Hand built vs production

[deerstalkert]

where are you going to be hunting? If In AZ, the fifty could do the job and be all you might need for repelling boarders bent on rearraigning your anatomy. though i am firmly in the .54-.58 camp.
If you are going to be hunting in one of the northwest states, the .54 is what i use. for one thing, it has killed 6-7 bulls for me without any drama. the other thing is up here there are big toothy things that have decided we are on the menu.
stand across a small clearing from even a relatively small griz of 350-400 lbs and the hole in the end of your barrel seems miniscule. other holes disappear too.
even our black bears will make you wonder if you will get supper that night. unusual but some have very bad attitudes.
since you are totally free to choose your bore size consider the larger sizes. and the idea that more Elk have been killed with .50 only shows that more .50 were out there. I have been shooting BP for close to 65 years and only got into the bigger bores in the last 20 years.
every Dick and Jane have a .50, but the .54-.58 crowd is thinner. Be part of the special group, it's the PC thing these day's.
PS. tell the seller to use a can of brakecleen on that lock so he can see the parts. thats terrible!

 

[Dialn911]

where are you going to be hunting? If In AZ, the fifty could do the job and be all you might need for repelling boarders bent on rearraigning your anatomy. though i am firmly in the .54-.58 camp.
If you are going to be hunting in one of the northwest states, the .54 is what i use. for one thing, it has killed 6-7 bulls for me without any drama. the other thing is up here there are big toothy things that have decided we are on the menu.
stand across a small clearing from even a relatively small griz of 350-400 lbs and the hole in the end of your barrel seems miniscule. other holes disappear too.
even our black bears will make you wonder if you will get supper that night. unusual but some have very bad attitudes.
since you are totally free to choose your bore size consider the larger sizes. and the idea that more Elk have been killed with .50 only shows that more .50 were out there. I have been shooting BP for close to 65 years and only got into the bigger bores in the last 20 years.
every Dick and Jane have a .50, but the .54-.58 crowd is thinner. Be part of the special group, it's the PC thing these day's.
PS. tell the seller to use a can of brakecleen on that lock so he can see the parts. thats terrible!

Boarders?

You're missing my point,

Some people keep claiming that a 50 is somehow anemic and not capable on Elk, which is absolutely nonsense.

That's why I pointed that out, because if that were the reality, 50 round ball wouldn't have a massive pedigree of taking elk out on a regular basis.

How many Elk have you taken with a 50?

I often find people who fall into the bigger then .50 bore only camp, don't have much experience whatsoever with 50s.

Again,
you're going to be ideally within a 100 yds with both caliber's, and you're going to hopefully get a vital good shot where it needs to go with both calibers, and in that scenario both calibers we'll drop it, no problem.

The difference between a 50 and a 54 once it reaches the vital's, is not a mass of difference.

That's what I'm trying to explain, if I were using a handgun on a human, and needed to reach at least 12 inches to get the vital's, It doesn't matter if I use a powerful magnum cartridge, because all that extra energy and penetratken is moot, because I only needed to get to 12 inches in the first place.

The key killing component in that regard, is the size of the caliber in the amount of wound channel and destruction to tissue it can create.

And I'm millimeter versus 45, that's significant, A45ACP will create 60% more crushed tissue damage in its path.

However, take on 40 and 45, and the differences are much closer together...

The 45 will produce about a 10 to 15% more crush tissue damage, which may not I really matter if it's going into vitals.

The big factors in that particular situation, is the ability of a bullet to go through various hard barriers and remain intact enough with enough mass to continue to create the desired Luciano, that's an entirely different topic.

When it comes to a difference of point 50 and point 540 with a round ball on a soft target when hunting, it's not as Stark as some people want to believe.

62 caliber... now we're starting to get into a pretty significant size difference.

In conclusion,

A bad hit is a bad hit, and just because you have a 54 or 58, doesn't make a bad hit, a good hit.

Seems to me, that people who supposedly shot an animal with a 50 and didn't retrieve it, tries to blame it on the caliber, when in reality it was poor shot placement.

Plenty of arrows sticking out of deer and elk, and none of them were good placement shots, And yet I noticed nobody blames the size of the arrow.

I don't have a problem using the larger bore, but I don't sit here and pretend it's inadequate for the job.

