Question about barrel stamping

[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

[Jim McDougall]

Outstanding teamwork Fernando and Stuart!!! You guys are great, and this is what I always hope for around here...working together to solve some of these mysteries.
I can understand the dilemma Dave is experiencing getting the photos, and its great to have him working with us in adding to the descriptions concerning this marking. It's kind of fun in a way, sort of like police investigation going through 'mugshot' books with the help of a witness. Definitely interesting!!

Fernando, thank you for the well explained comments pertaining to the shortening of gun barrels. After reading that it reminded me of the Snider-Enfields where changed to breech loading they removed a section of the barrel at the breech to open for insertion of the cartridges. Good notes on the shorter guns for private defense also, and agreed they still would be a bit unwieldy as 'concealed' weapons with these barrels.

On the note about the spear holding figure, in "Armourers Marks" by Gyngell (1959) on p. 39, where one marking is of a warrior standing with what may be either a gun or a spear held in his right hand, attributed to Hoppe of Solingen c.1630; another by H.Michael of Munich c.1670 holding also in right hand some type of shorter hafted weapon.
These are supported somewhat by the markings with similar theme added by Stuart, though these seem more stylized figures holding halberds, and the bloused pantaloon costume of European fashion seems apparant.

These images are clearly intended to represent native figures, most probably of the New World and impressions of the so called 'savages' encountered in colonial settings. Europeans were intrigued by the 'wildness' of these new civilizations and the markings reflect this interest by the suggestion of power implied by the representation of these warriors.

It does not seem unlikely that the use of these figures might have been applied to trade weapons or materials intended for use in the Colonies or in dealings with the Native Americans. As mentioned, with the demand for materials for servicing weapons and more weapons were needed, any components at hand would have been used in furbishing or altering them.

There is still the question of the actual bore of this barrel, which would seem to add a bit more perspective in this analysis.

Thanks very much guys.

All best regards,
Jim

[fahnenschmied]

Managed to get some photos of the relic in question. The camera made manifest some details that were impossible to see my first time with it...it does look as if there is a head of some sort on the shaft. Similar to but not exactly like the Kalthoff marks shown above...
The barrel is has a tapering octagonal breech section that terminates in a ring that is 17 1/2 inches from the breech. At present it only has about 12 1/4 more inches to the muzzle. There is a seat for a rear sight about 9 1/2 inches from the breech - whether it is original to it I cannot say, but many earlier 18th century fowlers do have rear sights on them.
Barrel is 1 3/16 (about 3cm) wide at the breech...bore seems to be right at .62. Even where it is cut off the tube is very thin, about a millimeter wall thickness.
Some question was made about the small bore of these "fowlers" - while it is true that a 12 bore throws a much better shot pattern, the lightness of the ammunition and the lightness of the gun made these smaller bores very popular, at least with the natives of this country. Just as the 19th century Northwest guns were about 24 bore, @ 58 caliber - most of the archaeologically recovered guns found in native sites here measure something from .54 to .62