Military Style Jaeger Flintlock - What Age, What Country?

[JDaggett]

I am trying to figure out what this rifle is ”“ it is flintlock .60 caliber Jaeger Rifle in military configuration. Can you help me identify this??
This is a Jaeger rifle, the type brought to this country by German gunsmiths, and a forerunner of the classic Pennsylvania / Kentucky rifle. It has no markings visible, except the G P and G M branded letters in the stock.

It is about .60 caliber, with a fast twist to the rifling. The barrel is 28-1/4 inches long; the overall length is 44 inches. It has a bayonet stud on the right side of the barrel, now gone. It sure looks like a military version to me. It does look a good deal like the German rifles brought to the US by the British in the Revolutionary War along with Jaeger rifleman hired from the German States.

There is a mark on the inside of the lock, two letters.

I would like to figure out what this is, and put a flint cock back on, if I know what sort it should have. I might sell at some point but for now, just want to figure out what I have, and also want to know what those large letters in the wood mean.

 

[Jim Blair]

Just a guess but something tells me that might be something other than Germanic.Maybe Denmark or one of the Scandanavian countries post 1800 to 1820 or maybe 30.

 

[JDaggett]

Those large round headed screws on both the lockplate and especially the butt plate look like the protrucing round head screws you see on the Dutch flintlocks using in our Revolution, don't they?
I am interested in knowing what sort of cock would go on this lock - perhaps a flat one, like the one made for the germanic jaeger rifles by R E Davies?
JDaggett

 

[Rifleman1776]

Certainly interesting and appears restorable. As suggested, you won't go far wrong with the Davis upgrade cock. It might need a little modifying for appearance but that is a matter of taste. I have an article from a 1971 American Rifleman magazine I'll be happy to e-mail you. It might have some useful info. PT me if interested. The single trigger bothers me. I know it is probably part of being a military version but the Jaeger style setts really seem to belong there.

 

[ken.clements]

somehow or other my reply is gone :idunno:
I looked in the net on some collector pages here in Germany and I would suggest, just maybe a Preussen between 1790 1820.
I am not an expert in this area (or any to be exact :redface: )but the vor runners of Jaeger were the Preussen. http://www.waffensammler-kuratorium.de/prjb1796/prjb1796da.html

 

[tecum-tha]

My answer is gone as well?????
I don't think it is a prussian jaegercorps rifle. Too many differences in the architecture, no flip up sights,too.
What does the barrel say?

 

[JDaggett]

There are no markings visible on the barrel, and there is not enough wear on the barrel for there to have been markings worn or rusted off.
I will take this apart and check the bottom of the barrel for markings.
But the lack of proofs would suggest this was made made on military contract, correct?
Is it true that early arms used by the riflemen of the various german states might not be marked?
JD

 

[tecum-tha]

The private supplied weapons did not have a boyonett lug.
The barrel flats could have some kind of mark. The lack of a mark/signature says it was a lower grade/not mastergrade piece. It does not say anything about being a contract rifle.
The contract makers should be well known, because everything was recorded back then in the appropriate budget books.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

.................
But the lack of proofs would suggest this was made made on military contract, correct?
Is it true that early arms used by the riflemen of the various german states might not be marked?
JD

If military, the barrel should be proof marked, but then a civilian piece would have proof markings as well. Check the bottom of the barrel, the German (or Scandinavian?) makers often applied markings where they can not be seen on cursory examination.

 

[Mike Brooks]

I'd say Swiss, about 1800.

 

[Jim Blair]

On another forum I'm on a new member posted in from Switzerland,I sent him message and a link to this thread.Maybe he will be able to shed some enlightenment or provide some links that might shed a little light.He collects vintage military firearms but not that old.

 

[Rifleman1776]

What does the barrel say?

boom?

 

[Stophel]

.................
But the lack of proofs would suggest this was made made on military contract, correct?
Is it true that early arms used by the riflemen of the various german states might not be marked?
JD

If military, the barrel should be proof marked, but then a civilian piece would have proof markings as well. Check the bottom of the barrel, the German (or Scandinavian?) makers often applied markings where they can not be seen on cursory examination.

There were no proof laws in Germany at the time. Actually, there was no "Germany" at the time. German flintlock guns are OFTEN totally unmarked. Any marks found on the barrel breech are maker's marks.

Again, the rifle looks like post 1800. Cannot say where from, styles were very "homogenized" by this time, particularly military rifles. Everyone followed the Prussian form to one extent or another. The lock is VERY French in style, which means nothing, other than the lock is French in style. If the rifle is Swiss, the butt lettering might be Canton marks, but I have no idea what they might be. :idunno: Probably just unit markings.

 

[ken.clements]

What does the barrel say?

boom?

:rotf:

 

[ken.clements]

how many lands and grooves? is it Metford rifling?

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

There were no proof laws in Germany at the time. Actually, there was no "Germany" at the time. German flintlock guns are OFTEN totally unmarked. Any marks found on the barrel breech are maker's marks.

Again, the rifle looks like post 1800. Cannot say where from, styles were very "homogenized" by this time, particularly military rifles. Everyone followed the Prussian form to one extent or another. The lock is VERY French in style, which means nothing, other than the lock is French in style. If the rifle is Swiss, the butt lettering might be Canton marks, but I have no idea what they might be. :idunno: Probably just unit markings.

Thanks for straightening me out Herr Stophel, though I have seen proof marks on German military arms of the period so maybe only military arms of a standard pattern? :idunno:

You and Mike have also pointed out, correctly, that it could have been made in Switzerland.

 

[Dphar]

Probably early 19th century.
The fast twist is the result of their thinking the ball needed one turn in the length of barrel.
Common theory in England where they also thought the larger the ball the faster the twist must be.
This is why the Americans generally outshot the Genman Jaegers in the Revolution.

Dan

 

"The Standard Directory of Proof Marks" by Gerhard Wirnsberger is the book to go to for most antique arms consulants. Pg. 30 GERMANY "The first true German proof marks have been traced to as eary as 1850. The first known Suhl proof mark dates to 1600 and consists of the city mark with a somewhat styliized chicken (Henne in German)....." "Military arms made in Suhl between 1600 and 1690--and this despite the fact that the town and all gun making establishments were destroyed by a troop of Imperial Croats in 1634--bear the escutcheons of the town, a footprint with an imbedded ax." The same marking was used all the way up to 1939. The book talks about proof marks being used in several towns found on barrels as early as 1545. There are several towns that required proof marks in their early history.

 

[jan_buchwald]

Rifling style and twist looks like the danish Army Jaeger 1790 - 1800, rate of twist, 1 in 24". Stock is not. They shoot actremely well.