• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades

Is It A Grice 1762 Flintlock Musket?

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

john1957

32 Cal.
Joined
Jan 12, 2017
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hi Everyone I have inherited some antique guns, including a musket incised Grice 1762 on the stock. I am a wargamer with miniatures rather than the real thing, so I would be most grateful for some advice as to its date, authenticity and possible value. It is the middle gun shown on the wall, between two later? rifles. I don't know how high res the images will appear, but if you need closer pics, please let me know. The frissen is incised on the underside with the numbers 73, which I hope you can see. I think the barrel is shorter than it should be? Any help/advice would be greatly appreciated. PS If you are interested in any of the other guns, I can post images. The only one I can id properly is the Allen & Thurber pepperbox. Thanks John57
 
Hi,
Ah, the famous "Grice 1762" musket produced by the equally famous Italian company "Davide Pedersoli". I am afraid your "musket" is something cobbled together using modern and perhaps some old parts. It does not resemble a British issued short land musket at all. Moreover, the flintcock and frizzen springs are poorly fitted replacements. The gun is not worth very much. The other guns look like they were also cobbled together from old or new military parts. The bottom one looks like a crude copy of a British Brunswick rifle.

dave
 
There is only so much one can tell from photographs, even good complete photographs. These don't look like they are guns that would be sought after by serious collectors, unless there is some information not given. Things like Provenance, ID marks on barrels or locks and etc., are important. Whether they are in good enough condition to shoot also can make a big difference for altered guns.

They obviously make attractive wall hangers.
 
I must be going blind.

I don't see any photos or links to photos or to any place that might store photos for viewing on the web.

Without good pictures, it is impossible to say much of anything about the gun(s) in question.
 
Zonie :slap: There right there.

Here I'll post them again.



How's that?

:idunno: :rotf: :rotf: :blah:
 
Hey guys. Thanks for the replies so far. My link to the pictures seems to have failed, so I am trying again here...
adyubm.jpg

4pv22q.jpg

2ec3uye.jpg

Many thanks for reading this. John
 
I'm not sure what it is but as the gun looks to be earlier than 1864, I'm moving this topic to the "Firearm Identification" area of the Forum.
 
John,

First, welcome to the forum!

Since you are from England, the Grice lock could be one that came from reproduction muskets produced in England during the 1970’s and originally with a 46” length barrel or it could have been made by Pedersoli as Dave Person suggested. It’s very difficult to say from a photograph alone.

It appears someone tried to remove the “Feather Spring,” or more commonly known as the Frizzen Spring, on the lock plate without using some kind of Spring Vise to compress and hold the spring. They buggered up the screw slot because of it and now it seems the spring is just tightened against the plate without the post portion of the spring resting in the proper hole in the lock plate.

The cheek piece on the right side of the stock (If there is one - hard to tell from the photo?), the trigger guard and other things that did not come from a reproduction musket, pretty much tell this gun was cobbled together out of various parts as something to display and/or possibly shoot, rather than a copy of an original gun.

The two Percussion lock guns both have the “Lovell design” bar action percussion lock that was designed by the British government inspector of small arms, George Lovell. This lock was first used and placed into production at the Royal Arms Manufactory at Enfield Lock on a Percussion Musket in 1840. The “Lovell Pattern Lock” continued to be used on British Rifle Muskets, Rifles and Carbines during the 1850’s and 60’s and then modified for the Breech Loading Snyder Rifle.

So my question is are there any markings on the outside of the Percussion Locks? If not, I have some thoughts the two percussion guns were made up as decorator pieces.

BTW, the trigger guard on the bottom Percussion Gun seems to be similar to the British Brunswick Rifle Pattern trigger guard, though it is not an exact copy. I will have to dig out a book I have on that period British Guns to see if the trigger guard came from some other model of rifle or musket.



Gus
 
All three are hand made circa 1970 , but all have some original bits and pieces , eg the Grice lock is Pedersoli but the cock is not .
 
Since you are from England, the Grice lock could be one that came from reproduction muskets produced in England during the 1970’s and originally with a 46” length barrel or it could have been made by Pedersoli as Dave Person suggested. It’s very difficult to say from a photograph alone.

