AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Contemporary Longrifle Collecting => Topic started by: TNVolunteerEngineer on March 22, 2014, 10:35:03 AM
-
This isn't my auction. I have no connection except that I noticed the auction while looking at something else. The barrel may be the only item of value in the old piece, because the proportions are all wrong on the gun and the workmanship is "creative" at best. Notice that an empty centerfire cartridge case was used to cap the ramrod. If nothing else, this rifle serves to show how far we have come in building new muzzleloading rifles. Here is the link:
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=400924755
-
The lock is a Dixie Gun Works from the late 1950's or early 1960's and I would agree that the Bill Large barrel is the only thing about this that MIGHT have value IF it hasn't been destroyed by use of phony powder.
Bob Roller
-
Bob, You may be right, but I think someday guns Like this, made in that era, will find a niche market for collectors. Kind of a renaissance for the flintlock that was pre internet, pre just about everything, with isolated fellows recreating these guns without much to go on but a love for them and what they represent. I'm not a collector of anything, I guess I don't have that gene, but I hope this gun goes to someone that appreciates it for what it is and keeps it as such.
Robby
-
I've never seen a lock held on a gun that way! ???. What were they thinking? morons. the only thing worth anything on that rifle IS the Barrel and if I had the money I would be bidding on it just to have a W.M. Large barrel.
-
James,
Given what we see of the way someone attached the lock and made the ram rod tip, I wouldn't count on the barrel having been taken care of.
Mark
-
Back then , a lot of those fellows built a gun based on seeing one in the movies, on tv, or maybe even getting to hold one. They wanted one and built it without knowing how, or even who to ask. That is part of the charm in these guns, but like I said, I am not a collector and do not know what peak's their interest. I salute all those blessed with the God given talent that seems to abound today, the genius to make a gun with little or no help and the artistic eye required to see something and be able to reproduce it from memory! Amazing!!
Robby
-
Harsh words from some who may not have trying to build with the information and parts available in the early 60s. My first build was with a mish-mash of components and a $9.00 cherry blank from Herters, and a Large barrel. We did not have the many castings and lock choices, swaged round balls and the internet. I'm sure the builder was proud of his rifle and probably kept the bore clean as well.
-
I agree that the comments are harsh. It may have been a first rifle and given the lack of information available when it was built, really not that badly done. I kind of hope whoever buys it does not part it out.
-
Harsh words from some who may not have trying to build with the information and parts available in the early 60s. My first build was with a mish-mash of components and a $9.00 cherry blank from Herters, and a Large barrel. We did not have the many castings and lock choices, swaged round balls and the internet. I'm sure the builder was proud of his rifle and probably kept the bore clean as well.
The rifle on gun brokers is horrid.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi199%2FDPhariss%2FDon%2520King%2520Rifles%2FP1000486.jpg&hash=2733ff8d6f9c0783c5766b666b63f96d8d8f013f)
The bottom rifle was made in the late 1950s.
The third rifle from the bottom was laid out the day JFK was shot.
The fact that nobody wants to say "that gun is ugly" or gets chided or attacked if they do does not change the facts.
Dan
-
SOLD!
for $411.00
That's a lot of money for a maybe ok barrel. :o
John
-
Well, yeah, it is ugly, but so was the Edsel to a lot of people, but a lot of people collect them for what they are. No one is chastising anyone, not that you would ever do that.
Robby
-
Harsh words from some who may not have trying to build with the information and parts available in the early 60s. My first build was with a mish-mash of components and a $9.00 cherry blank from Herters, and a Large barrel. We did not have the many castings and lock choices, swaged round balls and the internet. I'm sure the builder was proud of his rifle and probably kept the bore clean as well.
The rifle on gun brokers is horrid.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi199%2FDPhariss%2FDon%2520King%2520Rifles%2FP1000486.jpg&hash=2733ff8d6f9c0783c5766b666b63f96d8d8f013f)
The bottom rifle was made in the late 1950s.
The third rifle from the bottom was laid out the day JFK was shot.
The fact that nobody wants to say "that gun is ugly" or gets chided or attacked if they do does not change the facts.
Dan
I think we may tend to let people off to easily for doing poor work. I agree with Dan, that guns is VERY badly done.
We may not of had the internet or email but we certainly had books, pictures, museums, TOW and Dixie full size drawings to name just a few sources of information. There were LOTS of resources, just not quite as easy to tap as the internet and there were even some not bad production MLs being built. The internet has only been a real big factor for about 20 years and there were lots of GREAT MLs being built long before it was around. The two Dan posts are just a couple of examples as is the guns Taylor Sapergia was building back in the 70s and 80s.
The gun above posted for sale isn't even as good as the production guns of the same era. That gun was put together by someone with real poor skills, just look at the inleting, shaping and irregular lines. IF the barrel was any good the gun was worth $150, I can't believe someone would pay $411 for that. The era it was built in does not excuse poor workmanship. IMO
-
This could have been a 1st or 2nd rifle or maybe even a 3rd. I will bet money that the builder was very proud of it. I know that my first few rifles were very crude compared to my work today and compared to some on this board it still is. I dare any and all builders to put pictures of their first works up for comparison if they are brave enough.
I saw a rifle built by the late John Bivins that made me think I might have hope to turn out OK as builder. Don't get me wrong Bivins was a great builder and this rifle definately showed that he had future potential but it was a long way from his later work.
When I get home this weekend I will start another thread on first rifles and see who has the balls to play.
-
Start the thread, I'll go for it! :o
I have a cherry bitchn hardly seen by an living human being first long rifle I made back in 1981.... Actually, the only long rifle I ever made!
John ;D
-
Thats ugly. My first was built in abour 86 and while it's nothing to brag about it's a bit better than that one. I had Dixon's book so at least I had the lock screws in the right direction. ;)
-
I looked at, and handled the gun in person at Howell's Gun Shop in Gray, Maine. It was probably worth the money as an entry level rifle for someone starting out.
The workmanship was crude, but it looked like it could be a shooter. The geometry looked okay and the lock worked well.
It brought the money it should have brought.
Centershot
-
Back in the 60s a lot of people wanted to shoot BP, but there weren't a lot of commercial guns available and those same folks didn't have any talent at all. They built whatever they could with what they had. The guns are crude and ugly, but they are a piece of muzzleloading history. That being said, I wouldn't buy the one in question. OTOH, I once knew an old gentleman from Utah who had made a flintlock, set triggers, and rifled a barrel for a gun that was pretty atrocious, but shot really well. We got to know each other very well and I would give $1,000.00 for that gun as a momento of the relationship. Sentimentality plays a part.
Roger B.