I'm also from the Pacific Northwest myself, and we have predators in my area as well, but if I'm faced with a predator and defending my life on a hunt,
I'm sure as hell not going to rely on a single shot Flint lock to do the job, I'm going to pull a large bore side arm, and pump as many rounds as possible in that scenario....

I would advise you do the same, the last thing you need is a failure to ignite or a miss with a 54 or 58 Flint and not have enough time to pull a backup weapon.

Bear charges are fast as hell, and most people even with a modern weapon, only get 2 or 3 rounds off before contact, either they make them count or they don't.

Go and try to use a flintlock on a bear charge, and you may be reenacting that scene from the Revent.

I wouldn't even try to waste my time engaging a real threat from a predator intent on doing me harm with a flintlock, when I can pull a sufficient side arm as a back up and go to work.

 

[deerstalkert]

all fair points .
but i sense a tremendous hint of theory vs experience.
i have a permanent limp in my left leg from a bear encounter, so all of your points do have validity. a bear charge is both the fastest and slowest encounter i have ever experienced.
i will use my 60's, 54's and 50's, and 45's, and 36's and 32's.
and on my hip most times a .41. it supplied me with a pet that i pat on the head and say "good morning A.. H..." every morning.
he is the one that gave me my limp. the 41 gave him a lobotomy.
if you count cows i have taken 6 Elk with the .50. about that number with the .54. and even one with a .45, but that wasn't a bp .45.
just my 2 cents.

 

[Dialn911]

all fair points .
but i sense a tremendous hint of theory vs experience.
i have a permanent limp in my left leg from a bear encounter, so all of your points do have validity. a bear charge is both the fastest and slowest encounter i have ever experienced.
i will use my 60's, 54's and 50's, and 45's, and 36's and 32's.
and on my hip most times a .41. it supplied me with a pet that i pat on the head and say "good morning A.. H..." every morning.
he is the one that gave me my limp. the 41 gave him a lobotomy.
if you count cows i have taken 6 Elk with the .50. about that number with the .54. and even one with a .45, but that wasn't a bp .45.
just my 2 cents.

"i sense a tremendous hint of theory vs experience."

How about hundreds of years of experience with the .50 prb on big game?

I don't form opinions on theory alone. I use experience with the best data available before making an opinion.

People love to state things as being facts based on pure speculative experience,... "I shot an elk once with a 50 and it ran away, then I shot an elk another time with a 54 and it dropped right there,"
completely dismissing the fact that they could have had a poor shot placement or missed on the first one, or the second one hit right where it needed to.

The problem with these stories, there's nothing to verify anything from a data-driven standpoint.

This whole debate started, because I saw way too many people throwing out bold claims, as if it was foolhardy to go elk hunting with 50 caliber, when literally hundreds of years of experience taking elk with this caliber proves otherwise.

Which is why I dove into the science behind it, because if you get into the data, there is absolutely nothing to show that a 50 round ball hitting the vitals in the exact same place you should be aiming with a 54, isn't up to the task.

I'm not arguing that a 54 May offer a little more destructive power, I'm arguing that these claims about the 50 not being adequate for Elk is absurd. And the real world difference between the two in a vital shot, isn't as significant as people want to believe when it comes to the Elk dying.

It is It is more than enough, and that's the myth I'm trying to dispel based on real world data and facts on the topic.

People act like its someone running around the woods with a .22, having to get the perfect shot placement because it's an anemic round.

I've even heard this kind of manure from people saying a 308 isn't enough power or it can't shoot long enough, you need to get a 6.5 creedmore to take those long shots or you need a 3006 that's hot and so on....

Just like you're .41 side arm, more than enough with hard cast to deal with a bear,
but you'll have people tell you there's no way, you need at least a 44 magnum, or ideally a 54 casuall or Smith and Wesson 500.


I don't rely on anecdotes. The problem with these discussions, is that often they're full of claims as "fact" based off from anecdotes.

I'll give you a perfect example, every now and then I'll hear a marine or a soldier complaining how they're 556 round zipped right through the target and didn't put him down, so that must mean the caliber isn't capable.

The science behind that statement? They were using a penetrator round not designed for soft tissue damage, but was a stop gap to push through hard cover like thick mud and other barriers. it's not a good anti personal round, it makes tiny little ice pick holes and it doesn't expand or fragment typically, like a 55 green soft core.

