Hamilton Burr duel commemorative set

[dave_person]

Hi,
I have to apologize, Brian. I was completely wrong about your locks. Boy, sometimes I need to recheck my references before I open my mouth because I forget things. I take back what I said about the locks not being like the originals. I looked at my copy of O'Sullivan and Bailey's new book on Wogdon and low and behold Wogdon's locks before about 1780 or so look very close to yours with hooked mainsprings and tumblers without stirrups. My locks represent his fully evolved design from the late 1780s. The implication, assuming the reproductions are accurate, is the the original pistols were made during the 1770s or very early 1780s before Wogdon switched over to stirrup tumblers and pierced bridles. In addition, the Hamilton-Burr pistols have simple fences on the pans not ones with a rain gutters such as my copies. So the pistols when bought by John Church (Hamilton's brother in law) probably in the late 1770s or early 1780s, likely had full walnut stocks, no checkering, and no stirrups on the trigger guards. The heavy brass or bronze forestocks, checkering, and stirrups were added later. The metal ramrods almost certainly are replacements for the original wooden rods. Wogdon appears to have been very conservative and held on to older features longer than other London makers. He was no slave to changes in fashion. While stirrups linking tumbler and mainspring add mechanical advantage affecting the force needed to pull the **** back to full, well designed springs with simple hooks can be pretty darn good. If the hook slides all the way up the toe of the tumbler so that when the lock is pulled to full ****, the end of the hook is tucked right in the corner of the toe and as close to the tumbler axel as possible, the lock will feel and function very like it had a stirrup link. I don't doubt your locks work well if they are close to the originals.

dave

 

[denster]

An additional thought to something Dave referenced regarding the ramrods. The steel replacements are not there to serve as ramrods. They are very tight fit and serve to help stabilize that heavy brass forend. The gunsmith who did the modifications was a skilled craftsman. The desire by the owner to modify what is close to perfection to meet current fad shows we have not progressed all that much from our predecessors.

 

[dave_person]

Hi Denster,
Thanks for that information about the rods. I had no idea they served that function. About those changes in fashion, I agree Wogdon made the finest handling pistols but I also appreciate why gun makers started using heavier barrels to reduce "muzzle flip" and shooting over the mark. As target shooting gained popularity most paper punchers liked heavier barrels. However, I don't like the way they feel in my hand. I've handled Mantons, Nocks, and pistols by Innes, all of 19th century design but much prefer the pair of Wogdons I've handled.

dave

 

[mhb]

I did contact the Smithsonian - National Postal Museum and queried them about the possibility of having someone examine the original pistols in an effort to determine exactly how the foreend weights were attached. They responded quickly but, unfortunately, reported that the pistols had been returned to J.P. Morgan Chase Manhattan; probably in 2018. The Smithsonian could not provide a point-of-contact at J.P. Morgan, and I doubt that there is anyone at that institution who would be interested in resolving the issue or able to do so. Still, if anyone else has a likely approach to that institution, I hope they might follow-up.
I think that the photos of the inside of the Italian locks pretty much knocks in the head the position and claim that the Italians had to, and therefore, did perfectly copy the originals in detail. Such being the case, I still believe that the screw into the bore is another example of the Italians doing it 'their way'.
The only way to actually resolve the issue lies with the original pistols, and I will gladly concede the point if it can be demonstrated that they were modified in the same way.

mhb - MIke

 

[denster]

I did contact the Smithsonian - National Postal Museum and queried them about the possibility of having someone examine the original pistols in an effort to determine exactly how the foreend weights were attached. They responded quickly but, unfortunately, reported that the pistols had been returned to J.P. Morgan Chase Manhattan; probably in 2018. The Smithsonian could not provide a point-of-contact at J.P. Morgan, and I doubt that there is anyone at that institution who would be interested in resolving the issue or able to do so. Still, if anyone else has a likely approach to that institution, I hope they might follow-up.
I think that the photos of the inside of the Italian locks pretty much knocks in the head the position and claim that the Italians had to, and therefore, did perfectly copy the originals in detail. Such being the case, I still believe that the screw into the bore is another example of the Italians doing it 'their way'.
The only way to actually resolve the issue lies with the original pistols, and I will gladly concede the point if it can be demonstrated that they were modified in the same way.

mhb - MIke

What about the photos of the inside of the locks brings you to that conclusion? Did you read Dave's follow up post that the lock internals were in actuality as Wogdon was doing them pre 1780.

