View Single Post
Old 9th January 2020, 04:32 PM   #16
SchildaBrit
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 33
Default Sometimes photos are misleading..

..as in this case.

Corrado, I must revise my opinion in favour of your gun.

The blurred photos in the first post washed out the microscopic surface irregularities in the lock plate and cock, leading me to the false impression that they had been fabricated from modern sheet metal. With the new, improved photos I can now see that this is not the case. That is not a brand-new lock, but this revised opinion does not mean that it is original to the gun. The cut-out for the lock appears to have been scraped - presumably to aid the fitting of the lock - at a later stage. Note the lighter surfaces where (I think) the wood has been scraped.

As you say, some parts are marked with a 2. It bothers me that the 2 on the frizzen is on the outside. Assembly sets were - in the period of the original musket - marked with short file strokes on the inside. as marks on the outside would spoil the appearance. File strokes were easy to apply, whereas stamping with numbers suggests a more modern kit approach.

"...has an iron piece left of the pan which was the rest of the cock after having fired. The same is with the brass pan of the gun in question."

I believe the usual term for this feature is a "fence". The incorporation of a fence into the iron or brass portion of the pan is common enough that it does not help to identify the origin.

"It was made in the "Königlich Württembergische Gewehrfabrik Oberndorf"
Corrado, with all due respect to the person who told you, what is the evidence for that? Is it just hearsay?

Last edited by SchildaBrit; 9th January 2020 at 05:04 PM. Reason: added "fence" comment
SchildaBrit is offline   Reply With Quote