a long gun

Please take a look at this rifle and let me hear what you think, My apologies, I suspect this will be longish. In Dec. 1989 I was in the market for a flintlock smoothbore and went to an auction with an “early American fowler” advertised. Inspection at the auction showed an unusually long and slender gun, seemingly just what I was looking for. I bought it. When I got it home I found several surprises. It has an octagon barrel 49 1/8” long, 1 1/8” at the breech, tapered to 3/4” at 8” from the muzzle, then flared back to 7/8” at the muzzle. Thickness of the barrel wall diminishes from breech to muzzle so that it is impressively lightweight and well balanced for its length. Overall length is 64 inches, weight is 6 lb. 15 oz. Surprise #1 was that the 20 ga. barrel was actually a 28 ga. barrel with the last 1 1/2” of bore flared to 20 gauge at the muzzle. There is no sign of rifling, but I have no way to visually inspect the bore. Surprise #2 was that it has a hook breech which is apparently not a modern addition. Surprise #3 is that the barrel itself is apparently hand forged, and forging marks can be seen on the underside, or so says a man who knows about forged barrels.

Stock is walnut, plain, with no cheek piece, carvings or inlays. The barrel channel is round-bottomed, not octagon to match the barrel. The barrel is held to the stock by 4 headless keys of brass. The staples under the barrel made to accept the keys are hand forged and attached to plates which are then dovetailed into the barrel. There is a groove filed under the barrel at the breech to clear the forward lock bolt... actually there are two grooves 1” apart, because the barrel has been shortened by one inch at some time.

The trigger guard, butt plate, entry thimble and two ramrod thimbles are of old brass. There is no side plate, but escutcheons for the lock bolts are brass, teardrop shaped forward and oval rear. The butt plate is fastened with two screws at the toe.

There is a very low brass barleycorn front sight set into a dovetail. There is no rear sight, no sign there ever was one..

The lock is of the small rifle type, and is of an ingenious waterproof design I’ve never seen. The lock plate is 4 1/2 inches long, curved and marked with nice engraving and LONDON WARRENTED. There is a roller on the frizzen spring tip. The lock has bridle and stirrup and a fly. The hammer is a fairly obvious replacement and doesn’t match the rest of the gun well.

The trigger is simple, iron, wide and filed with a decorative shape. It is set into a triangular trigger plate which accepts the tang screw and does not extend under the front trigger guard tang.

Not sure whether I had an old gun or a marriage of old parts, I took it to Woodbury, Ky. to let Herschel House look at it. By chance Frank House was there, so both of them gave it the evil eye for a fair chunk of the afternoon, inside and out.. Their opinion was:

It is an old gun, and all the parts except the hammer are original to it.

It was originally a gun from the mid-18th century to Rev. War time frame, but was restocked at a later date when stock styles had changed, sometime in early 19th century..

Hook breech guns are known as early as 1700 and that may have been the original configuration. Or, it could have been reconfigured at the time of the restocking.

The barrel has been shortened by 1”, probably because of burnout in the breech area. It may have been a rifled gun which was freshened as a smoothbore at that time, no way to tell.

The double screws in the toe of the butt plate probably indicate that a wider, thicker butt was cut down to a more fashionable style during the restocking. The extra screw is there because the old one wound up too near the toe to guarantee security, so they added a new one.

The lock is of good quality but was not made by the gunsmith, rather imported from England. The marking LONDON WARRANTED was common on imported locks.

Sorry to run on so . Some pictures, tell me what you think.

Spence

I want it...

That is a really nice piece.
My guess is a 19th century southern piece?
After squinting my eyes in every perceivable way I am having a hard time seeing anything that could date this gun to a mid-18th century piece though.

Wonderful old gun! :thumbsup:

Capt. Jas. said:

After squinting my eyes in every perceivable way I am having a hard time seeing anything that could date this gun to a mid-18th century piece though.

Click to expand...

I believe the thought was that the barrel and furniture were originally on an 18th-century gun, but it was restocked in the early 19th century while flintlocks were still common.

Spence

I also see nothing 18th century there... the fact that break-off breeches had been invented doesn't make them common or even likely in America until at least 1800 and the lock is almost certainly post-War of 1812. The brass bits could be earlier but my own feeling is that far too much is read into small differences and they could just as easily date from well after 1800.

I suspect it is a restock, from where is anyone's guess. It is just as easily a New England gun as anything eles... in fact if I saw it at an auction I would think it was from New England.

