doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Choke Boring 17th Cenyury!

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 ..."