 

[Brianc]

Dave cleared up about the locks being at least close to the originals . They’re very much like them according to his reference library. I can’t imagine why they’d go to so much trouble for a part that most buyers would literally NEVER know the difference! If you think about it I’d wager most dueling pistols were rarely fired. These guys that could afford such nonsense weren’t exactly poor every day average Joe’s as I understand it . A colonial gunsmith quite likely took that into consideration as well

 

[dave_person]

Hi Brian,
I think folks practiced with their pistols when they could but you are right that they were not used hard and they were expensive. Some bills show his dueling pistols selling for 16 pounds to 31 pounds depending on the extras. That was at a time when a family of four could live comfortably on 50 pounds a year. Let me include an excerpt from O'Sullivan and Bailey's book about Wogdon:

" Contrary to popular belief, duelling pistols were made as a cased pair, not to provide a weapon for each adversary, but rather so each adversary could have a second pistol if a second shot was required. A serious pistol shot would practice with his own pair of pistols to learn their specific shooting idiosyncrasies - their "dispart", and would be very reluctant to provide one of his pistols to his adversary, who was expected to have his own pistols. Where neither principal owned a pistol, then a pair might be produced to be shared. It was the duty of both seconds to make sure both pistols used in the duel were smooth bored, not rifled, and loaded correctly."

Hence, some makers, including the Mantons, sometimes included shallow "scratch" rifling that was invisible at the muzzle. This stuff is fascinating.

dave

 

[mhb]

As I read Dave's original comments, he said that the lock internals are not historically accurate. His statements on the design of the internals touched specifically on the issue of the mainspring attachment by means of a stirrup and the use of a pierced bridle. The mainspring connection with the tumbler evolved over time, and the pierced bridle geometry did, also. But it is the overall appearance and finish of the internal parts of the reproduction as compared to an original British lock which I see as historically incorrect. The bridle, in particular, is made with no attention to grace or workmanship is as unlike the bridle of an original British dueller's lock as can be imagined.
If I have misunderstood Dave's comments on the reproduction lock, I am sure he will comment further.

mhb - mIke

 

[mhb]

Dave cleared up about the locks being at least close to the originals . They’re very much like them according to his reference library. I can’t imagine why they’d go to so much trouble for a part that most buyers would literally NEVER know the difference! If you think about it I’d wager most dueling pistols were rarely fired. These guys that could afford such nonsense weren’t exactly poor every day average Joe’s as I understand it . A colonial gunsmith quite likely took that into consideration as well

If the 'they' you are thinking of is the Italians, I agree completely, based on my long experience with their work. As to why the original maker would go to so much trouble in making a duelling pistol: it's because his customers expected (and paid for) the 'smith's very best work, which in the case of Wogdon and his peers, was very good, indeed.
As the purchaser anticipated staking his life on the quality and performance of his duellers, he'd have been foolish, indeed, if he did not practice with them.
The quality of the Colonial gunsmiths' work varied widely, of course, as did that of their British contemporaries, but the owner of a set of Wogdon duelling pistols pretty obviously cared to own the best available, and would not likely have entrusted any major alteration of them to any smith he did not consider the best, or among the best. And I still hold that no contemporary gunsmith working at the top of his trade would have resorted to such bad practice as drilling an unnecessary hole into the bore.

mhb - MIke

 

[dave_person]

Hi Mike,
Maybe you missed this post.

Hi,
I have to apologize, Brian. I was completely wrong about your locks. Boy, sometimes I need to recheck my references before I open my mouth because I forget things. I take back what I said about the locks not being like the originals. I looked at my copy of O'Sullivan and Bailey's new book on Wogdon and low and behold Wogdon's locks before about 1780 or so look very close to yours with hooked mainsprings and tumblers without stirrups. My locks represent his fully evolved design from the late 1780s. The implication, assuming the reproductions are accurate, is the the original pistols were made during the 1770s or very early 1780s before Wogdon switched over to stirrup tumblers and pierced bridles. In addition, the Hamilton-Burr pistols have simple fences on the pans not ones with a rain gutters such as my copies. So the pistols when bought by John Church (Hamilton's brother in law) probably in the late 1770s or early 1780s, likely had full walnut stocks, no checkering, and no stirrups on the trigger guards. The heavy brass or bronze forestocks, checkering, and stirrups were added later. The metal ramrods almost certainly are replacements for the original wooden rods. Wogdon appears to have been very conservative and held on to older features longer than other London makers. He was no slave to changes in fashion. While stirrups linking tumbler and mainspring add mechanical advantage affecting the force needed to pull the **** back to full, well designed springs with simple hooks can be pretty darn good. If the hook slides all the way up the toe of the tumbler so that when the lock is pulled to full ****, the end of the hook is tucked right in the corner of the toe and as close to the tumbler axel as possible, the lock will feel and function very like it had a stirrup link. I don't doubt your locks work well if they are close to the originals.

dave

dave

 

[mhb]

Dave:

No, but perhaps I misunderstood what you meant. But, let me ask you: do you believe the reproduction locks are internally a fair representation of Wogdon's work; and, do you know of any other instance of a contemporary of Wogdon's (or any other maker before or since, for that matter) altering or making an attachment to a barrel by means of a screw through and into the bore?
I freely admit what must have already been perfectly clear: my objection to the reproductions' method of attachment of the weights is due to the un-workmanlike and flat boneheaded method by which the work is done, when much better means were and are available to accomplish the same end.
Still, my original intent in this discussion was simply to make the purchaser of these reproductions aware of a condition which is unusual (indeed, unique in my experience) and not readily apparent on casual inspection. The ultimate effect of this condition is debatable (!), as seen in this thread, but I hold that it is neither normal or desirable in a working firearm.
As the facts of the original pistols are seemingly very difficult, if not impossible impossible to acquire, I'll exit the discussion at this point, though this is a topic I'd really like to see resolved.

mhb - MIke

 

[saaman]

I had a set of those beautiful guns temporarily before selling them. Just couldn't afford to keep them.

