Search results

Probably contemporary to the Civil War, just in a different part of the world!

The originals were not made with Damascus barrels. It was common on shotguns, I've never heard of a Damascus barreled rifle though. Enfield rifle musket barrels were formed from a single strip of iron and run through a series of U shaped rollers that curled the metal into a tube and the joint...

There should be a date code, two letters in a box. https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/italian-date-codes-replaced.134783/

I don't think anyone can really say why they were made that way, anything without documentation is just speculation. Some possibilities have been mentioned already, or it may have been so such a high front sight wasn't necessary. Why swamped at all? might have just been easier to make a...

I just don't see it being a legit Enfield, too many red flags. A lot of crude Khyber pass guns were brought back by servicemen I suspect something of that sort.

I thought you said it was a smoothbore?

I don't think it's a legit Enfield, maybe one of the Nepalese or Afghan made copies. No markings, lock panels shaped wrong, crude workmanship.

I have an Armi San Paolo 1860 Army and a Pietta hand was close enough to make it work.

Did you bend the hand when reassembling? Mine is pretty tricky, you have to use a thin bladed knife to push the hand back into the slot to get the cylinder back in.

I've had several Investarm [Lyman] flintlocks, my only complaint is the touch hole liner. Failure to fire like this is not unusual. I usually enlarge the hole a little bit, or you can get a quality replacement liner.

I like the idea of the more traditional sights. The screws are your personal preference, but steel screws are correct for 19th century guns and I would stick with them.

Thank you for this, I suggested it once and was ridiculed. https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/sprue-up-or-down.171879/page-3

It's actually an artifact from how the channel was drilled. Straight in from the side, and the hole plugged with a screw. I believe the 1861 specials and 1863's were drilled on an angle right from the nipple hole.

I would say if it doesn't come out easily then leave it alone. I have had one for years and never remove it.

That type of breech is fine, many of the modern repros use that type.

The flint? That is just to grip it in place, it gives the jaws of the hammer something softer to bite into, also adds something like a shock absorber so it isn't metal against flint which can cause chipping and cracking of the flint. I have gone without out of necessity, but you'll get longer...

Traditions 1861's are made by Chiappa/Armisport. I've had an Armisport for years, they are a decent gun. It really depends on what you want one for, and what your expectations are. They aren't bad shooters when you develop a good load.

Love it! Looks like he is less than an hour from me and I didn't know of him. Just the kind of gun I like!

This doesn't answer your question at all, but take your time with building your gun. These can make a great gun, but there is a lot of work to get it right, a ton of wood to remove and shape. Study a lot of pictures of originals and don't be afraid to ask questions, pay close attention to...

No such animal as a Pietta 1861 in .44. If you mean the 1860 Army in .44 then no it won't work. The .44 cylinder is stepped up on the forward part to accommodate the larger caliber and the frame is notched for the cylinder. If you mean 1851 instead of 1861 then the answer is the same, won't work.