Please Help Identify This Musket

[bluenoser]

Thanks Mike,
I was thinking British style fowling piece, perhaps Colonial manufacture due to the rather crude nature of the acorn finial.   I take it lesser grade British exports were equally crude - crude being perhaps a little harsh.

[Mike Brooks]

Just like today,  you get what you pay for.

[bluenoser]

I hear ya Mike!
I always seem to pay for what I get, but not so sure I get what I pay for

[bluenoser]

smart dog
The middle and entry pipes are sheet brass and are not a matched set.  How might that affect your view of things?  Would British style fowling piece be a possibility?

WESTbury
Thanks for that great suggestion.  After looking at the stamp under magnification and with varying light angles and intensities, I and am now quite certain it is indeed  "IGH" with the top half poorly struck.

Thanks to information provided by jdm concerning the late use of hand cut screws, any question of whether or not the lock might be a later replacement is now moot.  It was highly unlikely at best.  The information regarding use of hand made screws at such a late date came as a complete surprise.  I had anticipated economic and quality benefits would likely spur rapid take-up of a new, more uniform and substantially less expensive product.  Availability, as mentioned by jdm, could well be the deciding factor as I believe time and expense likely favor the machine-made product.

Would anyone care to share their thoughts on a possible source for the barrel?  I am thinking Dutch fowling piece as a possibility, but that is a shot in the dark.  There are four small oval underlugs at 11 1/8", 20 1/16" (slightly larger), 29 15/16" and 39 13/16" from the breech.  The first three are staked into the barrel and the one at the muzzle, which sits on a small square, is likely brazed (wall thickness).

Upon closer examination, I doubt this musket ever had a forward sling swivel.

Many thanks to all!

[jdm]

To clarify  I would think mass produced screws and bolts were probably more common in the 1820's & 30's than hand made. At least   in the more populated areas .  Jim

[rich pierce]

I re-use old screws all the time. If the buttplate is off an older gun it probably had screws with it that fit perfectly.

[bluenoser]

Rich,
Just to be sure we are on the same page -  these are not just old screws.  Being a packrat of the highest order, I have boxes of those.  These are a little more unique or, shall we say, one off.

[rich pierce]

To clarify: in a parts or composite gun I would not date the gun on the basis of the “early-ness” of the screws, the lock, the barrel, the furniture, or the style unless all of the above fit reasonably in a 20 year timeframe. A composite gun is by definition a cheap gun made with at least some used parts. Screws could be brand new, from old stuff every gunsmith squirrels away, or from one of the donor guns.

It’s the latest part, style, or construction method that gives the best indicator of when it was built.

For example I have an interesting original Lancaster smooth rifle. The barrel could be mid 1700s. Thick at the breech. The guard is considered early by experts. The trigger plate is early in styling. The lock is very long and has some banana curvature of the lower edge, but experts tell me it resembles trade gun locks post Revolutionary War. The decider for me is the buttplate. Too narrow and too much curve to be run of the mill for a 1770s-1780s gun. I wouldn’t try to datd it by the screws or lock bolts or tang bolt.

[bluenoser]

I completely understand.  I was not trying to imply anything by posting the pic.  I just wanted to make sure you understood we were not just referring to old screws but, rather, hand made screws.  I also thought some of the less experienced folk, such as myself, might like to see what hand made screws look like.  I think you may have read something into the post that simply is not there.

[WESTbury]

For example I have an interesting original Lancaster smooth rifle.  The trigger plate is early in styling.

For Rich,

This statement caught my eye. What is and "early" trigger plate?

What would be considered a "late triggerplate"?

Kent Johns

[JV Puleo]

The lock bolts were threaded in a "screw plate"...a hardened plate with tapered threaded holes. The soft iron screw was forced into them. Those threads are always rounded off and rough looking. I think the wood screws are just as old but, as Rich has said, you can't place much emphasis on this. If an old gun was dismantled to make this one...like one with a broken stock, then it's likely the original screws were reused as well.

Also...Mike is quite correct regarding "crudeness". Cheap English guns were just that. They often used the same patterns as the better guns but simply not as well made or finished.

[rich pierce]

For example I have an interesting original Lancaster smooth rifle.  The trigger plate is early in styling.

For Rich,

This statement caught my eye. What is and "early" trigger plate?

What would be considered a "late triggerplate"?

Kent Johns

I’ve been told that an off- center single trigger slot in the trigger plate, placing the trigger closer to the lock side, is something common on European guns and in America, seldom seen except on an early gun or one using “early” recycled parts.

[WESTbury]

Thanks Rich, appreciate the info.

I would have thought that you would want to keep all of the forces on the centerline of the weapon. Pulling the trigger does exert a force. Having that force off center could exert a small torquing action, however slight, which could affect accuracy albeit to a very tiny degree.

[JV Puleo]

I suspect the idea was to keep the sear as short as possible. That would minimize the amount of wood that had to be removed and, depending on how well the lock was made, might make the "let off" crisper.