Yeah. It’s broke.
Hand built vs production
- Thread starter Dialn911
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
I was told from a very early age ‘beware the man with only one gun’
That has always rung true whether it was a factory or custom gun!
That has always rung true whether it was a factory or custom gun!
Mike in FL
50 Cal.
I have not read this entire thread but I'd like to say I would NOT shoot an elk with a 50 prb. For the animal's sake, it a 54 at least. I realize a 50 was used in the old days, but I'm confident it failed to stop an elk many times. Just me offering an opinion, but I'd get a 1:48 twist Hawken in 54 and use conicals. They can be had in flint. Either way, have a great hunt.
Dialn911
36 Cl.
I'm planning on trying smaller flints, I'm just going off of what a builder told me when he looked at photos of the lock, he very well could be wrong.
Dialn911
36 Cl.
They just messaged me and said it was gunked up.
I thought it sounded off.
I'll move on, can't afford headaches.
Dialn911
36 Cl.
On page 3 I cover this in detail.
Dialn911
36 Cl.
Is it hard to tell from a rifle made in the 1770s vs the 1790s?
Comfortably_Numb
The Evil Mike Brooks
No. 1770s guns have wider and taller buttplates and earlier styled mounts. They are also more likely to have raised relief carving.
Ask for a pix the back of the lock. Ain’t a big deal
54ball
62 Cal.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,116
- Reaction score
- 1,029
I agree
That’s an advanced entry level Kentucky.
In the black closer to “ as found” I would suspect the value would be much, much higher.
It’s had some work done....
How much it’s hard to tell
I guess it’s typical of “restoration” work from 20-50 years ago....
I can see how it could be mistaken for a contemporary piece.
Because of this, I feel it will always hover around entry level
It’s a nice gun by a known maker but in my opinion it’s a little too scary to command a premium price.
To me this is the greatest part of thread rather than the .50 vs .54 thing.
I would not consider a rifle with no half cock for hunting. Maybe get the guy to pull the lock and see if it has one out of the stock. Could be an interference problem.
You can't compare a round ball/bullet with a broadhead. Bullets kill by shock and broadheads kill by hemorrhage. It's now a mantra in the Bowhunter Education Programs.
You can't compare a round ball/bullet with a broadhead. Bullets kill by shock and broadheads kill by hemorrhage. It's now a mantra in the Bowhunter Education Programs.
I have hunted elk with all three calibers, .50, .54 and .58. I stand by my advise to use the .54 or larger in PRB. If all I had was .50 I would not hesitate to use a 370 Hornady Great Plains bullet It will do the trick. . I also have used only 70-80 grains of powder on elk and does just fine. This years cow 70 gr PRB .54 went 50 yds and down. I hunt with the most accurate load. 70- grains or 140 grains it still is not a 30.06. Use what ya want, we just trying to help.
Psycho Mike
Free Cdn
My only issue with this comparison is the different action between a broadhead and roundball. The broadhead works by cutting not imparting the energy, the energy simply pushes the 2, 3 or 4 razor sharp blades along. I've seen 45# recurves get pass-throughs on large game animals...there isn't a lot of energy involved, but with the nature of the arrow, it is sufficient for the job.
For a roundball, it is the kinetic energy that permits it to penetrate and do traumatic damage to the tissues. You need to get enough energy into the (in the case of an elk, a fairly large) animal to do enough damage to kill it. Now 100 ft lbs of energy (the difference between the .50 cal and .54 cal) isn't a lot, but by your own numbers it's 25% more at 100 yards. That's significant. Doesn't mean the .50 cal can't get the job done, it just means there will be limits.
It comes back to what I said previously....it's knowing yourself and your gear. Know your capabilities, stay within them (which realistically means getting a bit closer when using a .50 cal on Elk) and put the shot where it needs to go to result in a clean kill.
Pete G
76 Cal.
Because it looks like maple; it does NOT look like birch. All that aside, the DGW Tennessee rifles were made in Japan and stocked in some sort of Asian cherry.
Last edited:
My experience is that the man with one gun most likely has never fired it, is not sure how it works, and does not own any ammunition.
Dialn911
36 Cl.
Here's a pic on the lock, I just became a little worried because at first he said it didn't have a half cock which didn't sound right, then he said it does, but it's gummed up.
and then I started thinking do I really want to risk getting it and then have some sort of mechanical headaches with it....
I've had a few people tell me that in their experience, using double triggers ends up being more of a headache when hunting.
Attachments
Dialn911
36 Cl.
A maker told me if there was work done to it, it's most likely the hammer was potentially replaced with a Siler hammer and maybe the frizzen, but they're not sure.I agree
That’s an advanced entry level Kentucky.
