Trying to identify - The Firearms Forum

jtee623 · 08-14-2012, 08:33 PM

I have an old muzzle loader that was given to me upon the death of a very dear friend of the family. I know nothing about it, cannot find any markings anywhere on it, and no one from my friends family can tell me anything about it. I have been trying to find out about this gun for a long time and everyone just scratches their heads.

I do know that the trigger mech does not work. I believe it is missing the main spring. The barrel is octagonal and 35.5" long and that is about the extent of my knowledge. Hoping someone here can help me fill in the blanks. I can upload more pictures if requested.

BETH · 08-14-2012, 09:16 PM

sharp, i am sure someone will be along to help u

Jim K · 08-14-2012, 10:10 PM

It looks to be a nice, but plain, half stock hunting rifle of about 1850. If it can be done very carefully, I suggest removing the barrel from the stock and checking the bottom of the barrel for a maker's name. In that era, most gunsmiths did not make their own barrels and the barrel maker's name can sometimes provide a clue to the general area where the gun was made, in this case, I think perhaps New England.

There is a rather odd contrast between the two silver inlays. The one of the horse is well done, almost lifelike, where the one of the deer is amateurish. What that means, I have no idea except that possibly they were done at different times by different people.

Jim

Buffalochip · 08-16-2012, 08:47 AM

It appears to have a hooked breach. To remove the barrel, push out the key that pins the barrel from the forestock, remove the ramrod and carefully tip up the barrel. The patch box is of the type commonly found on flintlocks, so this gun may date back to as early as 1840. This gun has very nice/graceful lines and has a beautiful patina--it has been well cared for. I wouldn't do anything other than wipe it off and use an oily rag on the metal parts. It's a shame the horse is missing parts of its legs, but it is still a very nice piece. A picture of the barrel end and a measurement of the barrel width would help determine calibre. Is there a front sight? The lock can be fixed--carefully remove it and send pictures to DixieGunworks.com. They can send you the proper spring.

Hawg · 08-16-2012, 11:17 AM

The back action lock has been in use since 1830 or so. The cheek piece is a style usually used on full stocks but not always. It could be closer to the flintlock era than 1840 but I don't think so. IMHO I don't believe that patch box came on it and the horse and deer are later add ons but the clipped corner rectangle on the cheek piece is original. The breech is definitely hooked and it is possible there are markings on the underside of the barrel. I'm going with Jim and say it's from the 1850ish -1860ish time period. I don't believe it's older than that but I've been wrong before.

08-14-2012, 08:33 PM	#1
jtee623 Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 1	Trying to identify I have an old muzzle loader that was given to me upon the death of a very dear friend of the family. I know nothing about it, cannot find any markings anywhere on it, and no one from my friends family can tell me anything about it. I have been trying to find out about this gun for a long time and everyone just scratches their heads. I do know that the trigger mech does not work. I believe it is missing the main spring. The barrel is octagonal and 35.5" long and that is about the extent of my knowledge. Hoping someone here can help me fill in the blanks. I can upload more pictures if requested. Attached Images -->

08-14-2012, 09:16 PM	#2
BETH Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: naugatuck,Ct. Contributor Posts: 6,686	Re: Trying to identify sharp, i am sure someone will be along to help u

08-14-2012, 10:10 PM	#3
Jim K Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 6,408	Re: Trying to identify It looks to be a nice, but plain, half stock hunting rifle of about 1850. If it can be done very carefully, I suggest removing the barrel from the stock and checking the bottom of the barrel for a maker's name. In that era, most gunsmiths did not make their own barrels and the barrel maker's name can sometimes provide a clue to the general area where the gun was made, in this case, I think perhaps New England. There is a rather odd contrast between the two silver inlays. The one of the horse is well done, almost lifelike, where the one of the deer is amateurish. What that means, I have no idea except that possibly they were done at different times by different people. Jim

08-16-2012, 08:47 AM	#4
Buffalochip Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 766	Re: Trying to identify It appears to have a hooked breach. To remove the barrel, push out the key that pins the barrel from the forestock, remove the ramrod and carefully tip up the barrel. The patch box is of the type commonly found on flintlocks, so this gun may date back to as early as 1840. This gun has very nice/graceful lines and has a beautiful patina--it has been well cared for. I wouldn't do anything other than wipe it off and use an oily rag on the metal parts. It's a shame the horse is missing parts of its legs, but it is still a very nice piece. A picture of the barrel end and a measurement of the barrel width would help determine calibre. Is there a front sight? The lock can be fixed--carefully remove it and send pictures to DixieGunworks.com. They can send you the proper spring.

08-16-2012, 11:17 AM	#5
Hawg Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 1,584	Re: Trying to identify The back action lock has been in use since 1830 or so. The cheek piece is a style usually used on full stocks but not always. It could be closer to the flintlock era than 1840 but I don't think so. IMHO I don't believe that patch box came on it and the horse and deer are later add ons but the clipped corner rectangle on the cheek piece is original. The breech is definitely hooked and it is possible there are markings on the underside of the barrel. I'm going with Jim and say it's from the 1850ish -1860ish time period. I don't believe it's older than that but I've been wrong before.