CURIOUS, THE PICTURE OF THE BREECH HOOK THAT SHOWS THE TOUCH HOLE,IS THE TOUCH HOLE LINED, IF SO IT APPEARS TO BE BRASS, QUESTION IS WOULD THIS OF BEEN ORIGINAL OR A ADDITION AT A LATER DATE AS YOU STATED THE BBL. COULD OF BEEN FRESHED TO A SMOOTH CONFIGURATION, ALSO THE TOUCH HOLE LOOKS CLOSE TO THE BREECH WOULD THE BREECH BEEN ANGLED TO ALLOW FOR THE FLASH INTO THE BBL.A APPALICHIAN HUNTER

R.C.Bingaman said:

IS THE TOUCH HOLE LINED, IF SO IT APPEARS TO BE BRASS.... ALSO THE TOUCH HOLE LOOKS CLOSE TO THE BREECH WOULD THE BREECH BEEN ANGLED TO ALLOW FOR THE FLASH INTO THE BBL.

Click to expand...

You have sharp eyes. I hadn't noticed that about the touchhole until I saw the close-up picture you mentioned. It's a difficult spot to photograph, but you are right, a little work with steel wool shows that there is a thin, circular liner. Can't tell what metal, but it looks silver colored.

Probing the touchhole with a toothpick, you can push it almost straight through to the other side of the barrel, just a very slight deviation toward the muzzle. I'd say the face of the breech plug is almost flat.

Spence

JV Puleo said:

.... the lock is almost certainly post-War of 1812..

Click to expand...

I know very little about dating locks, and I've never seen one similar to this. Can you tell me what characteristics of the lock put it in that period?

Spence

The rounded tail & the fully developed waterproof pan are important features. Both existed earlier but were features of high end guns. By the time these features were available on export grade locks it was probably well after 1800.

The touch hole is bushed... a common repair at the time and one that is an excellent indication that the gun hasn't been reconverted. When you see a touch hole bushing that is 3/8" in diameter, it replaced a drum & nipple. When its tiny, as this one is, it is a true period repair. All it means is that the gun was used enough to wear out the original hole.

JV Puleo said:

By the time these features were available on export grade locks it was probably well after 1800.

Click to expand...

Thanks. That brings up a question... wouldn't there have been periods after both the Rev. War and War of 1812 during which American gunsmith would have been loath to import British locks, especially of they were marked so obviously as this one?

JV Puleo said:

The touch hole is bushed... a common repair at the time and one that is an excellent indication that the gun hasn't been reconverted.

Click to expand...

Good to know about the bushed touch hole, never heard that explained before.

Spence

While I don't have some experts opinion before me to support my thoughts, my reading has led me to the conclusion that most folks following both wars didn't have a hatred for the British.

Following the Rev. War the general attitude seemed to be, "We wanted our Independence and tossed them out. The British do make excellent gun parts so now lets get back to business."

Many thought the war of 1812 was mainly a political war dealing with acquiring land.
Here again, although the British had boarded some U.S. ships and removed "British sailors" from them most Americans didn't really view the British with hatred. Here again, because the British had a productive industrial society that made quality hardware they were often looked to for gun parts.

At least that's how I've come to think of those times.

The main reason the opinions of the House brothers seemed reasonable to me was the barrel. My impression after many years of reading and talking about these guns is that the barrels evolved significantly over the century between 1750 and 1850. The trend was toward shorter barrels, and I generally believe barrels of 50” or more were pretty rare after the Rev. War period. The idea of a new gun built at the end of the flintlock era with such a long barrel just doesn’t fit into my general idea of how things were. Also, I wonder how many later barrels were so intelligently tapered and flared... swamped... to create guns which balanced and handled as well as this one does. A hammer-forged barrel constructed like this one would seem to be from earlier in the time period, not near the end of it. A gun 64” long with a 49-inch barrel, weighing only 7 pounds and balancing perfectly when you shoulder it just isn’t the way I think of guns late in the first quarter of the 19th century. So, when they said the barrel was from a time period significantly earlier than the style of the stock would indicate, and that the gun was the result of a restocking done late in first quarter 19th century, none of my alarms rang.

If my overall picture of this aspect of gun history is off base, I’d sure like to get it straightened out. What say you?

Spence

I would be wary of discounting the House boys assessment.The barrel, and some of the furniture, do appear to be of earlier than the rest of the gun, The hooked breach would have been a later addition (when the barrel was shortened). The stock also probably salvaged from an earlier piece (possibly a fouling piece with a round barrel) oweing to the difference in configureation of octagon barrel and round barrel channel. The lock and trigger do cretainly appear to be form a later date though.

Toomuch
............
Shoot Flint

Toomuch 36 said:

The stock also probably salvaged from an earlier piece (possibly a fouling piece with a round barrel) oweing to the difference in configureation of octagon barrel and round barrel channel.

Click to expand...

This isn't the first time I've seen that configuration. I've been told that it isn't uncommon with early guns. Just making the stock fit the side flats apparently works well, and many gunsmiths found it easier and quicker to build that way. I also have an early pistol on which the barrel appears to be the normal octagon to round with wedding band, but the entire bottom of the barrel is round and the barrel channel in the stock is round to match it.

