Stoeffle Smith

[Hurricane ( of Virginia)]

Does anyone know of another gun with this same barrel signature?

http://www.aaawt.com/html/firearms/f616.html

Hurricane

[Bill of the 45th]

To my untrained eye, and limited knowledge, something doesn't look quite right.  The side plate washers seem to be of a later time, and the engraving of the cheekpiece, patchbox, and barrel signature don't look like the same hand.  It could be a later gun with a used barrel.  Seems more 1810 to me.  Interesting that there's no carving.  I do like the looks of it though.

Bill

[Dennis Glazener]

I agree with Bill. I would bet that engraved name/date on the barrel never saw the 18th century!
Dennis

[Jim Kibler]

I wouldn't be so quick to doubt that signature and date.  Compare it to the  Johannes Moll signature Eric Kettenburg recently posted.  http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=13490.0  I don't think a 1794 date for that rifle is unreasonable.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Something smells like a rusty can of salmon.  And personally, I'm thinking of a word that rhymes with "re-stock."  Oh wait, that is the word. 

It's not really fair to go by photos, but the price is absolutely absurd and there is a lot about the stocking, the cheek inlay, the lock etc. on and on and on that is just plain weird and wrong with a capital W.  Actually the barrel is probably the only right thing about it - I've seen Jacob George signatures like that too, as well as one or two others.  I think it was popular for a time.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Daniel Russell, huh?     #@!! $#@* it's cold right now!

[Eric Kettenburg]

You know, it's not out of the realm of possibility that some of these guys were purchasing gross lots of barrels from a local barrelmaker/barrelmakers and having their "signature" impressed on them at the time of manufacture.  That work isn;t rocket science nd it sure would be economically feasible.