If it was a long shot, then it will fail to do what it was designed to do, because a 556 needs a fast fps, to really do its job as designed.

Was their experience based on fact? No, it was an anecdote to their experience of which they made an observation, but then formed an opinion without actually knowing the facts of why it happened.

Had they known that bullet choice plays a crucial role, and they should have been issued 55 grains, the outcome would have been likely very different.

Experience is good, but it should also be understood with the best data available as to why something did or did not work.

anecdotes are everywhere. Gun culture is full of them, i.e., an m1 carbine couldn't penetrate a North Korean wool jacket....

Total nonsense.

Glad you won that exchange with the bear.

 

[sturmkatze]

Yeah that's the first time I've heard anyone complain about them.
almost everyone I've spoken with says the quality is good.

There are some snarky Aunt Mary’s who hate them. Nothing is perfect. Pedersoli makes a pretty decent gun.

 

[sturmkatze]

all fair points .
but i sense a tremendous hint of theory vs experience.
i have a permanent limp in my left leg from a bear encounter, so all of your points do have validity. a bear charge is both the fastest and slowest encounter i have ever experienced.
i will use my 60's, 54's and 50's, and 45's, and 36's and 32's.
and on my hip most times a .41. it supplied me with a pet that i pat on the head and say "good morning A.. H..." every morning.
he is the one that gave me my limp. the 41 gave him a lobotomy.
if you count cows i have taken 6 Elk with the .50. about that number with the .54. and even one with a .45, but that wasn't a bp .45.
just my 2 cents.

That must have been horribly a$$ puckering.

 

[Commodore Swab]

Is all this 50vs54 simply due to those being the most economical "larger" rifle barrels on the market? In other words woul 58 or 62 be a better choice but isn't discussed because they aren't as cheap or as common?

 

[54ball]

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to question anybody's expertise, but your perception is what I had gathered based on literature I had read and a few people back easet I spoke with.
I was told likely French and Indian war era, or American revolution in the 1770s.

So said 1790s..


I was trying to figure out in more detail by seeing if I could find more information on John guest.
I can't find when he was born, but I do know that he was supposedly building during the American revolution, and that The men he also worked with, Abraham Henry, built-in the 1770s.
Of course I don't know how old these men were, so they could have been building in the 1760s and 1770s and into the early 1800s.

The only thing I know for sure, is that John guest was making rifles and pistols under contract for Thomas Jefferson's presidential administration, from 1802 to 1808.

They had heavy work orders, and were overtaxed and struggled to deliver all of the orders by the government.

That leads me to believe, that this rifle is definitely pre 1800 T least, because he was so busy with the contracts.

More thoughts about your antique....

It’s a Golden Age rifle like Mike says.
It’s signed by a known maker

I have studied the photos quite a bit and it has some really interesting features.

Chip carving....
That is not that common on a long rifle
That’s a neat feature
It has a mix of inscised and relief carving that is typical of a Golden Age rifle

The rifle had a long period of use

I do not believe the barrel keys were part of the original build. I believe they were added later. One of the keys goes through the lower forestock carving
I believe the rifle originally had barrel pins but were replaced with keys.

Likely the rifle spent some time as percussion.
This would match the keys....
Theres no close up photos of the vent area
I would expect to see some erosion on the barrel there and evidence of a drum

The rifles lower forestock was shattered and glued back together
They did a decent job but I wonder if the entire upper forestock is a replacement

Lock region.....

All of that looks to new to me. I wonder how much has been replaced there.
Since it looks like it had a long period of use I would expect to see quite a bit of erosion and missing wood due to fulminate of mercury.....
Percussion caps.
Side plate and lock bolts.....maybe even the lock....
These look straight from Track of the Wolf
The brass is over finished....a lot may be replacement

Workmanship of the restoration.....
I’m going to give it a C....A C because they did not destroy it.

There is some impatience shown. The forward lock bolt is pressing on the frizzen spring. That bolt is not fitted. That’s poor work when you consider what this rifle is. Is there more poor work not apparent?

It’s too nice of a rifle to have hacky stuff like that done to it.

What hurts this rifle the most is, it does not have the “look”.
It looks like a new contemporary piece. You bought it as a modern made rifle.

In my opinion that rifle needs some expert restoration work to correct previous restoration work.

