Help identify my gun

I am certainly far from an expert but what I see, IMHO, is a cheap imported wall hanger.
Mark

 

[rich pierce]

+1. Or a rifle built between 1950 and 1980 by someone who was doing it their way. Close ups of the breech area from above would help.

 

[Number19]

As plain as the trigger guard is, it is well made, is broad and without a lug for a sling; and like the lock, I can't find anything like it.

 

[Number19]

I won't discount the possibility that it could be an import, but I don't discount that it is not a 19th century firearm and I still maintain it should be evaluated by an expert. I hope LWelch has the inclination and the wherewithall to pursue this properly and will follow up by letting us know the results.

 

[jdkerstetter]

I'm in Rich's camp on this one. Everything taken together, nothing looks right.

Let's assume some of the parts are original, I have some original parts in my shop too.

More pictures would be nice though.

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[Stophel]

It does have a weird aura about it...

I would have said it's Berks county ca. 1830-40. What is that where the patchbox should be????

 

[ApprenticeBuilder]

I think we're all agreeing that it is not a "traditional" A-B school rifle.

It appeares that you are doing all of the suppositions

But "no" you don't think it is a 19th century flintlock?

No I don't think its a 19th century anything, it has too many things that just don't feel right, that trigger guard is a bit to simple (crude) in its design to be 19th century.

That side plate is unlike anything ever produced on an original.

I have been wrong before though.

 

[Number19]

I'm in Rich's camp on this one. Everything taken together, nothing looks right.

Let's assume some of the parts are original, I have some original parts in my shop too.

More pictures would be nice though.

Enjoy, J.D.

You know what strikes me, are the several posters who claim this is not what it may appear, without giving any supporting evidence. My suggestion, if you don't want to support your claims, don't post. What is the point of posting?

Now, as to the claim that this is a fairly recent "knockoff", I would suggest that the lack of dents, gouges, scratches and other signs of wear on a stock that is 100 plus years old is a good indication that this is probably an accurate assessment. I'm convinced.

 

[bioprof]

It's kind of similar to a Pedersoli Kentucky rifle, but probably an earlier version:

 

[Number19]

It's kind of similar to a Pedersoli Kentucky rifle, but probably an earlier version:

Another nail in the coffin. Thanks.

 

[Elnathan]

You know what strikes me, are the several posters who claim this is not what it may appear, without giving any supporting evidence. My suggestion, if you don't want to support your claims, don't post. What is the point of posting?quote]

Well, the lockplate is an odd shape, the frizzen spring is oddly proportioned and placed rather high off the lower edge of the plate; the forearm looks slabby; the barrel sticks out too far; the ramrod channel continues to the end of the stock instead of ending 4-5 inches behind the muzzle; the sideplate is odddly shaped; and so is the patchbox, which mimics the shape of the sideplate.

My best guess is that it is a restock of an early reproduction with a sideplate and patchbox made by the person who made the stock, and the rest of the parts of a production or several production guns.

 

[Stophel]

Now, as to the claim that this is a fairly recent "knockoff", I would suggest that the lack of dents, gouges, scratches and other signs of wear on a stock that is 100 plus years old is a good indication that this is probably an accurate assessment. I'm convinced.

No dents, gouges or scratches??? It's beat all to manure! The toe of the stock is gone, there's some weird thing where the patchbox should be (wood filling a missing patchbox inlet?) The wrist of the gun looks like someone has been rasping on it. It's pretty common to find old original guns that do NOT have their old original surfaces, or all their old original parts.


But, it does have some oddness to it that I cannot really make any determinations about it, especially since it's not in my hands.

 

[Number19]

It does have a weird aura about it...

I would have said it's Berks county ca. 1830-40. What is that where the patchbox should be????

As bioprof pointed out, this gun is very similar to a Pedersoli. An import of this kind would very likely improve the appeal of the rifle by adding the appearance of a patch box without the expense of actually providing one. Another nail in the coffin. You know, someone could have pointed this now obvious "fact" out earlier in the thread, but there is an obvious disinclination to add value to their posts.

 

[Stophel]

It is not a Pedersoli.

 

[ApprenticeBuilder]

It is not a Pedersoli.

Believe it or not it looks alot like a Pedersoli knockoff.

