Opinions Please

[nord]

H Dimick rifle 40 calibre, fullstock percussion. Indited for selling arms to the Confederacy and beat the charges. Originally from Lexington Kentucky, that is where this rifle was made. Don Stith confirmed it and stated that it is a rare Dimick because it had brass furniture, Dimick always mounted with iron or silver.









Comments from ALR Committee by request of owner:


I'm no expert on southern guns but that I have some concerns...

The wrist repair is a non-issue but the comment about brass furniture being unknown by this maker sets off alarms. Lack of a patchbox or grease hole is problematic for me on this style of rifle.

Then the full side view... If those ramrod guides aren't equidistant, and in view of the rear sight being moved, the barrel has unquestionably been cut. However, if the guides are equidistant, then I'd bet a restock. (Which explains the brass furniture and lack of a box or grease hole.)

My gut says restock and I'd bet against it ever being delivered as a smooth rifle. Rifling is either shot out or barrel re-bored. Actually I suspect the barrel may be re-used and remounted.

While I wouldn't argue with a description of "unique", it would take a whole lot of convincing for me to ever make an offer on this piece.

================================================================

For what its worth, I will vouch that Don Stith did confirm this being a brass mounted Dimmick. He gave me that information and I passed it on to the owner of this rifle. There is no question that the barrel has been cut, the owner told me that before I even saw photos of the rifle.

Don said that even though this Dimmick was rarer than a silver mounted ones it would not bring the price of a silver mounted one because people expect it to be silver instead of brass mounted.

I am not sure if it was this Dimmick or a second one the owner has, but one of them was made in a different city than most Dimmick's. (you can tell I am not a Dimmick student)!

================================================================

Owner:

After our back and forth on the Dimick I sent the photos back to Don Stith, he has been reviewing the photos for a second time and has come to the conclusion that it is not a Dimick. I am glad that you have brought this up, myself after our conversation had looked at it more than I ever did and I thought that there was too much space between the D and the remaining letters. Mr. Stith came up with the same conclusion. I am not disappointed by this, I have had great gains with the rifles and one cannot expect to hit a home run every time they are at bat. So with that being said, I would like to post it and see what the general consensus is from the Gentlemen in the forum.
   

[msmith]

The last three letters in the signature look like "ish"....If so the last name may be something like Dominish ....... Of course the D maybe a middle initial.....I have a rifle where the rears site has been moved in between signature, it is aggravating...I guess when the barrels where cut and or the rear sight moved, the name on the barrel meant lil to the owners back in the day...

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Could it be an "A" rather than an "H" for first initial?

[msmith]

The first letter definitely looks like a A..

[Buck]

Mr. Stith found a AD Frish in sellers, I was looking at it under a magnifying glass and what I see is a A D _rinish, you can see what appears to be a part of a capitol letter maybe a T,L,F,or J the upper part of the letter has a loop in it, there is nothing else anywhere on the barrel, the tang was extended with the repair, what I find odd, and Nord and I have discussed is the possible barrel shortening. I thought that if the barrel was shortened the sight would have moved forward not back, I do not know I am at a loss. I would appreciate some insight Gentlemen, Thankyou.

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Maybe it depends on the eyesight of the person for whom it was shortened???

[nord]

Buck,

Barrel was cut at the breach. Thus the rear sight moved toward the shooter by several inches. In order to gain proper eye relief the rear sight was moved toward the muzzle into the signature area.

I'm still unclear as to the stock and ramrod pipes. I'm especially curious about the center pipe and whether it shows any sign of having been moved. The reason I ask is that the pipes would have been equidistant on an untouched gun. When the barrel was cut the muzzle pipe would have moved rearward by whatever length the barrel was cut leaving the spacing unequal. Thus, if the pipes are equally spaced, either the old stock will show evidence of such or the gun is a restock at minimum.

I still am of the opinion that work done on this gun is in period and correct from the standpoint of history. I'm on the fence when it comes to a maker. Wouldn't it be wonderful if that old gun could talk?

[Buck]

It would, the ramrod pipes are 10" and 9 7/8", They are within an 1/8". I had thought that with the break at the wrist that maybe the rear sight needed to be adjusted for the owner, but at the front sight it appears that the original sight was moved back also. I will send on a picture of this tomorrow. This is one of the rifles from my fathers collection, till this point I have not paid an ounce of attention to this piece. Thankyou Nord, I believe in the next few days the both of us are going to learn a little bit more than we knew before. 