This needs to be done by someone good and I mean good. Somebody that knows their stuff.
Anybody that tells you it’s F&I or pre Rev War....immediately scratch them off your list.

Value....
Let’s just say it’s worth having it evaluated by someone who knows these
These folks are few and far between

Restoration
Again.... folks than can do it.....and do it right
Few and far between

It’s worth doing but only if done right

You may want to bail and get the quick money

 

[Comfortably_Numb]

Is all this 50vs54 simply due to those being the most economical "larger" rifle barrels on the market? In other words woul 58 or 62 be a better choice but isn't discussed because they aren't as cheap or as common?

.50 through .62 have been the same price in my world

 

[Commodore Swab]

.50 through .62 have been the same price in my world

Same here but I was referring more to percussion/flink rifles that can be found new for under $400, Cabela's type stuff

 

[Col. Batguano]

Dialn911, I also would recommend a larger calibre for elk. My last elk hunt I called a nice bull in to 40 yards and he stopped broadside to me. My 58 round ball hit in the ribs and he moved about fifteen feet forward and stood there. When he walked away I went to that spot and found a blood pool that my cowboy hat wouldn’t cover. I tracked him for over a quarter mile then went to camp for help. The four of us worked that mountain side for hours but couldn’t find him. I spent the next two days reworking that area. I didn’t find him, and felt tremendously sad about it still.

That's too bad. I wonder if you might have hit the shoulder blade and the ball blew up on you? The relatively close range and a heavy charge / high velocity can sometimes do that. I had that happen with a small deer once and a .308 Win with a plain jacketed bullet at 15 yards. I now only use Nosler premium bullets for hunting. We need to have someone come up with a way to cast a partitioned round ball. It could be done.

 

[Psycho Mike]

I don't think we're on different pages...

the .54 could statistically be significant in outcome because it might give more people confidence.

Confidence goes a long way, And if you're convinced that a 54 caliber is somehow going to make you more proficient within a certain range, That can absolutely affect outcomes based on how the data is collected.
That would be hard to measure though.

You would have to try to gather data of elk by the same shooter, putting balls where they need to be, on multiple Elks in the same general area between the 2 calibers to get a real base point of capability.

There's a lot of hunters on forums who've used both that don't notice a different, I'm likely to bet that a lot of these personal claims, is seat of your pants of dyno stuff.

In other words, anyone that tinkers with cars, who puts a cold air intake on the car and the marketing says it's gonna give you up to 20 or 30 horsepower, and then they drive around and they're convinced that they can actually feel significant differences... and yet you put it on the Dyno and the gains are marginal at best and would likely not be noticeable at all.


just to clarify,
bullets do not depend solely on kinetic energy to deal out damage to tissue, i.e the impact.
Is tissue damaged by impact and energy?

To some extent, but bullets primarily rely on crush tissue damage in its wound channel path, no different than an arrow severing blood vessels in its path.
the only difference is that a bullet is crushing tissue as it travels in the channel path.

Take for example an 855 green tip 556 round.
You'll often hear guys that were overseas complain how the bullets would zip right through their Target, still hitting it with full Energy but not doing a ton of Damage.

That's because those are penetrator rounds, and they're not really meant for anti personal use, like the 55 grain softcore 556 round, swap that out with a 55 grain softcore, and you have a much significant effect on target, because it begins to fragment and mushroom travel through the body creating a much bigger wound channel.

That's one downside of steel core penetrator rounds used by the enemy, 762x39 with a steel core, a lot of times zip right through in and out and the wound channels are not terribly significant.

That's the entire concept for using jacket at hollow points in a pistol, because ball rounds create small channels compared to a jacket hollow point opening up and creating a big wound channel in its path, severing blood vessels by crushing as it moves.

It's not relying on it's kinetic energy to destroy the tissue, it's relying on enough energy to reach the vitals and destroy as much blood vessels and important tissue in its wound channel as it travels, no different than an arrow needing to go deep enough to get to vitals, cutting blood vessels and tissue in its path.

A mushroomed or opened up bullet expanding, and traveling through, definitely creates more destruction than a Broadhead that doesn't expand.

Different mechanisms of severing blood vessels, same concept.

The point between comparison, is that regardless of an arrow slipping in and cutting, it has far less foot-pounds of power to enter into the vital area, there is no way it outperforms a 50 Cal round ball placed on a vital shot, and yet nobody sits there and questions the capability of a Broadhead on a hunt, and tells people they need to step it in to something much bigger or else it would be unethical or impractical.

