I would agree with it being one of the Indian imports. The lock plate has that odd, shiny-but-grainy appearance, and the details of the lock lack the crispness you would expect to see in a top quality lock. I'm wondering if the barrel "stampings" might be laser-engraved. The circle around the sitting fox appears to overlap one corner of the octagonal section of the barrel. I don't see any way you could do that with a stamp.
Comparing the photos in post #1 to the image in post #16, I can see the screw slots in the lock bolts are rotated differently. We could say somebody just tinkered with the screws, but the grain in the wood of the buttstock shows some subtle differences, too. It could be the lighting, I guess, but I don't think it's the same gun.
Regarding the trigger, as shown in post #1, image #3, I think the problem is the slot for the trigger is too long, extending forward of the trigger, which allows the trigger to swing forward and the trigger "knife" to drop down. This can and should be corrected. A simple, slotted plate, positioned so the forward end of the slot will serve as a stop, would do the job, but some original trade guns simply had a little square of metal inlet ahead of the trigger to serve as a stop, which would use less metal than a full-length trigger plate. Gunmakers and dealers were very cost conscious in those days.
I've seen a couple of Indian muskets, but I haven't fired one. A lot of people like them. A lot of people don't. I think some of the folks who dislike them have experience with them, but I honestly believe a few of the detractors are going on hearsay. If it functions properly and the barrel has been appropriately proofed, $700 is a good price. The maker went to some trouble to try to make it look authentic, and I would say it is more PC/HC than the Pedersoli trade musket.
The musket(s) shown in posts #1 and #16 appear brand new. If it has been in storage ten years, somebody knew how to prepare it. I am very confidant that it is not an 18th or 19th century original. I also think those two posts show different guns. If that's the case, we wonder just how many of them "dad" had stored in that cabinet. If I were to buy it, I think I would want an inspection period, and the option to return it for a full refund less shipping.
I don't want to sound too negative. That gun looks "correct" enough to satisfy all but the most demanding of reenactors, and if it is a safe and reliable shooter, the asking price is a real bargain.
Best regards,
Notchy Bob
Comparing the photos in post #1 to the image in post #16, I can see the screw slots in the lock bolts are rotated differently. We could say somebody just tinkered with the screws, but the grain in the wood of the buttstock shows some subtle differences, too. It could be the lighting, I guess, but I don't think it's the same gun.
Regarding the trigger, as shown in post #1, image #3, I think the problem is the slot for the trigger is too long, extending forward of the trigger, which allows the trigger to swing forward and the trigger "knife" to drop down. This can and should be corrected. A simple, slotted plate, positioned so the forward end of the slot will serve as a stop, would do the job, but some original trade guns simply had a little square of metal inlet ahead of the trigger to serve as a stop, which would use less metal than a full-length trigger plate. Gunmakers and dealers were very cost conscious in those days.
I've seen a couple of Indian muskets, but I haven't fired one. A lot of people like them. A lot of people don't. I think some of the folks who dislike them have experience with them, but I honestly believe a few of the detractors are going on hearsay. If it functions properly and the barrel has been appropriately proofed, $700 is a good price. The maker went to some trouble to try to make it look authentic, and I would say it is more PC/HC than the Pedersoli trade musket.
The musket(s) shown in posts #1 and #16 appear brand new. If it has been in storage ten years, somebody knew how to prepare it. I am very confidant that it is not an 18th or 19th century original. I also think those two posts show different guns. If that's the case, we wonder just how many of them "dad" had stored in that cabinet. If I were to buy it, I think I would want an inspection period, and the option to return it for a full refund less shipping.
I don't want to sound too negative. That gun looks "correct" enough to satisfy all but the most demanding of reenactors, and if it is a safe and reliable shooter, the asking price is a real bargain.
Best regards,
Notchy Bob
