'll be stuck on a brit bayonet before you get the last ball started! Unless you can load and fire faster then a motivated man can cover 100 yards at a sprint accuracy does not count for anything.
The success of the land grabbing revolutionaries had as much to do with taliban tactics as with accurate shooting. The brits faced the same challange then as they do now. If you get hung for selling milk to a brit hospital or have your wife raped for paying taxes then what happens on the battle field is of little long term consequence. Hearts and minds you know. If accurate rifle fire could carry the day then the current conflict in afghanistan would be long over. No terrorist can match coalition capacity for accrate ordannance yet the war continues.

How about a rifled barrel on one side and a smooth bore on the other?
Click to expand...

in our history, alot of those patriots that used rifles, where frequently used in a designated marksmen type roll! and they where often if captured just outright killed by the british, because they considered anyone fighting under cover, and concealment, taking well aimed shots that took out officers, was an uncoothe, person of no gentlemanly chartacter! thats because they failed to realize that when we americnas learned indian style warfare, that the big open field formation tactics do not work in the woods! you can right wheel all you want, but when there are plenty of trees, heavy brush, rocks, etc... the one who survives will be the one who has the best use of cover, concealment, suprise, and flanking! yep them indians sure taught us well, and we then sent the brits packing back to england!

now i know that there was a few opern field battles, but the war realy wasnt won using those tactics, it was won using gurrella style hit and run, harrassing attacks to whittle the enemy down!
 
At the beginning of the Revolutionary War, the British used the standard tactics used on the battlefields of Europe; large formations of men lined up 3 deep with roughly 6 inches of air between the. After the opening shots on Lexington Green on the morning of April 19th, 1775, the American Militia swarmed to the area and attacked the British by using the cover of trees and stonewalls. Again at Bunker Hill the British attacked the Americans in close order.
By the time the British Army invaded New York City in 1776, they had changed to a slightly different fighting style. They now started forming their battle lines with no less than 18 inches between men. Commanders had the ability to stretch their men's formations up to 10 yards and beyond. This was all done to defeat the American Guerilla style of combat of fighting behind cover. Generally speaking, where ever the British attacked, the Americans ran.
it became such a problem that almost immediately the Americans began to train to fight in the European style with the men shoulder to shoulder. it was this style of fighting that the Americans beat the British with when they won the few battles of the Revolution

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_were_some_British_tactics_of_the_revolutionary_war#ixzz1BoZRMlXj
Click to expand...


It is a myth that the Americans won by using cover, while the dumb British stood in the open in ranks to be shot by the hidden Americans. Both sides fought primarily in the open, in formation. When von Stueben took over training at Valley Forge, he put a single standard and methodology into the American army, so they could work better together. They then became a match for the British on the open ground in every respect. The Americans had been hampered by various methods and commands of maneuver, with little large scale drill. Von Stueben changed that, setting a single standard and training the army to use it, and the Americans proved their ability to use these techniques at the Battle of Monmouth. Instead of a regimental way, or state way, there was only the ARMY way. One method, one way to issue the order.


Certainly on occasion the Americans used cover, hiding behind trees and rock walls. The start of the war at Lexington and Concord is a prime example, and the New Jersey Militia, used it well also, both being examples of partisan warfare. Most battles of armies were fought using linear tactics. Even most partizan battles were fought using some form of linear tactics- they would fire volleys, and often stood in lines. Both sides used cover when they could. The slow rate of fire made manuever important, so units fought and moved in lines, even in woods, so they could protect against bayonet charges.
Click to expand...

#################################x
 
I saw one for sale the other day, it was a double barrel flint Jaeger rifle in 62cal.It was a project gun about 80% completed.The owner wanted $1000 for it.It was on the Historical trekking site.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom