Bought my first two guns ever!

[cynthialee]

I ain't so sure that pistol isn't functional.
That frizzen and pan look like they have seen fire. The proof marks are real enough.
I'd have a gunsmith look over them. We can make all sorts of proclamations online and be dead wrong across the board.

 

[Shine]

That pistol is a prop

 

[Alden]

Looking at the pistol's feather spring in the photo it seems as though there is no room to close frizzen without breaking the screw...

 

[MSW]

I would concur that the pistol is most probably modern. I doubt that the proof marks are consistent with the period, but then again I may well be mistaken. The long gun appears to be an original.

I would say that for what you paid, you did quite well for the long gun, and as regards the pistol, it's a question of whether you like it well enough to hang it on your wall. I would suspect that it started out as a decoration and that someone tried with limited success to bring it into firing condition. As a 'wall hanger,' I think you paid a slightly above average price, but I'm certainly no expert, and my taste runs to the less ornate.

The long gun may well be in shootable condition, and if so, you got a great bargain. (even if not, as a decoration, it is a good deal.

I agree that you should have these guns checked out by a competent gunsmith, preferable one who knows something about muzzleloaders (I knew a fellow in the Fort Bragg area who was a fantastic 'smith when it came to any kind of cartridge weapon, but sent all his blackpowder questions to another gunsmith, because he knew that he knew nothing about muzzleloaders- you're looking for this kind of honesty and candor in a good craftsman).

On balance, I would say you did very well. Good luck with your project.

(by the way, remember that (a) this advice is free, and no doubt well priced... and (b) my opinion and a ticket will get you on the train)

:grin:

 

[Sean Gadhar]

Ok offered with no expertise at all :grin:

In the two photos of the long gun (no close-ups ) I think I can see

dents in the stock

light pitting on lock & barrel (in the spot where one would expect the Percussion caps would tarnish)

a missing sling

All from two Long shot photos---------------

Now with the handgun here is the rub. . . .

Where are the rubs? :idunno: one would think in 100 years or so that a soft brass nose would have gotten flattened. This gun has two and both seem untouched. I can't imagine that gun getting loaded more then 5-10 times without some wear on that brass.

Some of those little dots in the wood should have been rubbed out.

I am vary much with MacRob46 when he says "The "carving" on the stock looks more like it was "impressed" rather than carved. The decoration on the metal was not chiseled but rather cast in."

In the 7th photo down is that mark on the upper border of the wood, maybe where the background (dots) stamp was mis-hit on the top border?

Sorry but my gut says this is missing the fine work of a presentation gun that might have been kept un marred & is missing the marring that one would expect of a 100+ year old gun that was not kept under glass. :idunno:

 

[Musketeer]

I ain't so sure that pistol isn't functional.

Neither am I. It's definitely a fairly contemporary Italian replica, judging by the proof marks. Though the "engravings" look rather cheesy and not top notch, I wouldn't be too quick to call it a wallhanger. I agree with Cindy, take it to a competent gunsmith and see what they say, rather than taking the word of a bunch of nuts like us on the internet. :haha: :thumbsup:

 

[TFoley]

That pistol is a prop

100% support for this post.

It's decorative wall-hanger - just compare it with a picure of the real thing and you'll see what I mean. And BTW, those stamps are cast-in - examination of the image under high magnification shows radiused edges, NOT sharp indentations. and NOT the minutely raised edges you'd get from the use of a stamp.

Like many of us here, I look at the real thing every day.

I'm also not convinced by the 'jaeger rifle' either. Given the time period in which it purports to have been made, and given that it is allegedly German or Austro-Hungarian, it should be liberally sprinkled with stamped proof marks, inspectors marks, calibre, weight of shot and charge as well as calibre markings in the German gauge measurement system of the time, all over the breech end of the barrel - usually undernetath where they would not detract from the beauty of the finished arm.

We haven't seen a single one of these things so far.

tac

 

[Captjoel]

I have owned a few early to mid 19th century Germanic hunting rifles and have examined many more and have never seen a proof mark on a barrel. Just makers names and places where they were made. I would say the rifle pictured in this thread is the real deal. As to the quality and condition of this piece, more pictures are needed to make that determination.