flinlock

[Dwhite]

Good Morning Folks;
I am new to this forum but have a question regarding two firearms I have.

One is a flintlock which I will discuss here the other is a converted flintlock to percussion I will post a message in the percussion section for that one.

Let me describe the flintlock,
It has no markings as near as I can see.
It has a walnut stock, the barrel is pinned not held to the stock with bands.(Makes me think new england militia musket)
Barrel Length is 29 1/2" to the end of the tang where there is a screw to secure it to the stock.
The lock plate has no teat but is rounded.
The Barrel inside diameter is .541(measured it with vernier calipers).
The barrel is round and has no rifling.
Also has a front sight.
I have pictures if anyone is interested and helping me figure this out.
I have also been told this could be a "kit gun" This gun came from my great grandfather and I am 47 years old and never remember him working on guns. I am not interested in selling but would like to get some history and a value on the piece.

Thank You
Dave White

 

[Zonie]

Dave: As you can tell from the number of responces to your question no one has a clue.
I do have a few questions though.
Is the barrel blued, browned, rusted?

Is the butt of the stock straight or curved?

Is the trigger guard and butt plate iron or brass?

Is there a patch box?

Is there a cheek piece (raised area on the stock for the cheek)?

Is the vertical part of the cock between the mounting screw and the jaws shaped like a S or a wide plate?

Is the frizzen held in place with just a screw or is it trapped between the lockplate and a leg extending from the pan forward (bridled)

Does it have double set triggers or a single trigger?

Does it have a nose cap?

Is the barrel thin (like 1/16 in) or thick walled at the muzzle?

Is the barrel straight or tapered from the breech to the muzzle?

Is it a fullstock or a halfstock?

What is the width and height of the butt plate (in inches)?

Is the buttplate flat, slightly concave or a deep concave curve?

Does the general condition of the stock look like it has been knocked around for 150 or more years? (After 1850 flintlocks were out of favor generally being replaced with the precussion system.)

The short barrel indicates (but does not proove) that it was made in the 1900s. It could have been shortened any time.

Even with all of these questions answered I doubt that anyone can give a good apprasial without looking the gun over and even then, it usually is worth what you can get for it and not a cent more.

 

[musketman]

quote:Originally posted by Dwhite:
I have also been told this could be a "kit gun" This gun came from my great grandfather and I am 47 years old and never remember him working on guns.I highly doubt that it's a kit if it was your great grandfather's, I don't remember "KITS" being sold before 1970ish...

If it was a kit and looks antiqued, then it was highly mistreated or someone is good at faking old guns...

Can you post the pictures you stated having, a picture goes a long way?

 

Perhaps by "kit gun" they meant it was owned by Kit Carson???

Cody

 

[Dwhite]

Let me answer some questions for you.
1. Is the butt of the stock straight or curved?
The butt of the stock is straight. (No curve to fit the shoulder)

2.Is the trigger guard and butt plate iron or brass?
They both are steel

3.Is the barrel straight or tapered from the breech to the muzzle?
It appears tapered from the breech towards the nuzzle end for about 2 inches length.

4.Is it a fullstock or a halfstock?
I can't answer that not knowing what a full stock woukd be for this firearm. It appears full because it has the hole for the rod.

5.What is the width and height of the butt plate (in inches)?
1 9/16 at its widest width and 4 5/8 long

6.Does it have double set triggers or a single trigger?
Double set trigger

7.Is the barrel thin (like 1/16 in) or thick walled at the muzzle?
Wall thickness of barrel is about .100 thick.(Measured with vernier calipers.)

I will try and post the pictures. If they aren't up by the end of the day then I am having trouble posting them.

Dave

 

[Dwhite]

Here is a picture of the lock portion of the flintlock. I will post one of the entire gun also.

 

[Dwhite]

here is a picture of the firearm

 

[musketman]

The double throat flint hammer looks like those found on the The US model 1816 musket...

I only see one musket style trigger on the pictures posted, no double set triggers...

Dwhite:
If it's not too much trouble, can we see a picture of the other side of the musket, directly accross from the lock, mainly the brass/steel plate holding the lock in place...

Also, the area where the BARREL BAND once was, I would like to see what shape the band was...

"It looks to me like it may have been a quick repair job to hold the barrel in place, wet rawhide bands sewn in place and allowed to dry tight was a common repair used by trappers and indians alike...

These repairs made a large, square or rectangle band mark on the stock and barrel."

 

[Dwhite]

My mistake, I thought what was being asked if the trigger had two spots it cocked in.(shows my ignorance). At anyrate here is a picture of the opposite side of the firearm. The band marking on the stock you refer to is on the other firearm(the percussion) This band is made of brass and is crimp over the stock between the stock and barrel.

As you can see there is no plate to hold the lockplate on just screws thru the stock.

The barrel is held on the stock by pins, I have taken the barrel off the stock and have found that the stock appears to have been machined using a tablesaw. There is a circular cut in the stock where material was removed to seat the barrel.

 

[musketman]

quote:Originally posted by Dwhite:
As you can see there is no plate to hold the lockplate on just screws thru the stock.The reason I asked to see the back side of the lock is because some gun makers use a special plate design that is found on certian types of muzzleloaders. (example: Trade muskets have a serpent design on them)


This could be a parts gun, a gunsmith of that era could have assembled a firearm out of extra random parts.

The musket looks like it may have been a trade item for the Indians, usually plain wood and stripped of fancy hardware.

 

[musketman]

I was looking through a bunch of muskets for you and I found this... I think it looks close, what do you think...

TYPE I MODEL 1816 CONTRACT MUSKET BY H. OSBORNE

http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976358648.htm

The caliber is different, but the lock and stock are a close match, could be the same makers did both... I'll keep on looking until I find an exact match...

 

[Dwhite]

The lock shape looks close kinda hard to tell cause the picture is dark.

The trigger is straighter by the looks.

If it indeed is a 1816 Osborne how do we explain the circlar marks in the stock where the barrel seats as if sawn with a motorized saw blade.

Being that old wouldn't it be chiseled?


Dave

 

[musketman]

quote:Originally posted by Dwhite:
If it indeed is a 1816 Osborne how do we explain the circlar marks in the stock where the barrel seats as if sawn with a motorized saw blade.I have worked in a water mill that was also a saw mill for a dozen years, the water wheel could supply both buhr stones and saw blade with power, it was built in 1803.

But, I'm begining to think that someone, (before your great grandfather got it) may have tried to alter this muzzleloader.

Could you remove the lock (the two screws on the far side of it) and see it there is any markings as to who built it, I'm getting stumped...

Better yet, mail me the musket and I will...