Please help identify

[j.smith]

Hello, I need help identifying a flintlock riffle. There is no date stamped. It is 57 1/2 inches long. The barrel is 42 inches. There is a rampant lion just in front of the hammer, also a crown with a 3 under it. On the barrel there is L.H. follwed by what appears to be a GCS made from a series of dots, maybe from a punch. Over that, there is an M, also there is one dot surrounded by four others on the barrel tang. I was told it was .58 cal but I think it is larger. Also told it was made for commercial sale as opposed to a military contract. Any help is greatly appreciated.

 

[ebiggs1]

I am guessing a 1777 Corrige.

 

[ohio ramrod]

UNBELIVABLE! :thumbsup: Your first post and you got so many pictures posted. I still cann't get more than one picture a post to work! If any!

 

[j.smith]

Thanks O.R., but I had alot of help.

 

[Zonie]

Welcome to the Forum.

I'm moving this to the Firearms Research section because this would seem to be a true antique.

I don't know why you were told it was a commercial gun because many of its features say "Military" to me. Perhaps the absence of a Military acceptance stamp on the stock?

The spring method of retaining the barrel bands, the small nub behind the muzzle that is there to lock a bayonet, the sling swivels are all military features.

Many military muskets have a steel sideplate opposite the lockplate to reinforce the stock but I would think that the absence of one would not be an indication that the gun was a civilian firearm.

As for the caliber, I would expect it to be close to a .69.
A new dime is .673 in diameter so if it "almost" fits into the muzzle it is likely a .69.
A penny is .748 in diameter so if it just fits into the bore the gun is probably a .75, the caliber of the British Brown Bess.

There may be additional markings on the bottom of the barrel near the breech. Have you removed the barrel to look at that area?
A recognizable proof mark would be a great help in figuring out what you have.

 

[j.smith]

Thank you for your reply Zonie, I have not removed the barrel to look for marks. I am afaid of scratching the patina, it is scratches very easy as I have found out.

 

[Tumblernotch]

It looks like the 1772 variant of the M1763 French musket made by in Charleville, St. Etienne and Maubeuge. But this one has an oddly shaped cock and is missing the sideplate using washers instead. Also, the barrel band springs are forward instead of behind the bands. I haven't found the rampant lion mark on any other French muskets yet. The small crown with the 3 may be a St. Etienne mark but I'm not sure. I do know that Charleville used the fleur de lis. The low comb on the stock was first used on the M1772. About all I have for now. It's a nice piece.
:thumbsup:

 

[Tumblernotch]

Just found a M1843 British cavalry pistol (percussion) with an almost identical rampant lion lock marking.
:hmm:

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Excellent work on the photographs so far. Can you show a better picture of any markings on the breach of the barrel? We see the "punch marks" on the breach plug tang, are there any markings in front of that? That will determine the national origin.

I can tell you this, the lock is a late British East India Company musket or rifle lock as KanahwaRanger has suggested and the majority of the rest of the musket is French in style but may be American.

The "patina" that you are so justifiably careful of is probably a preservative lacquer that was put on it long ago.

 

[j.smith]

I was also told the crown was a giveaway that it was british? but the same person told me it was .58 cal and non military, the dime just fit so Im thinking .69 cal, thanks for the help everyone!

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

The caliber of .69 also indicates either French or American origin. American is most likely, we'll know more when we see proof marks.

 

[j.smith]

yes, more photos tonight.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

yes, more photos tonight.

That's good. I'll bet that by the time I get onto the computer tomorrow that there will be a ton of good posts telling you exactly what you have. JV Puleo, where are you?

Looking forward to it.

 

[JV Puleo]

England.

L.H. - Luke Harrington, "prover of firearms" in Millbury, Massacusetts. He proved Asa Waters made barrels. The marks should be LH (date) under P M. I'm not certain I understand the business with punch marks and without much better pictures I can't be certain. It is a British-made lock of the post 1809 pattern and the rampant lion is the appropriate EIC marking. I'd make it a Massachusetts musket made from an Asa Waters barrel and a surplus EIC lock. The other mountings may have been condemned armory parts. It was a commercial product made to sell to an individual militia member. Massachusetts required all members of the militia to supply their own arms until 1842.

I've handled hundreds of them but I've never seen one with that lock before.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

England, a good place to be. I agree 100%. The lock is a surprise though, I am especially surprised at the "rainproof" pan.

 

[j.smith]

Here are some more photos of the marks. First, the one dot surrounded by four others on the tang. Very clearly seen, then unknown mark I can't tell what it is. About 1/2 inch to the right of that there is an M. Below that LH, finally just right of that is the series of dots which seems to be GCS. Also wondering what would be the correct bayonet and sling for this flintlock. I see often on the history channel, they (the military) using white slings. thanks in advance.

 

[Tumblernotch]

Was Luke Harrington the Massachusetts inspector? I don't have him in my US Inspectors list. I was getting suspicious about that British marking. The low comb and separate sling swivel stud makes me think they patterned it from a Type I M1816 musket. The double forend band as well. Apparently they got ahold of a batch of British locks that are close enough to the French and American locks to work. Pretty unusual to me and interesting.

 

[Zonie]

The "Eagle" flask is shown in the book THE POWDER FLASK BOOK", Ray Riling, MCMLIII, as number 797.

On page 338 the author says,
"Flask Figures 791, 792, 797, and 798 show a rather late design (certainly after 1857) of the American Flask & Cap Company, which shoud be properly designated by collectors with the maker's description...
Flask Figures 797 and 798 show 8 ounce examples of the coat of arms flask. The former, with common top and graduated charger; the latter, with sloping, tilted, or navy charger. Both will be seen to be equipped with carrying cord rings. The decoration on flasks of this sort could be had from the manufacturer on one or both faces of the flask, and with either decore arrangement was available equipped with common spring, common spring unscrew, patent inside spring, or patent outside spring top. Style of chargers could be furnished as ordered."

 

[j.smith]

Thank you Zonie, I forgot to mention those items came with rifle.

 

[JV Puleo]

You won't find the Massachusetts "provers of firearms" in any of the published lists - except an article I wrote for Man at Arms about 30 years ago. I can probably take credit for having discovered who they were although Dwight Demerit preceded me in publishing something about the proof law in his "Maine Made Guns." They weren't inspectors in the sense that they inspected the gun. No one did that. They proved the barrels according to the requirements of the Massachusetts proof law of 1805(? I have to recheck that date but its either 04 or 05).

This was a civil, not a military or militia related position, something that originally confused me for a long time since the marks appear almost exclusively on military-style muskets. The names of those appointed are found in the same ledger as Coroners and Justices of the Peace.

Something has clearly been altered in that marking. I have no idea what the punch markings are supposed to signify but on the barrel they almost certainly obscure the date. Otherwise the marking is completely kosher.