 

[springfield art]

I recently picked this set up at a pawnshop and was trying to find out what all should be in the case as far as accessories? I’d like to fire them just because (pretty sure previous owner did too) for now they’re behind glass in a curio cabinet. View attachment 78321View attachment 78321View attachment 78322

E-gad, man! Wish I'd stumble across such an item! Not too many pawn shops around here, mostly power tools and crappy stuff.

 

[springfield art]

Interesting! I bet they never thought anyone would actually SHOOT them! And the 3K to 12K ratio of the cost explains why I never got a set back then, even if I'd seen them!

 

[dave_person]

Hi Mike,
I cannot gauge the actual workmanship on the guns without them being in my hands. The looks look right although but they appear to be more crudely made on the inside than any original dueling pistols I've examined. In other words, the parts may be right but the fit and finish may not be up to historical speed. However, they seem to work well. With respect to the barrel weights, I would think lugs could have been soldered on the barrel and then cross pins or soft solder the weights on the barrel. Mike, I have one other thought but it is pure speculation. Wogdon bent his barrels downward so the bore was low at the breech, arcing higher toward the middle and then curving down toward the muzzle. O' Sullivan and Bailey proved that with gauges and radiographs published in their book on Wogdon. After bending, he filed a dramatic swamp in the barrel but the wall thickness was heavier on the bottom of the middle portion of the barrel to hide the bend from detection externally. That meant for much of the barrel's length in the middle the wall thickness was thicker on the bottom. Possibly, the weights were screwed to the barrel but there was enough wall thickness that the screws did not penetrate the bore on the originals. I am sure Uberti did not bend the barrels and file a compensating swamped shape. So the answer could be that the originals were screwed on but the bend in the bore provided enough thickness for threads without drilling into the bore. However, Uberti did the same as the originals but with no bend, the screws went through.

dave

 

[mhb]

Dave:

Thank you for your response. I was aware of the geometry of Wogdon's barrels, both internal and external, and cannot say (for lack of evidential facts) that the screw attachment of the weights to the original barrels was not done in the manner you suggest. But you are obviously aware of the alternate (and proper) means of accomplishing the same ends without drilling into the bore; a thing which I feel sure no competent smith would have done, or do. And I am unaware of any other example of such an operation on any historic firearm whatsoever.
Still, unless and until the facts of the original pair are made known, I can only say "Bah, Humbug!" to whoever did such a thing then or more recently. And pronounce the Black Curse of the barrelmaker upon them...

mhb - MIke

 

[Brianc]

E-gad, man! Wish I'd stumble across such an item! Not too many pawn shops around here, mostly power tools and crappy stuff.

I have a good relationship with the owners and managers of around 10-12 pawnshops within a 150 mile radius and they call when things like this show up

 

[Brianc]

Hi Mike,
I cannot gauge the actual workmanship on the guns without them being in my hands. The looks look right although but they appear to be more crudely made on the inside than any original dueling pistols I've examined. In other words, the parts may be right but the fit and finish may not be up to historical speed. However, they seem to work well. With respect to the barrel weights, I would think lugs could have been soldered on the barrel and then cross pins or soft solder the weights on the barrel. Mike, I have one other thought but it is pure speculation. Wogdon bent his barrels downward so the bore was low at the breech, arcing higher toward the middle and then curving down toward the muzzle. O' Sullivan and Bailey proved that with gauges and radiographs published in their book on Wogdon. After bending, he filed a dramatic swamp in the barrel but the wall thickness was heavier on the bottom of the middle portion of the barrel to hide the bend from detection externally. That meant for much of the barrel's length in the middle the wall thickness was thicker on the bottom. Possibly, the weights were screwed to the barrel but there was enough wall thickness that the screws did not penetrate the bore on the originals. I am sure Uberti did not bend the barrels and file a compensating swamped shape. So the answer could be that the originals were screwed on but the bend in the bore provided enough thickness for threads without drilling into the bore. However, Uberti did the same as the originals but with no bend, the screws went through.

dave

That’s an interesting idea that never occurred to me thank you Dave!

 

[toot]

I had a set of those beautiful guns temporarily before selling them. Just couldn't afford to keep them.
View attachment 78853

those are truly a beautifully set.

 

[Brianc]

those are truly a beautifully set.

Their beautiful looks were what attracted me . My late father loved making furniture ,ie book cases curio cabinets etc so these look pretty behind glass