J Fordney Barrel- Reconstruction Gun

[Loren Schultz]

(Moved from a different category)

I had been planning to build a flintlock rifle for a while now and yesterday I was in an antique store and came across a musket barrel that I decided to purchase for that reason.

The Barrel:
>Stamped manufacturers name: "J Fordney Lancaster PA"
>Octagon barrel - 37 7/8" long
>Caliber - .65 (According to the seller, most likely correct.)
>Smooth bore (Musket)
>Two iron ramrod thimbles. (Forward and middle.)
>Rear mounting tab (Thimble?) missing. (Evidence of it's placement.)
>Breach plug currently loose but in good shape. (Someone removed the breach plug but did not force it back into place.) The tang has been broken at the mounting screw hole.
>Percussion drum and nipple present. Evidence of corrosive fowling over the right side of the barrel around the touch hole is obvious that the gun was converted from a flintlock to percussion at a later date.
>Visual inspection of the barrel tube looks good, clean.

You may see the pictures of the barrel at Pictures of the barrel

I would like to reconstruct the musket around the barrel.

As I only have the barrel to go on, I have allot of needed planning to give this barrel it's proper care. Here are my questions, please refer to the picture on the link.

1) The iron ramrod thimbles - Do these indicate that this might have been built as an "iron-mounted" gun? (This would indicate the direction I might go in it's reconstruction, i.e. brass or iron fittings.)

2)Does anyone recognize the makers mark?

3)What were the incised lines in location "D" for?

3) Do YOU think, I should retrofit the touch hole and rebuild it as a flintlock or retain the history of it's conversion to percussion?

There should be allot of information you can ferret out from the picture. By the information I've given on the barrel, what observations or knowledge might the readers here have to help me in this project?

I would prefer to head in the direction of the most probable reconstruction of what the gun would have looked like and I'm most cautious about the "iron mounted" look, even though I find it very intriguing.

Loren

 

[Mike Brooks]

Jacob Fordney was a very famous builder from Lancaster PA. He was killed by a Kook with an ax at an early age and had a very short career. His guns in original condition bring 10's of thousands of dollars. Your best bet would be to get this to somebody who is a specialist in in Kentucky rifle restoration. You'll probably make a tidy profit by selling it and can then buy a modern swamped barrel.
This was not a "musket". it started out as a rifle and was later bored out to smooth bore after the rifling was worn out. Those Iron pipes don't belong on it either, they were added when it was either restocked or cut down to a 1/2 stock. The barrel was originally at least 6" longer than it is now.
Do history a favor and get that barrel to somebody who can use it to bring another old Fordney rifle back to presentable condition. It's too valuable to botch up with a modern restock.
I googled Fordney, look here:
Fordney

 

Twas Mechior Fordney who was brained with an ax in 1846 by an insane man named John Haggerty who accused him of being a whore-mongerer. There were two Jacob Fordney gunsmiths in Lancaster. Jacob Sr. died in 1819 and was Melchior's father. He was listed as both a gunsmith and a skin dresser in the Lancaster tax records. Jacob Jr. (1808-1878) was Melchior's brother and was listed as a freeman gunsmith on tax records as early as 1829. Jacob also worked for a time in Columbia, PA in Lancaster Co. This info comes from Stacy and Whisker's Arms Makers of Lancaster Co.

Schultz, PM me for some M and J Fordney pictures, and I agree with Mike Brooks. Keep it or sell it and buy a proper new barrel to build one around.

Sean

 

[Mike Brooks]

OOPPPSS!!! Got my Fordneys mixed up! :haha: Point is leave that barrel alone.

 

[Loren Schultz]

Hmmm.... I'll be entertaining all options. Especially in due respect for the maker and barrel.

I had seen the auction you (Mike) Googled, along with three others, in the first hour of having it home. The $25,850. auction price set me back giggling. That was a beautiful piece of work that sold that day. My barrel has had some rough, careless treatment. It's worth less....though certainly not not worthless.

I'd like to hear from you if the observations you presented are from the evidence in the pictures or from your general knowledge/history of the guns?

For instance, you wrote:
>it started out as a rifle and was later bored out to smooth bore after the rifling was worn out.<

I wondered why someone at this period in time would build a smooth bore gun, especially someone as well known as the Fordney's? Could this be the earlier, James Fordney and not Jacob? Or, you might be correct that it's been rebored.

>Those Iron pipes don't belong on it either, they were added when it was either restocked or cut down to a 1/2 stock.<

and
>The barrel was originally at least 6" longer than it is now.<

Again, I'm in deference to your long familiarity with the guns but are there indications of those things on the barrel? It can be very interesting to "read" tool marks and other hints that give away it's history. As a learning experiance, what does the barrel tell you?

As to both Mike and Sean's plead of not to mess with a good thing, I really do appreciate your concern. Though I'm not without conservatory skills, my respect for the maker would lend to a swap occurring. If it's sweet enough.

Loren

 

[Old40Rod]

>it started out as a rifle and was later bored out to smooth bore after the rifling was worn out.<

I wondered why someone at this period in time would build a smooth bore gun, especially someone as well known as the Fordney's?

I'll take a stab at this... it likely was done because the owner wanted to have a working smoothie, as opposed to a rifle. Smoothbores are more versatile as game getters than rifles. Or at the time of conversion that may have been what could be done to salvage the piece to keep a working firearm.

For the most part, firearms "back in the day" were tools that were used. It is likely that the owner didn't view or realize the Fordney name was anything too out of the ordinary.

Think about it. If original purchasers of Hawken rifles knew one day people would step softly and speak in church wispers when they were in the rifle's presence, there might be a few more around for us to genuflect over

 

I had seen the auction you (Mike) Googled, along with three others, in the first hour of having it home. The $25,850. auction price set me back giggling. That was a beautiful piece of work that sold that day. My barrel has had some rough, careless treatment. It's worth less....though certainly not not worthless.