[nord]

Contributed by Whisker...

If that's a Dimick I'm a Teddy Kennedy fan!

Lower grade w/ recycled barrel.

Don't know I'd call it "restock" since what was restocked other than bbl?

[shortbarrel]

nord: you hit this won on the money, one or two generation build. why could a collector not see what I saw in the pictures. Watch out now ,talking about ole Ted might get you banned from this sight. On the other hand I didn't think much of him either.

[Buck]

Short barrel,
I have been collecting for 1 year and 7 months since the passing of my father. My experience is with the Penn. State rifles. I posted this rifle to get opinions and help, not my balls busted. I had a Dimmik expert who worked at the Hawken shop for years tell me that it was a Dimick. Maybe the Gentleman was under the weather at the time or maybe the photos that I sent him originally were not as clear as the photos that were posted here. None the less when he saw the photos he corrected his error and informed me of the mistake. I have the utmost respect for this man who offered his help along with several other Gentlemen at the time of my fathers passing. My understanding is that this website is for the study of the Longrifle and this particular rifle does not fall into the parameters of the school that I am familiar with, so constructive criticism is appreciated. I had not thought this to be a whose' wrong or whose' right competition. As far as Teddy Kennedy is concerned, its not polite to ridicule the dead.

[msmith]

Don't  let it bother you to much..I have had worse said about a few of mine...You got  to look at all of the positive info and expert advice you can get on this site, for FREE...You may get a lil barb once in awhle, but don't take it to serious....Some of the older more experienced collectors don't mince words...On another note, some of the people in my life  that I felt had insulted me or hurt my feelings   turned out to be the most beneficial..You have a nice rifle be happy...Many people are not fortunate enough to ever own a Antique Long Rifle..

[JTR]

Sometimes some of the new guys need to learn to be a bit more polite.
That's not to say don't call it as you see it, but do it in a polite way with comments directed to the person involved, and not a snide comment to a third party.
Or at least that's what I think.

Buck, Thanks for posting your Dimmick here, even if it isn't a Dimmick. We all learn if we care too, none the less.

John

[nord]

JTR & MSMIT,

Thank you for your insight and comments. Fred and I have watched the progression of this thread with interest and have been very close to withdrawing it entirely.

You gentlemen have renewed my faith in our membership. Genteel is as good a description as any and it says much.

One fact I need to point out is that the owner of this gun voluntarily had me place it in the public forum as he wanted honest opinions and discussion.  In my view this places him well above many who would have elected to hide any adverse opinions.

Obviously there have been private communications that I'm not at liberty to share. Just know that the contributor is exceptional in his desire for facts and truth.

[Buck]

Thankyou Gentlemen I am not discouraged at all. I appreciate the input and hope to hear more thoughts on this piece.
Thankyou.
Buck

[Buck]

Nord,
Here are some dimensions:
The overall length is 57 inches. The barrel length is 42", and the pull is 13". The original rear site has a silver inlay and is directly centered over the rear ramrod pipe. The rear sight was moved back towards the shooter, hence covering the signature. My question is the barrel, it hasn't been cut at the muzzle. Look at the first picture it does not appear to have a breech plug, the entire mechanism appears to be monolithic. I am not an enthusiast of the percussion era, I own several but with this type I only have 1 other and it is separate from the barrel. The percussion "block" (for lack of proper terminology) is forged into the barrel. Please explain.
Buck

[nord]

To set the record straight I just received a new set of photos...

1. The signature area is correctly spaced between the breach and the area where the rear sight was originally located. At some point the rear sight was set back into the signature area.

2. The front sight blade is permanently placed with no lateral adjustment ever intended. Forward of the front blade is a small hole. I can't determine whether threaded or not.

The breach area is most interesting as the owner described to me what I thought was a patent breach. It's not. It looks like a drum cut to look like the ignition area of a patent breach. It's attached by the customary screw and time and corrosion seem to have pretty much welded it to the barrel.

Given these new details I believe the barrel is original to this rifle. If cut it was so little as to be immaterial, but I doubt it was ever touched. The upper barrel modifications are beyond my ability to imagine. When combined with a smooth bore and the lack of a patchbox or grease hole I'm at a loss.

Perhaps an older barrel placed on a new platform in period as I can't imagine the original maker out shopping such a rifle. Maybe a sighting tube or hood, but why move the rear sight in that case?

Any ideas?

[Buck]

The hole forward of the front sight is threaded.
Buck