Spence

Zonie is absolutely correct regarding anti-British sentiment. There was very little, if any, especially in the commercial cities along the eastern seaboard. Even the cry of "Free Trade and Sailor's Rights" that went with the War of 1812 didn't resonate with the seamen and merchants of the east coast... not that they wanted to be pressed into the British service but the British claim that they only pressed British citizens was probably true much more often than not, newspaper accounts notwithstanding. Newspapers were much more political, and even less reliable, then than they are now...

New England and most of the east coast, where the overwhelming majority of the merchant class lived and worked, was staunchly anti-war in 1812. Merchants of both countries often hand only a passing interest in politics... in a letter I have from a British arms dealer to his American agent - arranging the sale of sabers after the War of 1812 had begun, the Englishman writes "I see no reason why the quarrels of nations should effect commerce." (Paraphrased...I dont have the letter at hand.)

As to an example of the feeling of the time, after the Revolution General Henry Knox, a bookseller before the war, made it a personal point of honor to pay for all of the stock he had in his store when the war began. My own impression, drawn mostly from primary documents, is that there were virtually no American made gun locks (other than for military contracts) before about 1840, and maybe not until after the ACW. There were two reasons for this... at first Americans simply lacked the skills necessary but, even after they had acquired them, they could never compete on price with the Birmingham gun trade.

It is highly unlikely that that gun has a re-used stock... the metal parts simply never fit another stock that well. Could the trigger guard and butt plate be earlier - maybe... but I've been working with original NE guns for the best part of 45 years and I still see nothing about that one that couldn't just as easily be late in the 1st quarter of the 19th century.

I missed the barrel note. Barrels up to 60" were reasonably common in New England well into the 19th century. In 1812 at least one major exporter offered "4' barrels" i.e. 48" - and these on fowlers that could be ordered in quantity by item number.

JV Puleo said:

Could the trigger guard and butt plate be earlier - maybe... but I've been working with original NE guns for the best part of 45 years and I still see nothing about that one that couldn't just as easily be late in the 1st quarter of the 19th century.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your input. You present an interesting picture of early 19th century guns, and it seems I will have to adjust mine. So your impression is that this is simply a gun from late in the first quarter of the 19th century, and that the barrel, lock and other characteristics are typical of that time period, no need to postulate a gun built at that time but using older parts... that it has been restocked and had the barrel shortened in the same general time frame.... did I state that correctly? That is certainly the simplest explanation, which is frequently the most likely to be accurate.

Is there any way to reasonably speculate whether the barrel was originally rifled or has always been smooth?

Spence

I doubt it was rifled. It is unusually long for a rifle, although having said that, I just got a NE rifle, with the rifling intact, and a barrel is only two or three inches shorter than that one. Its the longest rifle barrel I've seen on a signed NE gun - and its a similar octagon to round shape. But... I still think that statistically it was more likely to be smooth though perhaps used as a "buck & ball" gun, using bullets rather than shot - what many call a "smooth rifle" although that is an oxymoron.
Another point is that the stock was inlet for that lock and the lock is unquestionably both late and English... the stock itself is quite plain and looks American made so you can't rule out the reuse of a few components but I don't see where that means much.

JV Puleo said:

I still think that statistically it was more likely to be smooth....

Click to expand...

The barrel is "coned" or belled at the muzzle from 28 ga. to 20 ga. in the last 1.5 inches. Do you see that often on the original guns, and would you be more likely to find it on a smooth bore than a rifle?

Spence

I hate to admit it, but I don't pay much attention to bores, aside from noting whether rifling is intact. (I have three or four original rifles I shoot occasionally but have never felt the need to shoot all of them.) But... I suspect that in the case of your gun its worn from thousands of rammings and cleaning with a wooden ramrod/cleaning rod. Long use of a wooden rod in a soft iron barrel could easily show that sort of wear. Quite a few of my rifles are effectively smooth. I don't think they were all bored out... just shot until the rifling was gone. And, these early rifles have deep narrow grooves with wide lands, not the shallow grooves of modern reproductions.

I'm not sure what the original owner or maker would have seen as an advantage in having a "coned" muzzle. This is a feature that is associated loading patched bullets in rifles - which I doubt your gun ever was. A buck & ball gun loaded with a single bullet and three or four buckshot, wadded with tow or crumpled newspaper, would have not needed this feature. And, while I don't think this is definitive proof that it never happened, there is very little evidence of the use of tightly patched round balls in smoothbore guns.

Our ancestors did not always take particularly good care of their guns. Indeed, many weren't shooting "enthuiasts" as much as they were simply using an everyday tool. Mr. "average shooter" may not have cleaned his gun with much more frequency than the average driver changes his oil every 3,000 miles. Your gun does show the effects of both heavy use and good care but running a dirty wooden rod up and down the barrel a few thousand times may well have just worn the bore.