To me it looks like an Italian (Pedersoli) reproduction SLP Bess lock that has been added to an old, sporterized version of a musket. The frizzen spring does not belong on the lock, and never did, probably added for cosmetic effect, as the lock was added to an existing lock mortise, and whomever added it "got lucky" that it was very close to the existing lock mortise size. I'd like to see a photo of the opposite side of the stock at the lock mortise to see what's there.

LD
 
john1957 said:
The rifle on the top in the image is marked J Wallis on both sides on the copper [plate?] and the rifle shown at the bottom (below the Grice) has a three-digit number 643 on the stock. These are the only markings I can see. Thanks in anticipation on any further info you can provide. I will never sell these guns as they were my late father's, but I am curious to know if they have any value. Thanks John

Folks, John was having a bit of a problem replying and I gave him some information to do so, but I also thought this information should be added to the thread.

John,

Did your Dad build these guns or buy them? If he purchased them, do you know where he bought them and possibly when he bought them? Did he shoot these guns?

Gus
 
Thanks very much Gus, and sorry for my stupidity! The guns were purchased at separate auctions in England over a fifteen year period. John
 
John,

No need to apologize on learning how the forum operates. We all had to learn how to do it.

I was finally able to find and go through my copy of “BRITSH MILITARY LONGARMS 1715 ”“ 1865,” by Dr. De Witt Bailey, the eminent British scholar on British 18th and 19th century military arms. I wanted to use this book to refresh my memory and especially because of the “Lovell” designed, military style, percussion locks on your top and bottom guns in the photos you showed. This style lock was not normally used by British civilian gunsmiths; unless they were making military style arms for the British Government or “for the trade,” or refitting or converting surplus military arms “for the trade.”

The period terms “To the trade” or “For the trade,” when speaking of British Arms; both meant selling gun parts, implements or complete guns and normally for civilian use, unless they stipulated it was for British or Irish Ordnance Boards. I have always found it to be a lovely descriptive term.

The fact that there are no significant markings on the barrels and locks of your guns, lowers their value compared to those properly marked in the period. Military barrels had “Touch,” “View,” and the “King’s/Queen’s Proof Marks. Civilian barrels always had similar, though slightly different “View” and “Proof” marks. Military Locks always had the “King’s/Queen’s Cypher” engraved or later stamped on the Lock Plates, For example, a Crown over the initials “G” and “R” for George Rex for the Kings George I-III and “V” and “R” for Victoria Regina, for Queen Victoria. Lock plates were often/usually marked as well as the British Broad Arrow Mark and usually the British Ordnance Board at the Tower or Dublin Castle in the 18th century. Military style locks, for sale or use by civilians, were almost always engraved or stamped with the Lock or Gun Maker’s name and in the case of those made for the East India Company, with the initials “E.I.C.” of some form as well.

When the British Ordnance Board sold out of date, damaged or surplus Government arms in the 18th/19th centuries; it seems the King’s/Queen’s Cypher on the Lock Plates were either removed or was expected to be removed by the Factors who purchased said arms. Other military markings may/would have been removed as well. However, the civilian Factors normally engraved or stamped their name/s or their company’s name on the Lock Plates before the Arms were sold “to the trade.” Further, even when the “King’s/Queen’s” Touch, View or Proof Marks were removed from the barrels; it was expected/demanded by law to have the barrels “re-proved” and stamped with the marks from the Civilian Proof Houses.

So it would have been extremely uncommon to downright nonexistent for period barrels and locks to have as few marks as on your two percussion guns, back in the period.

Now, Indian, Pakistani, Afghan and other gun makers copied British Arms during their period of use and continuing to this day. They would sometimes copy/forge the markings on the locks or barrels to sell them more easily or they may have not marked them at all. “Decorator” Guns that were often never meant to be fired, may also not have had copied/forged markings and the above foreign makers have made tons of such decorative pieces down through the years to this day. As I understand it, British Law does not require these barrels to be “proof tested,” if sold as decorative pieces only.

Thus, I am not entirely sure, but strongly suspect your two percussion guns are decorator pieces. To determine if the locks on those guns were otherwise real locks that had the engravings and/or stampings removed, one would have to check the strength of the mainsprings and at least take the locks off to check the internal parts. Real Lovell design, “Enfield Type” percussion locks had very strong mainsprings and high quality internal parts.