Look a Heart hit with a 50 ball, vs an arrow, the Heart hit by the ball is hamburger.

But here's a real reason why I got on this topic.
I'm seeing guys out here acting like anything under a 54 caliber for an elk is completely out of the question, which is just ridiculous when you really get into the science behind it, a 50 caliber ball is not going have any problem even at the end of its range envelope of practicality at a 100 yd, reaching the vitals within an elk and doing significant damage.

That's really the crux of it right there, both calibers are pretty much limited to the same range envelope, and both calibers will absolutely effectively cause enough damage in the vitals to put the animal down, so everyone sitting here acting like you have to hunt elk with a 54 caliber or higher, that's just not reality.

I'm not saying you're making that claim, but that is why I got into the weeds of this, because I see this all the time when it comes to ballistic claims, and I'm actually involved in ballistic studies and testing, so it's something that kind of drives me nuts a little bit
Don't even get me started on 9 mm verse 45ACP, totally different animal, because you're dealing with a human threat that may be trying to kill you as quickly as possible with a firearm, and in that particular scenario, larger bore in a pistol caliber is absolutely significant when comparing differences in its ability to put the Lights out quickly, Given it's not an central nervous hit.

Surprisingly, the amount of damage from the energy imparted by a bullet is significant, in many cases even more so than the hole it makes (though that's far from insignificant either). It's easy to see the hole, but that's only part of the damage done.

To touch on the difference, we can look at small game hunting with a bow. Traditionally, it is done with a blunt tip (these days, a specific hard rubber one or a .38cal casing on the end if the arrow are easy choices). Even with zero penetration, you can quickly put an end to squirrels, prairie dogs, rabbits etc. due to the trauma caused by the transfer of energy. An arrow doesn't have sufficient energy to take down bigger game this way...hence the switch to broadheads for the different mechanism (cutting vs. energy transfer).

If it helps...as a way to try to separate the damage from the penetration of a bullet vs. the energy it imparts, think of an explosion....you can be killed by just the concussive energy without being even singed by the flame or touched by flying debris: the energy it imparts crushes the tissue (even if just momentarily) and does massive internal trauma. The slow-mo videos of someone getting punched or of a bullet going into ballistic jelly show the same thing....some pretty massive tissue (or jelly) displacement from the energy imparted before things settle back / close up to "normal" again. That's why a heart hit with a .50cal turns it into hamburger...not only do you have a ~.75 inch hole (assuming 50% mushrooming), but the energy pulverizes the rest of the tissue. With an arrow, most of the heart is intact (pretty much zero energy damage) and would be perfectly functional, other than the issue of the 2+ inch wide cut clean through it. Either way, if the shot is placed right, it results in a quick, clean kill.

Sure, an arrow or bullet can carry far beyond their effective killing envelopes (say 50 yards for an arrow....where the issue generally is getting the arrow consistently on target...or something over 100 yards for a round ball where the energy starts being insufficient)... but it sounds like most folks here are on the same overall page when it comes to hunting: regardless of what you take into the field, keep it legal, stay within its performance envelop and put the shot where it has to go.

The bluster, whether it be about performance of one caliber vs. another (here) or one finish vs. another (one of my threads), is that everyone has their own opinions and reasons for them. Sometimes those opinions are inflexibly held and that leads to the same sorts of difference of opinion issues here that you get in other arenas like sports, sex, politics and religion If we all try to keep it civil and respectful, the community will continue to be strong...even if we don't agree on everyting.

 

[Dialn911]

Surprisingly, the amount of damage from the energy imparted by a bullet is significant, in many cases even more so than the hole it makes (though that's far from insignificant either). It's easy to see the hole, but that's only part of the damage done.

To touch on the difference, we can look at small game hunting with a bow. Traditionally, it is done with a blunt tip (these days, a specific hard rubber one or a .38cal casing on the end if the arrow are easy choices). Even with zero penetration, you can quickly put an end to squirrels, prairie dogs, rabbits etc. due to the trauma caused by the transfer of energy. An arrow doesn't have sufficient energy to take down bigger game this way...hence the switch to broadheads for the different mechanism (cutting vs. energy transfer).

