Old flintlock conversion to percussion

Raf · 16th February 2021, 12:19 PM

The critical issue in deciding whether this is an early conversion is the relationship between the percussion bolster and the barrel. Looking at image 4 it looks as if the barrel and bolster have been forged in one piece . In which case it definitely isn't a conversion. The only way to be sure is to dismantle it and look for any tell tale signs of brazing between the bolster and the barrel. If present then its almost certainly a skilful period conversion. Admittedly it is weird that a gunsmith would go to the trouble of removing a flashpan , carefully filling the holes and not re - shape the area where the frizzen spring fitted although they did add a bit of engraving in this area. If it isnt a conversion then a tentative theory might be that since period gunsmiths relied on supplies of components made by outworkers a part finished lockplate origionally intended for a flintlock was re purposed as a percussion lock .

The ethics and aesthetics of conversions back to flint is a grey area bordering on forgery. Probably justified where a high quality flintlock has been butchered by a provincial gunsmith with a crude drum nipple conversion or as sometimes seen a bad modern reconversion. Otherwise leave well alone .

Fernando K · 16th February 2021, 01:00 PM

Hello

Another question; the decoration from the middle of the lock, under the pump and up to the front of the plate has been interrupted, as if it had been carefully removed. If it were an original percussion plate, the decoration of scrolls and fire-gilding would cover the entire space. The decoration of simple stripes on the front and also on the cock (hammer) is not consistent with the rest of the decoration, and the eyes and the feathers of the hammer are reminiscent of English percussion hammers ...

Affectionately

M ELEY · 16th February 2021, 03:33 PM

Thank you all for commenting on the piece. I had also noticed the 'feathered/eyed' hammer found on many percussion pieces of the period. I am leery on taking the gun apart to look at the lock from the inside. As the pics show, there are some instabilities/cracks in the wood. The piece is solid and intact, but once one starts unscrewing the mounts, I'd be afraid I could ruin the piece. I might just have to chalk this one up as a 'possible' conversion. As I am not an expert, I don't want to cause any more harm to it-

Fernando K · 16th February 2021, 07:23 PM

Hello

I differ. The locks of any old weapon have been put in place with two screws (and some with a hook and a single screw) and removing them is not dangerous. But you are the owner of this gun, and you have the right to do whatever you want, according to your beliefs. The same happens if you want to restore the wood, you will have to disassemble the lock, the barrel, and the trimmings.

Affectionately

rickystl · 17th February 2021, 02:40 PM

Nice old pistol.

Have to agree with Philip's comments. Guessing the conversion was done sometime during the 1840's.

Unfortunately for us collectors today, shortening the barrel and fore stock was quite common in the day.

Fernando K makes the good observation of the original lock decoration abruptly ending in the front portion of the lock plate - where the original frizzen spring would have been. The simple add on decoration added during the conversion.
Still, the conversion looks to have been well done.

To me, this pistol has a bit of Italian flair to it. (But maybe French)

Rick

Will M · 17th February 2021, 05:33 PM

Interesting pistol with great details. The hammer reminds me of Prussian arms.

16th February 2021, 12:19 PM	#1
Raf Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 252	The critical issue in deciding whether this is an early conversion is the relationship between the percussion bolster and the barrel. Looking at image 4 it looks as if the barrel and bolster have been forged in one piece . In which case it definitely isn't a conversion. The only way to be sure is to dismantle it and look for any tell tale signs of brazing between the bolster and the barrel. If present then its almost certainly a skilful period conversion. Admittedly it is weird that a gunsmith would go to the trouble of removing a flashpan , carefully filling the holes and not re - shape the area where the frizzen spring fitted although they did add a bit of engraving in this area. If it isnt a conversion then a tentative theory might be that since period gunsmiths relied on supplies of components made by outworkers a part finished lockplate origionally intended for a flintlock was re purposed as a percussion lock . The ethics and aesthetics of conversions back to flint is a grey area bordering on forgery. Probably justified where a high quality flintlock has been butchered by a provincial gunsmith with a crude drum nipple conversion or as sometimes seen a bad modern reconversion. Otherwise leave well alone . Last edited by Raf; 16th February 2021 at 01:28 PM.

16th February 2021, 01:00 PM	#2
Fernando K Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 671	Hello Another question; the decoration from the middle of the lock, under the pump and up to the front of the plate has been interrupted, as if it had been carefully removed. If it were an original percussion plate, the decoration of scrolls and fire-gilding would cover the entire space. The decoration of simple stripes on the front and also on the cock (hammer) is not consistent with the rest of the decoration, and the eyes and the feathers of the hammer are reminiscent of English percussion hammers ... Affectionately

16th February 2021, 03:33 PM	#3
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,141	Thank you all for commenting on the piece. I had also noticed the 'feathered/eyed' hammer found on many percussion pieces of the period. I am leery on taking the gun apart to look at the lock from the inside. As the pics show, there are some instabilities/cracks in the wood. The piece is solid and intact, but once one starts unscrewing the mounts, I'd be afraid I could ruin the piece. I might just have to chalk this one up as a 'possible' conversion. As I am not an expert, I don't want to cause any more harm to it-

16th February 2021, 07:23 PM	#4
Fernando K Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 671	Hello I differ. The locks of any old weapon have been put in place with two screws (and some with a hook and a single screw) and removing them is not dangerous. But you are the owner of this gun, and you have the right to do whatever you want, according to your beliefs. The same happens if you want to restore the wood, you will have to disassemble the lock, the barrel, and the trimmings. Affectionately

17th February 2021, 02:40 PM	#5
rickystl Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: St. Louis, MO area. Posts: 1,630	Nice old pistol. Have to agree with Philip's comments. Guessing the conversion was done sometime during the 1840's. Unfortunately for us collectors today, shortening the barrel and fore stock was quite common in the day. Fernando K makes the good observation of the original lock decoration abruptly ending in the front portion of the lock plate - where the original frizzen spring would have been. The simple add on decoration added during the conversion. Still, the conversion looks to have been well done. To me, this pistol has a bit of Italian flair to it. (But maybe French) Rick

17th February 2021, 05:33 PM	#6
Will M Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: In the wee woods north of Napanee Ontario Posts: 394	Interesting pistol with great details. The hammer reminds me of Prussian arms.