• 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

Original English 1790-ppep sight!!!

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
My club was forced to make the decision to allow peeps at regular shoots two years ago. We get 12 to 20 shooters at our matches. Of those, maybe three are under age 70. To stay in the game peeps are almost a necessity. Stubborn old me has even accepted this change is necessary to keep the avocation alive.
 
George said:
Where's that from, Claude? Any info on the gun, etc.?

Spence

Spence,
That sight looks very much like it belongs to a 17th century English breech loading rifle that Sir Michael of Brooks owned and was formerly part of the Neal collection. I think it has since found its way back to England.
pm me if you need more info.
 
As to the gun in Jerry's link.... the word "reproduction" has been used very loosely. I doubt seriously that there is a 1790's original of that with stock parts from Jim Chambers. That is a Chambers 1760 lock, mid century sideplate and TG and circa 1700 wrist escutcheon. I would wonder if it was not made from his English rifle kit. IIRC Bob Harn designed the masters for thethe side plate and thumbpiece based on some originals.
 
Rifleman1776 said:
There is a supplier with a nice looking rear peeper that is very traditional in appearance. I have tried to find but no success. Anybody know who this supplier is?
Here is my "traditional" peep sight, which is available from Muzzleloader Builder Supply. You will notice that I do not have the aperture screwed into the sight in these photos.
ApertureSight_2.jpg
 
I have been taking a more serious look at this gun and I agree with you totaly. I don't think this is a reproduction af any particular 18th century rifle. It is sort of a generic as you say. I like the sight but now have serious doubts about the origin. I have about every book ever written on these type guns and am going to do some deep research on this subject.
 
I have been taking a more serious look at this gun and I agree with you totaly. I don't think this is a reproduction of any particular 18th century rifle. It is sort of a generic as you say. I like the sight but now have serious doubts about the origin. I have about every book ever written on these type guns and am going to do some deep research on this subject.
That's a Griffin Fowler side plate. I have sold a dozen of them myself.
 
jerry huddleston said:
I have been taking a more serious look at this gun and I agree with you totaly. I don't think this is a reproduction of any particular 18th century rifle. It is sort of a generic as you say. I like the sight but now have serious doubts about the origin. I have about every book ever written on these type guns and am going to do some deep research on this subject.
That's a Griffin Fowler side plate. I have sold a dozen of them myself.

The side plate from the Griffin gun you mention was used by other gunmakers as well. This one while similar is different in design.
 
jerry huddleston said:
I have been taking a more serious look at this gun and I agree with you totaly. I don't think this is a reproduction of any particular 18th century rifle. It is sort of a generic as you say. I like the sight but now have serious doubts about the origin. I have about every book ever written on these type guns and am going to do some deep research on this subject.
That's a Griffin Fowler side plate. I have sold a dozen of them myself.


Jerry,
Attached is a link to Jim Chamber's website. I'm sure that the rifle in your OP started life as a Chamber's English Gentlemans Rifle. Jim's website gives a little about the development of this particular rifle model. I have one in .58 caliber and it is a wonderful rifle. I believe that Rice Barrels was going to make a few 10 bore barrels in the same basic contour as the Chambers rifle. Also, the pictured rifle doesn't have the patchbox that the kit rifle comes with. I like the stock without the PB better. http://www.flintlocks.com/rifles05.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Either way we can still call it "HC" 'cause it sounds Kool eh? after all the aperture sights on 14th century crossbows is enough of a "proving" connection in itself historicaly no?....A good example of always looking to the originals when determing the PC/HC factor if one is into such nonsense.
 
jerry huddleston said:
I'm sure I have that mold and have sold a dozen or more of them in silver.

They are very close Jerry. I have found at least 10 styles on originals of the period that could not be told apart unless they were side by side.
The sterling one in the middle picture is one of yours of the Griffin gun.

main.jpg



100_0538.jpg
 
why limit to that which was commonly available? Thats borring.

Because when you don't set such a criteria, then the fascinating and uncommonly available piece of material culture from the 18th century may suddenly appear everywhere among people re-creating the time period. :nono:

So while what we commonly refer to today as a " pressure cooker" was known as a "Bone Digester" as early as 1680..., and later versions around 1700 included a pressure valve..., one would be hard pressed to say everybody should have one in their camps at an event representing the year 1780, although a full century since its invention had elapsed. You might have one person at an event with one reproduction of a bone diegester demonstrating it for the tourists, who probably would be surprized at how far back in time the idea and actual application went..., but how many more would be the cutoff point before the picture of history being created was distorted?

OK so the cost of having a repro-pressure cooker machined probably would limit that from being a problem but....even simpler, the Chinese wok probably dates to about 1250 AD..., so about 500 years before the F&I. There was trade with China, Marco Polo being the most famous person to open the roads to the Orient, and later trade by sea..., so it would be quite possible that one could find a person in the 18th century who had sailed to the Far East, learned the use of the wok, brought one or several back, and settled in one of the three major sea ports of Boston, New York, or Charleston, and when that person died the item was listed in a death inventory..., though perhaps in a manner such as "1-Very wide, domed, wrought iron Chinese frypan, with wooden handle - 0/5/6". So you would have a single reference to what very probably is a wok, and proof of it in the Americas....,
:hmm:

Yet we should not all suddenly be cooking Kung Pao chicken or Moo Shi Pork at 18th century living history events..., n'es ce pas ? :wink:

Peep sights did exist, and there are lots of examples from crossbows onward..., I think a better question is not "did they?" but more "why weren't they popular". I think use in low light may be one answer.

LD
 
cynthialee said:
why limit to that which was commonly available?
Thats borring.

I absolutely agree.

There is an issue though of the difference between someone who tries to be historically correct in their own equipment for their own hunting/treking etc and those who do living history or reenactments. In the one case I would say it is perfectly reasonable to use whatever was historically documented for the time and place, even if there's only one example out of 10,000 pieces. (unless they're pretending to be some particular person or something, which is a whole different issue.) In the other case when someone is representing historical personages to the general public then limiting the items to the commonly found items seems reasonable. Although I personally find re-inactors at historical sites to be rather annoying and couldn't care less if they are 'historically accurate' or not since I pretty much ignore them, some people seeing them at historical sites assume that whatever they are doing, dressing like, etc, is representative of the era, so in that case having a lot of uncommon things around would give those people the wrong impression.
 
tg said:
Either way we can still call it "HC" 'cause it sounds Kool eh? after all the aperture sights on 14th century crossbows is enough of a "proving" connection in itself historicaly no?....A good example of always looking to the originals when determing the PC/HC factor if one is into such nonsense.

I didn't call it "HC". I just directed some info, about one of Chamber's specific models, to Jerry H. :idunno:

Now I have to go figure out a period correct mount to slap a lazer sight on my trade gun. I'm thinking about deer antler and rawhide strips....?

:grin:
 
That great old big globe front sight would fill up that rear peep sight. It looks to me like one would not be able to draw a fine sight with that set up. It would be great for hunting big game up close. As it has no elevation flip up sights I guess it would not be great for head shots at 200 yards.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top