Best thing to do with it is sell it to a collector who has a Fordney stock or pile of parts, and who has the abilities to do it right.

I'd like to hear from you if the observations you presented are from the evidence in the pictures or from your general knowledge/history of the guns?

For instance, you wrote:
>it started out as a rifle and was later bored out to smooth bore after the rifling was worn out.<

I wondered why someone at this period in time would build a smooth bore gun, especially someone as well known as the Fordney's? Could this be the earlier, James Fordney and not Jacob? Or, you might be correct that it's been rebored.

They were both Jacob's and I think they both signed guns the same way. I'd guess the latter only on the basis that he is thought to be a bit more prolific. We'll never know for sure if it was originally smoothbore, but the Forndeys made a lot of smoothrifles with octagon barrels and I've got pics of a NE influenced M. Fordney fowler. If I were to guess, I'd say it wad bored out as its the largest bore I've seen on a Fordney. However there's a .62 smoothrifle in Shumway's Longrifle article Vol 1.

>Those Iron pipes don't belong on it either, they were added when it was either restocked or cut down to a 1/2 stock.The barrel was originally at least 6" longer than it is now.

 

[J.D.]

Just from a practical standpoint, IMHO,that barrel is probably worthless as a shooter. There is no telling what condition the metal at the breech is in.

It might be corroded beyond repair. Wrought iron doesn't rust as does modern steel, but it is incredibly soft with slag inculsions that weaken the barrel from within.

Personally, I wouldn't trust it for a shooter.

Mike and Sean offered the best advice, sell it to a Forndey collector who can use it for a restoration, and use the proceeds to buy yourself a quality modern barrel.

 

The $25,850. auction price set me back giggling

If you're talking about this gun:
[url] http://www.skinnerinc.com/resources/ph_13.asp[/url]

It has a few things going for it besides being an intact gun in good condition. Foremost is that it is signed and dated and marked as a sample rifle. Such guns would've been provided to large entities such as the War Dept., NDN dept. or traders such as AFC and Pratte and Choteau as an example of their workmanship along with a written proposal in an effort to obtain large volume contracts.

Oh and here's a link that provides some information on the Fordeys as well as a lot of other American gunsmiths:
[url] http://www.american-firearms.com/american-firearms/IE6/index.html[/url]

Good luck and good find.

Sean

 

[Loren Schultz]

Today I dragged the barrel with an an event I was doing as an interpretive blacksmith for a local museum.... There were a number of the buckskinner crowd there and wanted their opinions.

Well, as you can guess opinions go round and round, most followed the line's posted here but the individual who carried the most weight and knowledge also gave me something to pursue.

He felt that the way the barrel was swamped, appeared as if the barrel was NOT cut down. He said "...it's geometry looked correct as if it was originally built as a 'Yager' style gun."

In further effort to suss out hidden details of this broken piece of history, my question is, if you lay a swamped barrel on a flat surface, where would the "waist" (My word.) :hmm: of the swamped barrel appear?

Also, what might be the formula of the placement of the ramrod tubes? Before I assumed an equidistant placement and assuming that, (Going back to the Photo) the position marked "F" was a third thimble and not a mounting tab. My acquaintance said "Not so, the ramrod would have passed over the tab, though the wooden stock". He also said the barrels bottom flat showed no evidence that the existing ramrod tubes were different/changed and most likely were in their original position.

He too, believes the gun was a some point, a half stock gun. And it went through a slowly declining de-evolution and mucking up to arrive in its current pathetic state. His final word? Respect it's history and pass it on to a pro. ~sigh~

Loren

 

Schultz,

The original RR pipes were not attached to the barrel at all. The missing thimble attachment you show is really where the first staple was that held a pin or more likely wedge pin to hold the barrel to the stock. The existing RR pipes are a crude later addition. Jacob Fordney was a class act for the time. If he made a half stock it would have had a rib on it that the pipes would have been attached to. There are examples of halfstock guns out there without ribs but they would have been exceptionally rare for that place and time. The current thimbles likely hide at least one other staple location. You might be able to infer something about the original length if you had a second staple attachment, but it would still be a lot of speculation.

On the barrel profile, I've been lucky enough to handle several Lancaster and Philly trade rifles and measure their barrel contours. What I can tell you about this is almost all of them appear to be swamped well into the 1840's and beyond, but much less so than today's swamped patterns, i.e. less taper and flare. Also every one of them is different, even within the same builder and time period. Barrels were hand made pieces during this time period and show the variation you'd expect from that. Waist location varies as does the diameter at breech and muzzle. There were no standard lengths, either. These contract builders like Fordney may have made some barrels or not. JJ Henry and his son James ran a barrel operation and sold barrels to other makers as well as producing finished rifles in quantity. They also may have bought some or all of their barrels from specialized smiths. The Pannabeckers or Pennypackers were known for producing and selling a lot of barrels to other makers as well. There are adds in old Lancaster papers posted by folks like Jacob Dickert requesting barrels and locks to fill government contracts. The point of this is that there is little to go on from what you've got here to determine the original length. You're likely better off researching trade rifle orders for lengths than speculating based on that barrel.

Take it for what its worth and learn from what's there. He obviously used staples instead of a dovetailed lug. The barrel was swamped, and I'll bet its somewhere around 1 1/16" at the breech. Where is your waist in relation to the breech and what does it measure? Do you still see any mill marks or file marks on the underside vs the top? If so, what direction do they go? How far is the rear sight from the breech and where does it sit in relation to the first staple? Do you see any indication of a longitudinal weld on the outside or in the bore? That old piece of iron has a lot of lessons in it for you if you look hard enough.

Sean