Rifle with no rear sight.

[Pukka Bundook]

Gentlemen, I have a puzzling old rifle;
It is a flintlock and looks Germanic in style, has a 32 3/4" octagonal swamped barrel, about .62 calibre. seven grooves and one  turn in it's length.
Furniture looks British and near identical to the long Land pattern musket, But, somewhat scaled down.

The stocking up is very basic, with a cheekpiece rounded on its lower edge, and small scrolls at either end.
The rammer is tapered iron, and looks contemporary, the rammer pipes also look English, and stock was cut for a spoon to help retain ramrod.

What puzzles me, (besides the cross-bred looks!)   is that there is no evidence whatsoever of having had a rear sight.
Under magnification, I can see what may be a couple of tiny dots of solder maybe 6" in front of the breech on the top flat.
There is no raised sighting groove in the tang, but a groove Is cut in tang but of no help.
here is also no sign at all of a tang sight, or even (long shot!) and sign of a sight on the butt=plate tang for supine shooting. (Not likely to be either, but have to eliminate all possibilities)
The lock has had a screw through the plate, that engaged in a tapered groove in the sear arm, so the pull -off could be lightened.
As this means a conventional half-cock cannot be utilised, a tapered (wedge) shaped half bent is provided and seems to work well if not set too lightly.
The lock is very German -looking and certainly later in style than Long Land furniture yet all are original to the rifle.  Lock is basic compared to better British locks, but sparks well and has had the steel re-faced.
Touchhole is burned out pretty large but should be OK.
Can anyone give me any clue as to why no rear sight on a rifle?   
The gun has had the fore-end broken in two, quite cleanly and at the mid ramrod pipe, making me think a soldier bring-back from the war.  (I acquired it at auction in Montrose, Scotland)    It Could be a British gun with  Germanic barrel and lock, but this too leaves it's own bunch of questions!

Another puzzlement, is there appears to have been some form binding around the stock at the balance point, and I wondered if a capucine type rear sight had  been fitted? Normally a capucine would be on high -end guns, and high -end this is not.

Any help most appreciated!!
Richard.

I just need to figure out how to attach photos now.....................

[Pukka Bundook]

I uploaded images.....Dunno where they went though!  :-)

[Pukka Bundook]

Few more;

[rich pierce]

Can you see if the rifling extends the length of the barrel?  This looks like a smoothbore to me.

[Pukka Bundook]

Yes, strong rifling all the way down, and a 1 in 33 " twist.

This is the only marking on the barrel under the breech;
Bore is much better than these pictures show, Was full of old grease at time when pics taken.

Richard.

[Mike Brooks]

JV Puleo will probably know what this is. I can make some guesses. Could be one of the trials guns made in Germany for the brits when they were having rifles made for the rev war. Or could be a British cavalry carbine of some sort. Don't have a clue why it doesn't have a rear sight. There were some flat  locks with angular pans built for some of the british military rifles.

[JV Puleo]

Why this rifle has no rear sight is a mystery to me. I do have a theory about it though... heavily underscoring the word THEORY. I've already shared these thought with PUKKA, so I'm adding this for our other readers.

I suspect it may be a deer part rifle for a game keeper made in the last quarter of the 18th century. It was at this time that there was a brief surge of popularity in Britain for German style rifles. There is a famous Twigg rifle in the German style (I think illustrated in Great British Gunmakers) and I know there are others. Many years ago I was offered a late 17th century German rifle with both the barrel and lock replaced by a very obscure British gunmaker – an apprentice of Joe Manton's that set up in business around 1810 and died very shortly thereafter. It had a beautifully made, clearly English lock but with a deep banana curve to fit the original mortise. I have seen others as well, but perhaps not so distinctive. While the stock and mounts showed some dings and wear, the lock and barrel were virtually new.

If this is the case, we have a German barrel and lock stocked in a workmanlike manner for a relatively high ranking estate worker. We should also remember that managing game on big English estates was a serious job. The "gamekeeper" was a skilled senior employee of what was essentially a big business enterprise.

Is there any chance that the rear sight was incorporated in the breech plug or tang? Could it have been removed in such a way that it simply doesn't show today? Or, was this gun stocked by a competent provincial gun maker who had never done a rifle before and simply didn't understand how they were used? There must be some explanation but, in any case, I really like it and would have jumped on it if it had been offered to me.

[James Rogers]

Any picture of the balance area where it had a wrap of some kind or did I miss it?

[Pukka Bundook]

Thank you Joe, for adding your  thoughts here.  Very good of you!

The reason I placed it here, is because I thought others may have ideas about the no sight set-up, which to me is rather baffling on a rifle.
Joe,
It Is possible that a tang sight may have at one time been incorporated, and simply filed down, but there is a groove in the tang, which is below the line of sight so no help at all now.
I did enquire about the apparent Long Land pattern furniture, as it looked awful close;
Turns out the sidenail holes in sideplate on this arm are 3 1/4" C-Centre, and Long Land are 3 1/2" C-Centre.
Trigger guard on this one is 9 inches overall, and Long Land guard measures just over  11 inches O/all.
Were there arms made with scaled down furniture?  This is my big stumbling block, British looking furniture  on a German -looking rifle....and apparently made Like  service furniture but smaller. (?)

James,
No photos yet of the binding marks, but I will get some ASAP.
Looks like leather or some such bindings, as they show as blackish marks around the stock. Multiple windings.

Mike,

Thanks for your thoughts,
I think someone else mentioned possible trials type rifle, but the history of these is a closed shop, no-one seems to know anything about  the how and when. All very vague.
The lock is a very basic affair, and not likely the sort one would put on a trials gun I don't think and certainly not British.   the build is very different from a British lock, and no inspection marks.
The lock inside has one mark, which I recently photographed, and will add soon, It looks like a R (+ some other letter) over a larger P.
The pan is a separate part screwed to the lock, not usually seen on English locks but used by some of the "Imported" giunmakers.

The makers mark on the barrel would be very nice to identify, but apparently does not show up in Stockel.  (A  PG in a rectangle)

For what it's worth, it can't have been a one-off, as it has assembly hash marks on most if not all the parts.  (three slashes, ///)

Thanks to all for you contributions!

Richard.

[JV Puleo]

There certainly were muskets with scaled down Long Land Pattern furniture. The large Wilson muskets sold to various American colonies before the Revolution come to mind. They are occasionally seen with "New Jersey" markings but the type must have been reasonably common. When they were withdrawn from service during the F&I War and replaced with Ordnance Land Pattern muskets there were numerous complaints because the new muskets were so much heavier. Not many have survived as they all saw extensive heavy use during the F&I War and were often public property. I have also seen British muskets that fit that description. We'd have to think of them as the earlier version of the "commercial" India pattern. I came dangerously close to buying one last year at the Bristol Arms Fair... I think the maker was Griffin and it was from the arms display in a stately home. My thinking was that I've a snowball's chance in he-- of getting an Ordnance 1st pattern musket although there was one there for a little more than 3 times the money.

Oddly enough I've recently came across this same issue in a discussion of later, Spanish military rifles. Apparently, it was commonplace to remove the rear sight on both muzzleloaders and breech loaders. The reasoning seems to center around something like "snap shooting". Some officers even recommended that rear sights be done away with. This was later - in the early and middle 19th century - but for such an idea to have taken hold and persist so long suggests that not everyone who used a rifle had the same notion of how if worked best.

jp