:wink:

 

[Number19]

Now, as to the claim that this is a fairly recent "knockoff", I would suggest that the lack of dents, gouges, scratches and other signs of wear on a stock that is 100 plus years old is a good indication that this is probably an accurate assessment. I'm convinced.

No dents, gouges or scratches??? It's beat all to manure! The toe of the stock is gone, there's some weird thing where the patchbox should be (wood filling a missing patchbox inlet?) The wrist of the gun looks like someone has been rasping on it. It's pretty common to find old original guns that do NOT have their old original surfaces.

Yes, the image of the butt stock threw me also. But excepting the broken off toe, the rest of the wood does not show age. Is it possible for the stock to have been refinished to remove its wear and tear. Maybe, but I'm now convinced that this is a modern flintlock which has been "aged" though misuse.

 

[jdkerstetter]

You know what strikes me, are the several posters who claim this is not what it may appear, without giving any supporting evidence. My suggestion, if you don't want to support your claims, don't post. What is the point of posting?

Now, as to the claim that this is a fairly recent "knockoff", I would suggest that the lack of dents, gouges, scratches and other signs of wear on a stock that is 100 plus years old is a good indication that this is probably an accurate assessment. I'm convinced.

Wow! Where did that come from? :surrender:

I believe my stating that even if some parts are original doesn't make the gun an original is as relevant as it not having scratches and dents makes it a fake.

....and for that matter there are more than a few orginals that have very little wear on the wood....an Isaac Haines comes to mind....and several others.

But it appears your taking enough flaming on that statement.

Let's all take it easy. There's been enough mud slinging around here to go around.

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[Stophel]

Although I shouldn't be, I am stunned that you all cannot see how rough the stock is, even from the less than stellar photography. It's also been broke (where they very often are) at the breech end on the sideplate side, and I would dare to posit that the sideplates that are currently there may not have been there when the gun was made. But they do sort of echo the teardropy shape that you will often see on Berks county/Schuylkill county guns.

And do you all think that every gun from the 19th century was an artistic masterpiece??? This was the age of Westward expansion, and gumakers were churning out guns as fast as they could, not always beautiful works of artistry and craftsmanship.

Again, I don't have it in my hands, so I can't say anything for sure, and I definitely am not so quick to dismiss it as some cheap Spanish or Italian gun from the 50's. While the lock looks funky, and the hardware is a bit cheesy, the butt and the nose of the comb are pretty well shaped, standard Berks stuff. I would like for the owner to post photos of the cheekpiece and better photos of the "patchbox", because I just cannot see what it is that is there. Is it metal? It does not look like the brass of the buttplate. (By the way, the droopy tip patchbox is something that was seen in the Allemangel area of Berks county, so it's not really an anomaly)

I will presume that any Spanish or Italian gun would have marks all over it. Are there proofmarks or writing on the barrel?

 

[Number19]

You know what strikes me, are the several posters who claim this is not what it may appear, without giving any supporting evidence. My suggestion, if you don't want to support your claims, don't post. What is the point of posting?

Now, as to the claim that this is a fairly recent "knockoff", I would suggest that the lack of dents, gouges, scratches and other signs of wear on a stock that is 100 plus years old is a good indication that this is probably an accurate assessment. I'm convinced.

Wow! Where did that come from? :surrender:

I believe my stating that even if some parts are original doesn't make the gun an original is as relevant as it not having scratches and dents makes it a fake.

....and for that matter there are more than a few orginals that have very little wear on the wood....an Isaac Haines comes to mind....and several others.

But it appears your taking enough flaming on that statement.

Let's all take it easy. There's been enough mud slinging around here to go around.

Enjoy, J.D.

I wasn't referring to you (edit: I was referring to "several posters"), but how would you know that? I surrender, also. I made an evaluation and was subsequently convinced I was wrong. I just kept pounding away, absorbing the responses that had merit, and eventually had what I needed to change my position. Your responses helped convince me. Thank you.

 

[Number19]

....and for that matter there are more than a few orginals that have very little wear on the wood....an Isaac Haines comes to mind....and several others

Boy, I wish I could afford to purchase one. I was reading about one of these the other day. The commenter said the rifle was in such mint condition he wouldn't hesitate to shoot it, today.