If it helps...as a way to try to separate the damage from the penetration of a bullet vs. the energy it imparts, think of an explosion....you can be killed by just the concussive energy without being even singed by the flame or touched by flying debris: the energy it imparts crushes the tissue (even if just momentarily) and does massive internal trauma. The slow-mo videos of someone getting punched or of a bullet going into ballistic jelly show the same thing....some pretty massive tissue (or jelly) displacement from the energy imparted before things settle back / close up to "normal" again. That's why a heart hit with a .50cal turns it into hamburger...not only do you have a ~.75 inch hole (assuming 50% mushrooming), but the energy pulverizes the rest of the tissue. With an arrow, most of the heart is intact (pretty much zero energy damage) and would be perfectly functional, other than the issue of the 2+ inch wide cut clean through it. Either way, if the shot is placed right, it results in a quick, clean kill.

Sure, an arrow or bullet can carry far beyond their effective killing envelopes (say 50 yards for an arrow....where the issue generally is getting the arrow consistently on target...or something over 100 yards for a round ball where the energy starts being insufficient)... but it sounds like most folks here are on the same overall page when it comes to hunting: regardless of what you take into the field, keep it legal, stay within its performance envelop and put the shot where it has to go.

The bluster, whether it be about performance of one caliber vs. another (here) or one finish vs. another (one of my threads), is that everyone has their own opinions and reasons for them. Sometimes those opinions are inflexibly held and that leads to the same sorts of difference of opinion issues here that you get in other arenas like sports, sex, politics and religion If we all try to keep it civil and respectful, the community will continue to be strong...even if we don't agree on everyting.

I agree, I wasn't even looking into debating caliber, and I'm not even arguing that the larger bores don't cause some more damage, because obviously they would and do.
My only issue was when people were basically claiming that a 50 is too small.

An interesting claim, considering it's a very common round for Elk and has done the job for hundreds of years.

It may be preferable for some to use the larger caliber's, but it would be silly to take a position that a 50 is not sufficient.

It's like 556 and 308. The 556 is sufficient in killing humans, but a 308 is even better.

depending on the situation will depend on which one I would choose, I've carried both on duty, but I wouldn't sneeze at a 556.

I've gone over to 308 as my primary caliber for that sort of thing, however.

 

[Dialn911]

Is all this 50vs54 simply due to those being the most economical "larger" rifle barrels on the market? In other words woul 58 or 62 be a better choice but isn't discussed because they aren't as cheap or as common?

Probably.

 

[Dialn911]

More thoughts about your antique....

It’s a Golden Age rifle like Mike says.
It’s signed by a known maker

I have studied the photos quite a bit and it has some really interesting features.

Chip carving....
That is not that common on a long rifle
That’s a neat feature
It has a mix of inscised and relief carving that is typical of a Golden Age rifle

The rifle had a long period of use

I do not believe the barrel keys were part of the original build. I believe they were added later. One of the keys goes through the lower forestock carving
I believe the rifle originally had barrel pins but were replaced with keys.

Likely the rifle spent some time as percussion.
This would match the keys....
Theres no close up photos of the vent area
I would expect to see some erosion on the barrel there and evidence of a drum

The rifles lower forestock was shattered and glued back together
They did a decent job but I wonder if the entire upper forestock is a replacement

Lock region.....

All of that looks to new to me. I wonder how much has been replaced there.
Since it looks like it had a long period of use I would expect to see quite a bit of erosion and missing wood due to fulminate of mercury.....
Percussion caps.
Side plate and lock bolts.....maybe even the lock....
These look straight from Track of the Wolf
The brass is over finished....a lot may be replacement

Workmanship of the restoration.....
I’m going to give it a C....A C because they did not destroy it.

There is some impatience shown. The forward lock bolt is pressing on the frizzen spring. That bolt is not fitted. That’s poor work when you consider what this rifle is. Is there more poor work not apparent?

It’s too nice of a rifle to have hacky stuff like that done to it.

What hurts this rifle the most is, it does not have the “look”.
It looks like a new contemporary piece. You bought it as a modern made rifle.

In my opinion that rifle needs some expert restoration work to correct previous restoration work.

This needs to be done by someone good and I mean good. Somebody that knows their stuff.
Anybody that tells you it’s F&I or pre Rev War....immediately scratch them off your list.

