"Unidentified American Revolutionary or 1812 rifle" Topic
12 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Firearms Message Board
Areas of InterestRenaissance 18th Century Napoleonic American Civil War 19th Century World War One World War Two on the Land Modern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleA fourth set of Romanian villagers from Blue Moon's boxed set.
Featured Profile ArticleThe importance and use of chemical warfare in WWI and its application to tabletop wargames.
|
14Bore | 15 Sep 2019 4:27 p.m. PST |
This is a rifle and owner is trying to discover it's make
Personally thinking not a production military firearm but anyone think or know different? |
Dennis | 15 Sep 2019 6:11 p.m. PST |
Skip: To have any chance of tracing the maker of the firearm (you refer to it in your post title as a "rifle," is it in fact rifled?) you'll need more photos of any markings and closeup photos of the lock from different angles. Your photo shows some markings below the lock, but I can't read them from your photo and I'm not really any sort of expert on 18th or early 19th century musket or rifle makers in any event. From the photo of the lock it appears to be an early conversion from flintlock to percussion system. The original flintlock, perhaps, could date from the AWI or earlier-as I say, I'm not an expert on long guns of the period-but in its existing configuration it could not have been used in the AWI as the percussion system wasn't invented until about 1807 (or thereabouts depending on whose story you believe, earliest patent in 1807 anyway). It's also unlikely to have been used in the War of 1812 in its current configuration as the nipple and cap percussion system dates, as I understand it, to the 1820s or later. As you say, it doesn't look like military production. The stock and furniture look like civilian manufacture. Although various militaries did convert flintlocks to the percussion system (the British in the late 1830s, the rest of Europe later, the U.S., perhaps, earlier), it doesn't look like any of the military conversions I've seen. My WAG is that it's a civilian rifle (is it rifled?) or musket converted to percussion by a private gunsmith in the 1820s or 30s. I have no idea what the original flintlock was. Your best bet of tracing its origin would be to take closeup photos of any markings and various angles of the lock and other furniture and post inquiries on antique firearms boards. |
khanscom | 15 Sep 2019 6:23 p.m. PST |
Maybe not much help, but the half- stock and "Hawken- style" configuration suggests a civilian rifle. If it's been acquired locally, you might try researching Pennsylvania gunsmiths of the '40s or '50s; the engraved lettering on the lockplate isn't very clear, but may be the maker's name or mark. |
14Bore | 16 Sep 2019 2:08 a.m. PST |
There was one more picture I didn't bring along, didn't think it showed much. It was thought by a few me included it is a rifle because of the octagon barrel, it has a wooden ramrod. I figured .50 cal but being told closer to a .30 cal. Will pass this thread to the owner as well to see. |
Shagnasty | 16 Sep 2019 6:50 a.m. PST |
As suggested above, it looks like an older style weapon converted to percussion cap. The fore stock configuration looks like the repro Hawken I inherited from my father-in-law. It too has a wooden ramrod. |
StoneMtnMinis | 16 Sep 2019 7:24 a.m. PST |
You might suggest he contact Rock Island Auction, they specialize in militray and collectable weapons. They could probably refer him to an expert appraiser who could give him a definitive answer. rockislandauction.com Dave, (I have no connection with the company) |
Dennis | 16 Sep 2019 7:39 a.m. PST |
Your additional photo of the reverse of the trigger and trigger guard appears to show a double set trigger. See: link [edit] For some reason the link I provided goes to a written description of the double set trigger and not to the photo the was on the page when I copied the link. If you click on the blue-highlighted description of the "Double set, Kentucky style rifle triggers" it will take you to a photo of the trigger kit. If so, then the trigger and, as you say, the octagonal barrel, makes it likely the firearm is a rifle as a double set trigger provides a degree of precision not ordinarily necessary, or useful, in a smoothbore musket. If that is a double set trigger, that is additional evidence that it is a civilian firearm. So far as I know no militaries used flintlock or percussion rifles with double set triggers. |
Choctaw | 16 Sep 2019 11:54 a.m. PST |
You should pose this question at the Traditional Muzzleloading Forum. Those guys will be able to help you. |
Legion 4 | 17 Sep 2019 7:14 a.m. PST |
My "expert" on that era's weapons said :
That looks like a hand made civilian "squirrel gun", about mid 1800s (like they said), at a gun show it would be worth next to nothing . . . |
colonial nic | 22 Sep 2019 3:15 a.m. PST |
Yep percussion conversion ca1850 of a flintlock. conversion done in a rustic manner by a civilian gunsmith. It is a thoroughly civilian hunting rifle with virtually no chance of having seen service in a war. |
Legion 4 | 22 Sep 2019 7:10 a.m. PST |
Yep … my "expert" is usual pretty accurate ! |
Mark 1 | 09 Oct 2019 1:37 p.m. PST |
It was thought by a few me included it is a rifle because of the octagon barrel… Well, if you want to know if it is a rifle, don't look at the outside of the barrel. Look at the inside. A quick view with a small light (even your cell phone's flashlight app) will tell you if it is a smooth bore musket, or it has twisting "rifling" in the bore. But if all we want to do is examine the outside, then as others have identified, the set-trigger, the octagon barrel and small bore are pretty clear evidence of the conclusion that this was not a military weapon. Set triggers were not useful in firearm tactics that infantry formations used in that timeframe. The goal was volume of fire, not precision of fire. It wasn't until after the US Civil War that the concept of precision shooters become common enough that militaries began acquiring weapons for them. An octagonal barrel is almost a sure indicator of non-military weapon. In the era of single-shot firearms and sabre-carrying horse cavalry, no military would equip it's infantry with long arms that could not mount a bayonet. I don't believe there was no mechanism to affix a bayonet to an octagonal barrel until the bayonet lug and spring-loaded handled bayonet came into use in the last quarter of the 1800s. Prior to that, bayonets had to slide over the muzzle of the gun and rotate to lock on to the front sight. You can't do that with an octagonal barrel. And there was really no call for a small bore (.30 caliber) long arm in military use. Small bore makes sense if you are hunting small animals. But until the era of cartridges and smokeless powder, you could not get enough velocity into a smaller round to make it powerful enough on the receiving end for military use, except perhaps at very short ranges. So yes, maybe a .36 caliber pistol (if you want to use it for boarding hostile ships or playing cards in hostile saloons). But not for infantry combat. Just my $.02 USD worth. -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
|