I think we need to be careful with the e-mail that Nord received and posted. Since we do not know who sent the e-mail, we have no way to judge the person's knowledge or credability on making such an "absolute" determination in his response. He offers no comments, reasoning or other justification for why the gun is an Oblinger instead of a J. H. Johnston. Both names are on the gun, and the gun looks very much like the work of J. H. Johnston. When two names are present on a gun, a feasible explanation for it (offered in the latest KRA Bulletin with some facts to back it up) is that the second name can at times be a second gunsmith who repaired the gun sometime after it was made.
There is only one Oblinger rifle illustrated in the lengthy series of "Oho Gunsmiths & Allied Tradesmen." The gun is a David Oblinger half-stocked rifle (p. 216, Vol. III). The butt plates are similar, and both guns have high combs, but beyond that, there are more differences in the guards, triggers, style/shape of side facings, etc. There may be a few years difference between the guns, but not enough to justify all the differences. I would tend to lean toward this rifle being the work of J. H. Johnston, rather than an Oblinger product, particularly with the lug dimple/mark on the side of the barrel a few inches behind the muzzle, and think perhaps the gun was repaired later in Ohio by an Oblinger. Another possibility, perhaps remote, is that one of the Oblingers sold "imported" guns and/or Pennsylvania guns in his shop that he restamped before selling.
Nord, if you can provide us with the name of the responder, or any valid reason for why his statement should be sufficient to accept the gun as an Oblinger without further support or justification, please let us know. Perhaps the gun really is an Oblinger, but it sure looks like a J. H. Johnston, and differs in some respects from the pictured Oblinger rifle of about the same time period. Shelby Gallien
