Boilermakers vs barrel-aged

No. You're missing the vital infusion that only prolonged contact with oak can provide.

Boilermakers are typically associated with AALs, whereas BA beers are commonly high gravity ales, including imperial stouts and Barleywines. There's also the matter of ratio, with a boilermaker being a shot of whiskey to a pint of beer (again, an AAL).

It sounds like you are proposing a flavoring addition, which would be a much smaller amount. Again, I wouldn't adulterate a beer like that, and I'd rather look for established styles are good in their own right.

Recall that many BA beers aren't great because they're barrel aged. They're great because they began with an outstanding base beer. Nothing you add is going to make a mediocre beer any better.

 

Haven't done boiler makers since college when I snuck the flask in the bars to make higher octane beers since I couldn't afford many. I think barrel aging is a craft and there's a decent difference between the two, especially the vanilla and earthy flavors from the oak. That said, people should do what they like and enjoy. At the end if the day, I'm gonna drink whatever I am in the mood for and enjoy.

 

No, but it'll get ya drunk quicker

 

No, unfortunately its not the same at all. The barrel:whiskey ratio is way off. In a good barrel aged beer, even one that seems booze-forward, there is a lot more barrel than you can get by adding pure whiskey.

 

Ah, well, there actually have been a few serious threads asking this question (although not using the term boilermaker), and as you can probably tell, I have tried it.

 

People do these things. I am aware of recipes for "poor man's Black Note," for example.

 

I'll take a bottle of Old Rasputin +1 oz of quality aged bourbon over running all over the city trying to score a $20 bottle of BCBS.

 

Not the same but also not bad. I've added small amounts of bourbon to stouts and enjoyed the results.