Unknown Flintlock?

[OcelotZ3]

The commentary on the rifle qua build has nothing to do with where it may have come from unless used as a background for framing their reasoning, in which case sharing it is STILL superfluous.

I took the comments completely differently than you have.

I saw people offering their opinion of what the history might have been, given their observations from the photos, and they posted those observations as background. They OBSERVED that something appeared to be poorly made, which informed their opinion.

Most people appreciate getting the reasoning behind an opinion, vs. just a statement and then a comment "I have my reasons". So I don't see that as superfluous at all. If folks tried to offer an opinion at work or in various clubs/forums without background, people would pretty much ignore them after a while.

 

[JayGibson]

Yes, I see. It is imperative to make it clear that one has a pile of junk in order to reflect upon it. These statements are important reflections of discursive thought, eh?

How could any sentient being not see the import of this as reflective and glorious data basing an opinion on:

This looks like a "mongrel" that someone put together while learning how to build.



It isn't horrible, but there is evidence that their inletting skills were not developed or they weren't careful (note the marks where the x-acto knife slipped in your close-up pic of the escutcheon at the barrel pin - the escutcheon by the way is die cut (probably done by Ted Cash and available from many current suppliers).

The tang appears as it would have come from the supplier - doesn't look shaped in any way.

The tang is very poorly inlet and the rest of the inletting, while not crude, is also not very well done. The over all architecture is not terrible but the builder left way too much wood on the stock, every where. The cheek piece is wrong, the molding around the lock and side plate are wrong.

They profoundly impact the original question, indeed. It has all become clear now. Interesting thing is no one has an answer because it likely doesn't exist. I suppose it would be like untying the Gordian knot to say: "Hey, I don't know but the gun looks like a non-production gun probably built by someone who just wanted a decent shooter and unless you find a name on the underside of the barrel you may never know, but enjoy it and welcome."

You see I am aware that I haven't bought a one-of-kind-holy-grail-gun. . . I have watched countless guys not want to ask questions because of they have seen what happens. I do not tie my own self-worth in a gun, however, what I find interesting is the insecurity evinced by the folks who come to tell the OP that he has a lemon, even when it is true. They lack all tact because they need to demonstrate that whatever they may have is far superior by denigrating the other person's. LOL!

It's $490 flinter, I think it LOOKS just fine. It's a bit worn and ugly, good it will fit in perfectly with me, so am I. I'm 47 years old, maybe most of it is; I'm a 300 pound guy, maybe it's close; I'm kinda rough around the edges; it looks like it is.

I just wanted a one line answer, that's it. I think this thread has done its due. May God bless you fellers! Keep yer powder dry and yer chin to the wind.

 

[Leatherbark]

A beat up old maybe put together well when new, but now looks ratty New York style percussion 45 caliber made in the 1860's muzzleloader seems to intrigue me and my interests for some unknown reason. But then again I load for and shoot and often carry an 1895 Russian Nagant revolver.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

It's $490 flinter, I think it LOOKS just fine. It's a bit worn and ugly, good it will fit in perfectly with me, so am I.

ENOUGH of this folderol..., clean her up and see if she shoots! I know a couple of fellers with so called "ugly" rifles..., who take home a lot of prizes. A pretty rifle that can't shoot is like lipstick on a hog. Who cares about looks as long as she shoots well?

:idunno:

LD

 

[bpd303]

I for one think your rifle is just fine and should make a good shooter. Treat it well and it should serve you for many years to come.

I also think too many of us tend to read between the lines then come to a conclusion not intended by the original post.

 

[54ball]

 

[Vaino]

:dead: ..... :dead: ..... :dead: .....Fred

 

[Rifleman1776]

Fred, I always thought it was: "Never BORROW a man's wife, girlfriend, or gun." :stir: Always wondered who "they" are.

Doesn't matter. Are you going to risk doing it? :shocked2:

 

[Vaino]

As far as the first two....I'm 82 and there's not much chance of that happening...and for the last, different people see "beauty" or what they perceive as "beauty" according to many factors and I for one, won't "trespass" on their thoughts......Fred

 

[Dphar]

Looks like someone with little understanding of how a Kentucky should look built it in the 1960s or 70s. Russ Hamm Maslin lock.
Dan

 

[Dphar]

Or something similar to a Russ Hamm Maslin lock.

Life is too short to shoot ugly guns.
This thing does not look "fine" or ever "OK". Its not even safe to shoot until the barrel is unbreeched and the breeching inspected since the maker probably did not get this right either.
Dab

 

[tralfae]

This is an interesting gun. Particularly the "Maslam" lock. I have a Maslin Warrented lock, but never seen a Maslam lock. This could be an original. I disagree with the bulk of the replies to this thread that the gun is a "Mongrel" or some sort of reject. Its a custom gun, just like the trophy guns that folks tend to show off on this website. Like yourself, I am attracted to any muzzleloader, particularly ones with character whether a replica or an old build that doesn't meet the high standards of the local experts. Clean her up and start shooting. If you get the opportunity, post more pictures after the restoration.

In terms of safety, if you don't have a lot of rust in the bore against the breech plug, I see no need to pull it. Just load it with a hefty load, sandbag it, and test it out. Just my opinion.

 

[smo]

I thought the term "Mongrel" was a rifle that had been cobbled together from various parts? :idunno:

 

[galamb]

Definition: A mongrel or mutt is a dog of unknown ancestry that belongs to no single organizationally recognized breed and is not the result of selective breeding.

Not derogatory, an apt description of a rifle that follows no particular historical builder or "school" but instead displays parts/architecture from a number.

And the replies had little to do with "high standards" and I don't see where anyone suggested the rifle be burned/scrapped etc.

The OP asked for an opinion on the rifle as to a potential builder or source and received that.

 

[MacRob46]

I don't think the "Maslam" lock is an original or, if you prefer - antique. The lock on the Bedford rifle in one of Jay's post was stamped Maslam rather than engraved and the stamping is rather crude, probably done with individual dies. Note that the rays extending from the pan intersect the lettering. As I mentioned earlier, the lock shape is in keeping with the Maslin lock rather than the Bedford lock which was found on all original Bedford rifles, most of which were percussion. I think the lock may have been made in relatively modern times and simply used to reconvert the Bedford rifle to flint, or perhaps convert it to flint if it was originally made as a percussion gun, which is too bad if that is what was done. I had never seen a lock marked Maslam until this thread was started. Just a thought.