Value....
Let’s just say it’s worth having it evaluated by someone who knows these
These folks are few and far between

Restoration
Again.... folks than can do it.....and do it right
Few and far between

It’s worth doing but only if done right

You may want to bail and get the quick money

There's 2 good builders in my area, I'll have an assessment in person.

I took the barrel off, I don't see any evidence of glowing war broken for and, I think what you may be seeing is there's faint lines on the forehand that is actually part of the Is echoed of carbon, and some of them are very faint, and if you didn't know any better you would almost think it's a crack.

I'll take better high-definition pictures with my good camera when I get a chance and do a show and tell.

As far as selling it,
I don't care about the money, I care about the history.

 

[Dialn911]

There's 2 good builders in my area, I'll have an assessment in person.

I don't care about the money, I care about the history.

Everybody can now breathe a sigh of relief.

I said I would go with whatever rifle I got a decent deal on, and it looks like I have one lined up by a local builder, in 54 caliber.

That's all he had available anyway.

No one has to worry about me shooting a .50 caliber at bulletproof Elk and having them bounce off, watching them laughing as they run away.
I would be emasculated!

 

[Mad L]

I don't want to take an original out hunting and risk damaging it.

Why would someone want to insult a builder and NOT use the fruits of his/her labor, especially to put meat on the table?

I really don't understand this mindset?
I am pretty sure that No builder pours their heart and soul, sweat and possibly even blood into building a firearm and when done say "I sure hope no one tries to actually hunt with this. I hope whoever gets it just hangs it on their wall and admire it and watch the dust build."

Well, at least I have never heard anyone say that.

Now if it's a piece of junk, pooly made; then perhaps I would try to quietly get rid of if and get one I can use.

But personally, I feels any gun builder, upon completion of a piece, sits back and looks at it and quietly ponders to themself; "I sure hope all this work was not waisted, I hope this piece will go on long after I am gone and possibly put meat on the table for many generations yet to be"

...just my thoughts

 

[Indy Durtdigger]

Why would someone want to insult a builder and NOT use the fruits of his/her labor, especially to put meat on the table?

The rifle is from the later 1700s and has lock issues. Some of the more knowledgeable types on here have gleaned from the pics that it looks to have had extensive repairs and may have been converted to and back from percussion at some point. She needs a good lookin over.

 

[Dialn911]

Why would someone want to insult a builder and NOT use the fruits of his/her labor, especially to put meat on the table?

I really don't understand this mindset?
I am pretty sure that No builder pours their heart and soul, sweat and possibly even blood into building a firearm and when done say "I sure hope no one tries to actually hunt with this. I hope whoever gets it just hangs it on their wall and admire it and watch the dust build."

Well, at least I have never heard anyone say that.

Now if it's a piece of junk, pooly made; then perhaps I would try to quietly get rid of if and get one I can use.

But personally, I feels any gun builder, upon completion of a piece, sits back and looks at it and quietly ponders to themself; "I sure hope all this work was not waisted, I hope this piece will go on long after I am gone and possibly put meat on the table for many generations yet to be"

...just my thoughts

Because it's over 200 years old, and it's a museum peace and a unique part of American history, and I would hate to have that compromised by something as stupid as slipping and hitting it on a rock.

Now, if I lived on the frontier and it was the only thing I had to put meat on the table, that's a different story, but I'm not in that situation.

As far as I can tell, there's not many examples of this Maker's work still existing, and it has some unique carving style, so there's no reason to Risk an example of American history, aside from occasionally shooting it.

I also am not a 100% sure if I should be shooting full charge loads in it until I can have it scrutinized heavily.

Having a gun Smith take a peak down the bore and saying it "should be fine" isn't exactly confidence building with 80-100 grain loads.

 

[Dialn911]

The rifle is from the later 1700s and has lock issues. Some of the more knowledgeable types on here have gleaned from the pics that it looks to have had extensive repairs and may have been converted to and back from percussion at some point. She needs a good lookin over.

Yeah I think some of the assumptions about heavy repairs on the stock are just from not high quality photographs, I don't see any evidence of that looking it over but at the very least l, the lock and the bore need to be heavily scrutinized before running heavy loads.

One Maker I had look at it, said they think the lock is original and it wasn't a reconversion, they just think the hammer may have been replaced as part of a repair, But the hammer's geometry could be off.

She's seeing a builder in Prescott Arizona on Tuesday for a second opinion.