The barrels on your two percussion guns might be original barrels that were cut down and reused. The stock on the top percussion gun may be original military and then cut down, but one would have to get a better look at the buttplate.

The bottom percussion gun looks like it was or is rifled, due to having the rear sight. It may be an original rifle barrel that was reamed out smooth to be a shotgun/fowling piece in the late 19th/Early 20th century or later. Though the stock looks like it was modeled after the P 1839 Brunswick Rifle, it does not have the original patch box, so I think it is at least a later replacement. This gun is also interesting in that it has both a front sight and an additional bayonet lug for a socket bayonet on top of the front of the barrel. The brass nose cap on the end of the stock would held support a socket bayonet and keep the stock from splitting up front in use. However, this added bayonet lug on top of the barrel is not a common British Military item in the period.

What I suggest is have someone who is at least knowledgeable on 19th century British Guns take a look at your two percussion guns to see what parts may have been original, if any.

Gus
 
Thanks for all your replies to my query, particularly Gus for all your research efforts. It is much appreciated and very interesting (as a history buff) to remember that everything has a story, even if it not always a very old one! I have had another look at the two guns which sandwich the 'Grice' in the image showing them on the wall, to check for other markings. The top gun has J. Wallis incised (twice, strangely) on either sides of the copper (ie the name is shown four times). Nothing else apparent. The bottom rifle of the three has a number on the stock and incised marks on the top of the barrel (see images below). Any further info on those? Thanks again and keep up the good work, Muzzleloadingforum! John57

Marks to top of barrel
21npnya.jpg

Number on the stock http://i68.tinypic.com/2me6ano.jpg[/IMG]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
John,

As to your pistols from top to bottom:

The first pistol is a double barrel “Coach” or “Traveling” Pistol. The picture is not very clear, but normally when they had only one hammer and cone/nipple, there was a way to turn normally a round piece in the box lock mechanism that had two vent holes drilled through it, so either the top or bottom barrel could be fired.

The next pistol is the Pepperbox you already identified.

The next pistol is often called a Bag Handled “Boot” or “Pocket” Pistol in the size it is. Box lock pistols like these in both Flintlock and later Percussion were rather inexpensive and popular by the number of them that have survived. They probably were not shot a whole lot in the period, so that also helped their survival rate. Some were made even smaller and could be carried in a Muff or on “Milady’s Person.”

I really can’t judge the size of the pistol and the revolver that are next in line. Are there cones/nipples under the hammers on these two pistols for a percussion cap? The Pistol may be an early .22 caliber rimfire or even a slightly earlier pinfire pistol if the barrel is bored all the way through. The Revolver looks like it also is either Pinfire or Rimfire. The style of it looks British, but it may be French. Are there any markings on it?

Gus
 
Hi John,
Like Gus I want to welcome you to the forum. I just wanted to say that Gus is one of the most knowledgeable and generous folks I have ever encountered on any forum in this country or any other. He knows his stuff and is always ready to help. He is one of the best on this side of the pond.

dave
 
Yes indeed he is. I am grateful to Gus and all who replied to my query. A great forum! Thanks to all. John
 
The double barrel Pistol Looks like two triggers & two hammers?

"The Revolver looks like it also is either Pinfire or Rimfire."

It is a pinfire pistol, you can tell by the hammer sits on the outside of the cylinder on top.
Most likely a 7mm


William Alexander
 
William,

You are absolutely correct about the double barrel pistol having two side by side hammers and cones/nipples. I wasn’t sure about that earlier, as I thought it was perhaps an optical illusion or a reflection of some sort, but John sent additional pictures that shows the two hammers and two cones clearly.

You are also correct about the Revolver being a pinfire, as another photo John sent clearly shows the slots in the cylinder and the fact the hammer at rest is above the cylinder.

You have very good eyes.

Gus
 
Artificer said:
You have very good eyes.

Gus

Not so much my friend, I actually have comparable weapons to them to compare to.


I have come trust and appreciate your posts.
Thank you


William Alexander
 
Back
Top