brass barrel blunderbuss

[Owen]

Hi.

I know this was made 1740ish and converted 1840ish but looking for a few more details. Navy, postal use? and would like to make a new stock and bits around the barrel in the future. Worth it or not?

Thanks for any help

Owen.

 

[Anders L]

I wouldn´t do much, remove rust and oil it. You could repair major breaks in the wood but otherwise the condition is good enough as it is.
Its a good piece of history there, don´t ruin it.

Great gun! :thumbsup:

 

[Capt. Jas.]

This looks like a martial (due to hardware) piece by Edward North.
My guess is naval use.

I cant make out the barrel makers mark. It's not North's. What are the letters?

 

[David W.]

I wouldn´t do much, remove rust and oil it. You could repair major breaks in the wood but otherwise the condition is good enough as it is.
Its a good piece of history there, don´t ruin it.

Great gun! :thumbsup:

Be extremely careful when cleaning or removing rust. Many an antique has been devalued because the owner though if it were only bright and shinny, it would be worth a whole lot more. WRONG! If you do remove rust, use bronze wool ONLY, DO NOT use steel wool. You don't want to remove any patina on the metal or the wood.

The best bet is to do nothing at all unless you have restoration experience.

 

[firefoot]

PLEASE don't do anything to that gun! It's in too good of condition to get a new stock and pieces as you've said. You will only destroy a piece of history and it's value. I don't think your going to fire it? so whats the point of making a new gun out of it useing some old parts. If you don't like the way it is now then sell it, and get something you like better.

 

[JV Puleo]

Made much closer to 1800 and it is not an Ordnance gun... i.e. it never was owned by the British Crown. It may have seen some sort of seafaring use but on a civilian vessel. More likely it was used on a coach or as the ultimate early 19th century "home defense" gun.

 

[Owen]

Thanks for the info so far.

32" over all lenght Barrel is 16"

The proof marks are

Crown over G?

Something over D.M ( i think is a crown as well)

Crown over V

In side the lock is a stamped I S. out side is MOORE.

 

[Capt. Jas.]

Man was I asleep when I posted! Mr. Puleo is of course right on the mark.

 

[JV Puleo]

The three marks on the barrel are probably "crown/P", a makers mark and "crown/V". They are B'ham private proof marks.

Were it an ordnance gun, it would have Ordnance proofs (which are completely different) and the lock would be marked, just below the flash pan, with a crown over a broad arrow.

Its a purely civilian gun of a type that was very popular around 1800. The brass mounts are copies of those used on the India pattern muskets.

 

[Owen]

Great thanks very much has helped a lot

 

[Capt. Jas.]

OK, I am a little more awake this morning.
Those proof and view marks look like London proofs to me. Owen, can you tell if the view mark is "GP" under a crown like these in figure C?

I ask this because if it is a "GP" and the middle maker's mark is a crown of "DM" then this is possibly Daniel Moore of London. If you can verify this right off the gun then the maker's mark with the signed lock would really lead me to that conclusion.

Daniel Moore (2) was son of gunmaker Daniel Moore (1).
Apprenticed to George Markby 1746
Free of the company 1756
Proof piece and mark (crown of DM) 1758
elected assistant 1761
furbisher Tower of London 1754
Gunmaker corner of Rood Lane, Fenchurch St 1767-77
34 Lime St. 1771-78
15 Fenchurch St. 1777-83
9 Cullum St. 1784-6
Contractor to ordnance 1778-80
East India Co. 1772-1802

 

[Owen]

Thank you for so much info . It is the same one as C. I carnt be sure about the crown over the DM as it is not very clear. but the shape is right for a crown but the DM is very clear.

Again thank you.

Owen

 

[JV Puleo]

London proofs. They should mean that the maker was a member of the Gunmaker's Company but by the time your gun was made, the company proof house (which was and still is privately owned) was allowing non-members to use their facilities. The mark in the middle, between the two London marks, is a maker's mark... a completely conventional marking.

Also by this time, many of the London "makers" were buying in semi-finished guns from B'ham, submitting the barrels for proof in London and finishing them in London in order to maintain the fiction of "London made."

There were two London members of the gunmakers company named Daniel Moore. The earlier one died in 1746, which is much too early for your gun. The latter of the two died in 1802 so if he was active to the end of his life, he could be your man. Its also possible that the mark continued in use after his death by other members of the family - this happened with the Wilson's - two or three generations of makers using the same mark. This is from Howard Blackmore's "London Gunmakers"... an essential reference if you're interested in English guns.

In looking at your pictures again, I think it is possible that the barrel is older than the rest of the gun... perhaps re-used from an earlier arm.

 

[Capt. Jas.]

Mr. Puleo,

To benefit all of us with your knowledge, can you give us an idea of the characteristics you see as later than the barrel on this gun. The lock certainly looks to me to be as old as the barrel due to the thick tail area and slight curve. The signed lock, apparently with the same name as on the barrel to me is a stronger case for it as well.
The lock panels at the rear make me think it was at least restocked in the latter 18th or very early 19th century.

 

[JV Puleo]

I was thinking of the reinforced breech but I agree that the lock is probably also mid-century... the truth is that I was at work and in a hurry when I posted the comments above so I wasn't paying close enough attention to those details. Its the brass mounts, especially the side plate and trigger guard, and the style of the stocking that say 1800. I think your assessment of a rebuilt earlier gun is probably spot on. The initials inside the lock are probably those of the actual lock maker. By the middle of the 18th century this was already a specialty trade and most would have been bought in, probably finished but in the soft state, to be marked and hardened by the "maker". That said, we've no idea who might have restocked it but I'd endorse the idea that the lock and barrel are 40 to 50 years older than the stocking.

 

[sequoia]

Whatever you do don't take it the Pawn Stars! They'll just give to Chumlee to shoot. One of these days they will blow up one of their antique guns. :haha: