Question about barrel stamping

[celtan]

: )

Been there, I can conmiserate. I have even seen tourist-market toys "preserved" within humidity/temperature regulated enclosures, expensive displays, you know. Cheap modern replicas cared for as 18th C. Brown Besses. Rare artillery pieces left to rot. Galvanism corroding touching blades of different metallic compostion. Flintlocks and Percussion Locks displayed with their hammers in either Ready or Safe positions. Red rust on ancient blades...

The reaction of the "curators" after being informed? None. That would be like admitting they committed a gaffe. Nothing changes.

And they all limit access to their caches, as if they actually belonged to them, instead of being sources of knowledge meant to be shared.

Nuff'sed

Send pics, if you can!

Manuel Luis

Originally Posted by fahnenschmied

Hello all, I will strive to get a photo or two, but as is all too common in the museum field - there are droves of people working with things they know absolutely nothing about, and the one person in charge of this exhibit is a former boss of mine who is the most unpleasant person I've ever worked with. Care must be taken to not alarm them that I am trying to somehow do their job, or show how incompetent they really are, etc.

[Jim McDougall]

While awaiting photos, if possible, especially of the marking, I thought I would just add a few notes. Though certainly outside my usual fields of study, as I have noted, Americana has become increasingly interesting as I travel into these historical regions. I just left Utah heading into Idaho toward Washington, Lewis & Clark regions.

Apparantly by the 1820's and 30's, a number of Pennsylvania makers were making 'short' barrel flintlocks, such as B.D.Gill of Lancaster; John Krider of Philadephia and S.Shuler of Liverpool. I think that the English fowling guns that served as prototypes for the fowling guns in America had very long barrels, but few, if any were produced in America until after the Revolutionary War. One of the earliest producers noted was Thomas Palmer of Pennsylvania.
While fowling guns were typically of smaller caliber, it seems they were part round and part octagonal in the barrel if I understand correctly. The 'long rifles' such as the famed Hawken were of much larger calibers.

I understand also that until the mid 19th century, flintlock smoothbores were preferred in many cases due to simplicity in procuring powder and material for ammunition vs,. difficulty in same acquiring caps or cartridges for the newr cap and ball guns.

[Jim McDougall]

Dave, in continuing to try to help with the marking, I realize in rereading your posts you already have obviously well established knowledge on these guns, so please accept my suggestions as just that. I have very limited resources here with me, especially on guns, but I always enjoy a challenge, especially if I can learn from it !

You say the marking is a man holding a spear. There were armourers in Germany in the 17th century that used standing figures holding indiscernable weapons, one was Hoppe (Hoppie) of Solingen c.1630; the other Horman Michael of Munich c.1670. While these are shown as 'swordsmiths' ("Armourers Marks" Gyngell, 1959, p.39) I am thinking that perhaps the image might have been copied by a gun or barrel maker in Pennsylvania in latter 17th into the 18th century. It is well known that the Pennsylvania 'Duetsch' (not Dutch) establishing gunmaking as early as c.1719. The well known Jaeger rifles were progenitors of the 'Kentucky' and Pennsylvania long rifles.

I have found a number of references that may discuss more on possibly determining more of the form of this rifle, but as you note you are more focused on the marking. Most of the references I have seen that reference these obscure markings on the trade items and various weaponry in America in colonial times seem to pay more attention to tomahawks and axes, but there must be others that address the guns..still looking.

Manolo, extremely well said observations!!!! I agree many museums are sad indeed in the way they deny proper care to important pieces of history, and fail to share them with those who seek preserving history, regardless of bureaucratic budgets and ajendas.

All best regards,
Jim

[fahnenschmied]

[QUOTE=I have found a number of references that may discuss more on possibly determining more of the form of this rifle, but as you note you are more focused on the marking.

....Thats just my point I am trying to get across to my museum - it is not a rifle at all, never was, only a gun restocked at a later time with an American rifle style stock without a patchbox. I was interested in barrel markings because that is my best clue as to what it might have been.
Most English barrels I've ever messed with from the time have some sort of view and proof marks. What I'm really looking for at the moment is a list or chart with 18th century proofmarks, or barrel marks, from France, Holland, Belgium, Spain and elsewhere in Europe. Its not a Suhl chicken, thats for sure!
I am almost certain that the barrel isn't American made. The only Pennsylvania barrel marks I know in imitation of others are the marks on some Leman made guns in imitation of Birmingham ones on some guns made for the Indian trade.

Yes, sometimes I see things that make me wonder....artillery and vehicles slowly rotting outside in the rain....bows left strung...locks with the cock fully back...things drastically mislabeled. Once as a lowly college student I saw a nice old german wheellock rifle on display at our state museum, but the spring bridle had been put on the wrong way. I tried to tell the curators about it but I'm not sure they tell which gun I was talking about, or what a wheel lock was...

Dave

[Jim McDougall]

[QUOTE=fahnenschmied][QUOTE=I have found a number of references that may discuss more on possibly determining more of the form of this rifle, but as you note you are more focused on the marking.

....Thats just my point I am trying to get across to my museum - it is not a rifle at all, never was, only a gun restocked at a later time with an American rifle style stock without a patchbox. I was interested in barrel markings because that is my best clue as to what it might have been.
Most English barrels I've ever messed with from the time have some sort of view and proof marks. What I'm really looking for at the moment is a list or chart with 18th century proofmarks, or barrel marks, from France, Holland, Belgium, Spain and elsewhere in Europe. Its not a Suhl chicken, thats for sure!
I am almost certain that the barrel isn't American made. The only Pennsylvania barrel marks I know in imitation of others are the marks on some Leman made guns in imitation of Birmingham ones on some guns made for the Indian trade.

Yes, sometimes I see things that make me wonder....artillery and vehicles slowly rotting outside in the rain....bows left strung...locks with the cock fully back...things drastically mislabeled. Once as a lowly college student I saw a nice old german wheellock rifle on display at our state museum, but the spring bridle had been put on the wrong way. I tried to tell the curators about it but I'm not sure they tell which gun I was talking about, or what a wheel lock was...

Dave[/QUOTE]


It does sound like this is likely to be as you suggest, a restocked barrel using some earlier components, which certainly was not an uncommon thing in those times. One of the key things emphasized in studying frontier history is that 'nothing was thrown away', signaling the profound recycling of the important weapons components.

I am hoping that our readers who are focused on firearms might have the tables or charts needed that might include something similar to the markig you describe. The closest thing I have found is the two standing figures I have noted from Germany in the 17th century. As always, such marks often quickly diffused into the arms producing community as they sought to capitalize on the standing reputation of the original users.

Thank you for adding the extra detail and comments, its good to have someone with interest and clearly sound knowledge on these American colonial arms. Even though you note certain disinterest in the 'American long rifle worship' , you obviously have excellent working knowledge in its particulars.

All best regards,
Jim

[Jim McDougall]

Continuing research on this, and with my limited knowledge on these guns, I am wondering more about the descriptions. As far as I can discover, the bores on most of the fowlers I have found are much larger, many of .70 cal range on most of the European barrels. The bore described here seems much smaller and is unclear. It is unclear whether the barrel, obviously shortened, is fully octagonal or partially round, partially octagonal as many of them are.

It is noted there are no visible proof marks which seems unusual as most European barrels did have some sort of proof, perhaps the shortening of the barrel removed the proof? I am not familiar which part of the barrel would have been removed in this modification.
Also, if anyone out there might answer here, what does the term 'pinned' mean, on the barrel? It suggests that this feature would preclude the use of a plug bayonet.

Apparantly just prior to, and during the Revolutionary War, in 1775 there was a Colonial organization termed the "Committee of Safety" which was a number of gunsmiths in the colonies who produced guns for the cause. While the numbers seem unclear, it is noted these guns, whether produced wholly or refurbished from extant components, were typically unmarked as the smiths did not wish to face repercussions from the British. With this, as far as is known, none of these guns have been effectively identified, however one profound attempt occurred with "Committee of Safety Musket? Prove it", (William H. Guthman, Man at Arms magazine, Jul.Aug.1979).

It appears that many guns were dramatically shortened in the barrel length for either horseback use or use in thickly forested or rugged terrain, while often for hunters, it seems possible for some of the guerrilla type warfare well known. Although the actual employment of 'guerrilla' type warfare by Colonial troops is often though universal, the truth is that for the most part, especially where forces were trained by von Stueben, the European battle formations were used.

In hopes that perhaps somebody out there might join in, I will keep researching while we wait. It is great to learn more on these guns, and seems surprising there appears to be so little interest out there on this historical period or these fascinating weapons!

Best regards,
Jim

[fernando]

Hi, can i say nothing with sense?

Originally Posted by fahnenschmied

...What I'm really looking for at the moment is a list or chart with 18th century proofmarks, or barrel marks, from France, Holland, Belgium, Spain and elsewhere in Europe...

Judging by the quoted dimensions of the punch mark and its accuracy, you will tell how well you discern its details because, if it is indeed a man holding a spear, i would say it doesn't figure in the European proof mark books. The closest thing you find there is an arm holding a (sort of) scimitar, a nitro proof London mark, which certainly you know and, anyway, has nothing to do with the spear man.
This would certainly be a maker's mark.
I will PM this thread to Stuart (kahnjar1). If i was not dreaming, the other day he offered to help decoding firearms marks.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...It is noted there are no visible proof marks which seems unusual as most European barrels did have some sort of proof, perhaps the shortening of the barrel removed the proof? I am not familiar which part of the barrel would have been removed in this modification...

A zillion things can happen to firearms during their lifes but i guess that, massively, barrels are shortened by the muzzle. Exceptionaly by the time flintlocks were converted to percussion, one of the early modifications was cutting the barrel by the breech and screw a new one, with percussion facilities; but this type of operations is a system conversion and not necessarily an actual barrel shortening. It should be also to consider that, very often you find punch proof marks under the barrel, close or not far from the breech. Also plenty gun or barrel makers (British and others) sign the pieces in this area.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... It appears that many guns were dramatically shortened in the barrel length for either horseback use or use in thickly forested or rugged terrain...

As also to used them for private defence, concealed under the coat, but a musket shortened from five foot to 36-38" is still a huge beast, still an open field thing, right ?

Fernando

.

[kahnjar1]

Hi Dave, and welcome to the Forum. Thanks Fernando for prompting me to act on this. I DID see the thread but lack of a pic put me off somewhat. Anyway better late than never I guess. I have had a search thru my stuff and the only mark (apart from the usual Proof Marks) I can find of a man holding anything, is this one.
Regards Stuart

[fahnenschmied]

Well, now, that is a bit similar! But not exact....for one, the punch was a very neat and straight rectangular outline. And I think - but am not at all certain - that the shaft was on the other side of the figure. Not sure though. I haven't had a chance to try to get a photo yet - and I am not sure I can do it myself. I may have to woo someone with a camera adapted for closeup work, and the skill to operate it. It may not be for a few days yet as I am in the middle of trying to finish a galloper gun carriage - or a Lamon Lafette, if you will - for another historic site by next Saturday.
And so another hurried reply....
Yes, I have some familiarity with firearms....I do have an 1850s British 12 bore barrel where the Birmingham proofs were hidden on the bottom, as if they were something to be ashamed of. Perhaps the conservator will let me dismantle it....we'll see...

Dave