[Racinbob]

This one will probably be kept. I will say it's beautiful and I've never been a big admirer of antiques except for my wife (I hope she doesn't see this) I know nothing about it and there's absolutely no markings on it. I love the character the burn marks from the flash give it. The pictures don't do it justice. I'm hoping this one is for real. If not, it's a great wall hanger as it is.

[SDC]

It looks like a conversion from a flintlock (at least the lockplate looks like it once had a pan attached to it). Is there anything at all on the top of the barrel? Many of these had only a lightly-engraved name along the top to show the smith and place of manufacture.

[Jim K]

I don't think it is a conversion unless the lock was replaced since there are no holes for the frizzen and spring. But the drum seems to be at the wrong angle because the hammer face doesn't contact the nipple correctly. That could mean nothing more than the drum not being set properly or that the whole lock is a replacement. The rather plain style and the round batch box would seem to indicate a post-Civil War gun.

Is it "for real"? Yes. I have no doubt that it is old and has a lot of history, but it is in rather poor condition. I am not sure what you have in mind, but I would consider it a wall hanger; I would strongly recommend not firing it.

Jim

[Sunray]

"...would consider it a wall hanger..." Ditto. Lots of pitting on the lock and barrel.

[Jim Watson]

I think it was built from parts available, the lock - stock - barrel contours are not well matched up, and the trigger guard is fancier than the patchbox and inlays. But that is a handsome piece of wood in the stock whether naturally or artificially striped. Is it a full stock or half?

I think it is the real deal but a decorator unless checked out and maybe refurbished more than you might want to pay for. There was a collector here who had a network of associates who did not mind good restorations and he bought, had fixed up, and traded or sold all manner of muzzleloaders of that vintage.

[Ron James]

I keep pulling up the pictures , enlarging them X4 and studying them. Parts of the rifle look old and parts of it looks modern. I think it is an old rifle that has been restocked and gussied up. The silver inlays on the right side look as if they were cut by machine and not hand., both are identical in shape and dimensions. Hand cutting does not provide that, a band saw will. The Patch box looks identical to one of my replicas . { and so does the trigger guard }, but yet the barrel and lock look authentic. The different machine screws have already been noted. Also study the engraving on the Hammer. Don't know, I think someone took an old rifle, and brought it back to life. Could be wrong, been wrong before and I'm pretty sure I'll wrong again sometime in the future. Heck, if my observations were really worth something I'ld be charging for them.:neener:

[4v50 Gary]

Concur that the lock was never a flintlock but made as a percussion lock.

As to the comment that it was parts put together, in a sense, they all were. Nothing was wasted and the gunsmith salvaged parts or used parts that were specified by the customer. The crescent buttplate and the stylized trigger guard all suggest a post 1830 gun to me. There's no relief carving but there is an incision along the belly of the stock that makes it look slimmer. That's carried over from the old flintlock days.

[Jim K]

On the question of hand made decoration, even in the flint days, few gunsmiths made their own decorations and inlays. They altered and reworked inlays and parts like patch boxe covers to suit their own ideas, but the original parts came from specialists and later, factories. The experts refer to this or that "school" but what they really are talking about is a group of smiths who bought their parts from the same place.

Jim

[Ron James]

Very true, but I still believe the stock is not original to the firearm. I think it was restocked , which was a common practice , at some time.