In the black closer to “ as found” I would suspect the value would be much, much higher.
It’s had some work done....
How much it’s hard to tell
I guess it’s typical of “restoration” work from 20-50 years ago....
I can see how it could be mistaken for a contemporary piece.
Because of this, I feel it will always hover around entry level
It’s a nice gun by a known maker but in my opinion it’s a little too scary to command a premium price.
To me this is the greatest part of thread rather than the .50 vs .54 thing.
For those interested,
I talked to an auction house that deals with Kentucky rifles, they said if there's been some work on the lock, that doesn't really affect value because that's to be expected And not considered to be a big deal.
This is also stated in Flayderman's Guide to Antique American Firearms, and Their Values.
I was actually surprised by this, I just assumed it would affect it's value or collectibility, but apparently not.
They said many collectors want a functioning rifle if it's possible, so restoration or repair on something like the lock with a quality part, Can actually be a good thing in terms of somebody wanting something that goes boom.
They also said repairs on things like a lock we're pretty commonplace, so it's not typically expected to have everything original in that regard.
They also said the condition of the bore isn't really a major consideration either as far as value goes.
That surprised me as well, actually.
I just figured it would.
Of course something is only as valuable as one is willing to pay for it, so that's a pretty subjective area.
What makes this rifle interesting and unique, is as far as I know, There's not a lot of examples of his work still around?
I believe there's 5 known pistols, with 4 having his signature I believe.
I haven't been able to find any photographs of one of his rifles.
If anybody does have photographs or sources to this Maker's rifles, that would be awesome.
I need to have an appraiser look at it, it may turn out that it's hard to find a rifle made by this Maker, especially around the era this one was built.
Dialn911
36 Cl.
So I was trying to date it based off that criteria, but then when I read Flayderman's American antique rifles and their value,
one of the chapters talked about this topic.
According to this book and some of the reference material, it's a general rule, but not a hard one.
It said there's examples with thinner butt plates and stocks, throughout the 1700s, And it really came down to the individual Maker and school of build, so the more I researched on it the more confusing it really got.
The book even says that Pennsylvania rifles can be hard to date at times because of the varying degrees of builds.
Just thought you might find that interesting
Dialn911
36 Cl.
Let's consider an advanced entry level rifle?I agree
That’s an advanced entry level Kentucky.
In the black closer to “ as found” I would suspect the value would be much, much higher.
It’s had some work done....
How much it’s hard to tell
I guess it’s typical of “restoration” work from 20-50 years ago....
I can see how it could be mistaken for a contemporary piece.
Because of this, I feel it will always hover around entry level
It’s a nice gun by a known maker but in my opinion it’s a little too scary to command a premium price.
To me this is the greatest part of thread rather than the .50 vs .54 thing.
Dialn911
36 Cl.
not to be argumentative, but that's not correct.
I'm not sure what you mean by shock exactly, if you're referring to hydrostatic shock, that's a hotly debated topic, and it's been somewhat proven that any tissue damage beyond its ability To stretch is somewhat limited, and it's still very debated and not a hard science.
Bullets absolutely kill by hemorrhaging. Unless you get a golden Central nervous system hit to incapacitate quickly, that is their main primary mode of shutting down a living target.
it comes down to destruction of vital tissue, whether it's an Arrow destroying vital tissue and causing massive bleed, or a bullet ripping through vital tissue and destroying it, causing bleeding.
when it comes to the mechanism of why and how it kills, the 2 are the same In that regard, tissue damage.
That's the whole basis behind the hollow point, it is to expand and rip enough tissue in its path while destroying it, to cause massive hemorrhaging.
If you don't get a Central nervous hit, that is the main primary mode of incapacitating a threat quickly, through rapid bleeding via Destruction of tissue.
A round ball going through a vital area, destroying that tissue in its path, is absolutely devastating.
So yes,
if an arrow with 55 foot-pounds of energy going into a vital and cutting in its path is considered adequate, then it is absolutely foolish to argue that a 50 round ball, even at a 100 yd, with approximately 400 foot-pounds of energy, the same as a 45ACP +P AT point blank range...Is somehow insufficient.
Whether is destruction via cutting to cause hemorrhaging, or its crushed tissue damage, it's still hemorrhaging as it's primary method to kill.
Guaranteed, pull a Broadhead out of a lung shot, and compare that to a 50 ball hitting the lungs and going through, and there's no comparison in the destruction involved.
If Bow hunters are being told bullets don't rely on hemorrhaging, that's BS.
Last edited:
