Author Topic: H.E. Leman Rifle Questions (Read 11898 times)

mgrgrt · « **on:** April 27, 2010, 05:53:08 AM »

BGC · « **Reply #1 on:** April 27, 2010, 07:22:59 AM »

Nice looking rifle. It's been well taken care of all these past years.
If it is a Leman rifle, it is certainly one of the nicest and fanciest I've ever seen.
I'll let the Leman and Pennsylvania folks make a better call on it.
Is the rifle signed? By that, is there any names or initials (stamped block letters or signed in script) on top of the barrel in the area between the rear sight and the rear of the barrel?

B Shipman · « **Reply #2 on:** April 27, 2010, 07:55:53 AM »

Something like this could have certainly been done in Leman's custom shop. If a Leman, it would almost always be stamped so on the top barrel flat. Cheaper pieces, which this is not, would be marked Conestoga Rifle works. My vibes are that it's a Leman.

Tanselman · « **Reply #3 on:** April 27, 2010, 09:39:42 AM »

This is a very nice rifle, but unless the barrel is stamped by Leman similar to the lock plate stamping, I doubt that it is a Leman product... altho it may have been made near Lancaster based on the wrist checkering and guard style. Leman's style of engraving is composed of rather heavily cut elaborate scrolls that are well done, but substantially different than the engraving on this rifle. He also tended to use oval inlays along his forestocks; I have never seen this type forestock inlay on a Leman rifle, whether early or late, nor forestock inlays attached with small screws.

The percussion snail is interesting. It sits up higher on the barrel, totally above the lock plate so that no cutout had to be made in the lock plate. I don't recall seeing that detail on a Leman rifle.

Due to the quality of this rifle, you should look very closely at the top flat of the barrel, perhaps about four inches of so behind the rear sight, to see if any trace of the maker's initials or name remain. But whether signed or not, it's a neat gun. Shelby Gallien

nord · « **Reply #4 on:** April 27, 2010, 03:27:46 PM »

Welcome to ALR! I'm happy to see that you made the trip from AG. (A great forum, but not really the place to discuss long rifles.)

Shelby is correct about the signature area. I'd normally expect Leman to be stamped on the barrel top but exceptions abound and it's best to never say never.

Others have confirmed my opinion that this is a very nice rifle. It's a late gun finely done for the period of its manufacture. If not a Leman, then heavily influenced by Leman. (I'd lean toward their custom shop and a request NOT to have the barrel stamped.)

One way or the other the value will not be affected either way as this rifle is well able to stand on its own. Please consider submitting this rifle for display in our Virtual Library & Museum.

mgrgrt · « **Reply #5 on:** April 27, 2010, 11:36:33 PM »

Nord - thank you, this is a very cool site. I stayed up way to late reading last night. As for a signature on the barrel, I couldn't find any sign of one. Both sides of the barrel have scrolling along them near the rear site (the scroll begins and ends with a series of vertical dots and has the same pattern as the trigger guard) but that is all I could find. As for the library, I would love to submit the rifle, I will borrow a better camera so I can improve the pics. I also need to learn how to in-bed pictures into a post rather that attaching a link.

Finally, the top of the stock has brass which appears to have been damaged by water (some green stuff over the brass) and one of two tang screws are missing, should this stuff be repaired or just left alone. Note: I live in SE Michigan and don't no anything about antique firearms so would need a pro.

bgf · « **Reply #6 on:** April 27, 2010, 11:39:17 PM »

Is it just me or does that triggerguard look a bit out of place with the rest of the rifle? To me it looks almost like the "Bivins" repro. at TOTW

. With the other late features, I would have expected something more ornate and "late" in appearance. Forgive my ignorance if that is a stupid question/observation.

If the rifle is a Leman, that would be staggering.

nord · « **Reply #7 on:** April 28, 2010, 01:39:45 AM »

Best to do nothing right now, except for possible a light rub with Murphy's Oil Soap or similar. Light oil to the barrel and that should do.

Submit photos as attachment to Email and send them to <parifles @earthlink.net> and I'll take it from there.

B

JTR · « **Reply #8 on:** April 28, 2010, 03:48:52 AM »

I'd suggest easy on the Murphy's oil soap.
I used it once, a long time ago, on a nice old rifle and it took the patina off the wood along with the dirt..... Maybe that was just that rifle for some reason, but it made enough mess of it that I never tried it again.

John

bgf · « **Reply #9 on:** April 28, 2010, 04:38:43 AM »

The more I look at that triggerguard, the more I'm convinced it is not original. In one of the pictures, you can see that it does not fit its inlet behind the trigger bar in the rear -- very large hole left. Someone please set me right.

mgrgrt · « **Reply #10 on:** April 28, 2010, 04:59:17 AM »

I'm looking at the rifle right now- the "Trigger bar" (I think ) appears to be slightly popped out of the stock at the butt end -approx 0.5mm which does give the appearance of a hole. The trigger guard meets the stock 1.5cm past the trigger bar. I will take some high resolution pictures this weekend.

This is very cool- any questions about the gun (physical appearance) and I'll try to answer them. - I'm learning a ton. Thanks

bgf · « **Reply #11 on:** April 28, 2010, 05:11:00 AM »

Don't go to too much trouble on my account, I'm just learning also, but it does look odd in that area, as if something has happened, and even better pictures wouldn't hurt at all. I think I should have called it a trigger plate, if I'm seeing things correctly, but it seems like you figured out what I meant.

mgrgrt · « **Reply #12 on:** April 28, 2010, 05:22:07 AM »

It is no trouble at all. This gun (and some others) have been floating around my parents basement my whole life and my dads parents basement before that so all I've ever known about it was that it has been in our family since the 1800's. Up until a couple days ago I never even considered that it may not be a Leman.
On the other hand, I have and old rifle with a Remington lock that we've always assumed was not made by Remington, but I'll save that 'till I get a handle on this gun.

Tanselman · « **Reply #13 on:** April 28, 2010, 05:44:55 AM »

I reviewed the guard in all pictures where it is visible, and it appears to be original to the gun to me. Its front extension fits the front mortise well, and the rear extension butts against the extended toe plate. Stocks invariable shrink over the years (a good sign, since it verifies the stock is old and original), popping some inlaid metal slightly. At times the edge of a patchbox, or large inlay, will raise above the wood surface due to wood shrinkage beneath it. Any slight rise in the end of the guard's rear extension is normal for an old rifle. I see nothing suspicious with the guard, either in its fit, or in its style, engraving or finishing.

If the concern is that the back end of the trigger plate has a gap between it and the guard's rear extenison, again, that's a normal occurance on some (a good percentage) old rifles. I think you have a nice, original percussion rifle, probably made a little later than one might think at first glance (1850s), based on the forestock inlays being mounted with small screws and the barrel not being longer. Shelby Gallien

Dphariss · « **Reply #14 on:** April 28, 2010, 03:57:13 PM »

Very nice.
If a Leman it's one of the fancy ones.
I harbor some doubt it since it should be marked on the barrel. But its possible it could have been re-barreled at some point or simply did not get marked due to oversight.
Its good to see a rifle that has survived in nice shape.

Dan

nord · « **Reply #15 on:** April 28, 2010, 04:54:51 PM »

Allow a further comment or two if you will...

I stated (and Shelby agrees) that this is a late rifle. Of this there's no question in my mind.

Shelby opines the gun is correct. I observed the same details as he and no alarms went off. I believe the gun to be original and correct.

The "Leman" question will remain. Too many details point to Leman absent information to the contrary for me to attribute elsewhere. But does it really matter?

We must remember that Leman ran a mass production operation in terms of the mid 1800's. Most production was going to the "hardware store" trade if you will and was duly stamped Leman or Conestoga. But a few must have gone to the Leman custom shop or out for custom work. My opinion is that this gun is one of those few.

In such cases I'd suspect a customer could name his wishes. Perhaps a Leman barrel, but unstamped. More likely a barrel of choice. (In which case I'd guess we might well find it cut differently than we might normally expect from a Leman.)

A dollar or two in 1850 meant a lot. I've learned that the same was true for Ithaca and L.C. Smith 80 years later. "Experts" opine that a nickeled receiver wasn't a factory option. Indeed, it never appeared in their catalogs as an option... But nickel was available upon request and those few extra dollars were important! I'm unconvinced that Leman would have been different.

So... Whether a Leman or not, a beautiful rifle in excellent condition. An outstanding example of a late long rifle done with taste and class. What more could anyone ask for?

JTR · « **Reply #16 on:** April 28, 2010, 06:55:10 PM »

I agree with Nord and Shelby that this is a really fine rifle in original and great condition!

One way to possibly make an attribution to the Leman shop would be to study the filing and shaping details of the butt plate tang, the rear ram rod thimble, trigger guard, triggers, etc, and compare them to other known Leman made rifles.

Too bad there's not a name on the barrel, but that's the way it is. There is a chance that there might be a name stamped on one of the bottom barrel flats.

Thanks for posting it!

John

mgrgrt · « **Reply #17 on:** June 06, 2010, 04:49:15 AM »

I have definitively identified a signature on the top of the rifle as G. Feder (looked him up online, he was from Bethlehem School). The signature is in block letters G. FEDER - I tried to photograph but don't know how to fight the glare.
I've been working on the top of the barrel with OOOO steel wool for a while now and detail began to really come out. The signature is very clear and there is design across the top of the barrel as well.
I'm incredibly fired-up to know who made the gun. I never realized you could bring out detail like that. Are there any examples of G. Feder rifles anyone out there could post?
Thanks to everyone-
Mark

Roger B · « **Reply #18 on:** June 06, 2010, 05:42:17 PM »

The capbox & barrel key escutcheons are Tryon products. See the reproduced pages of a Tryon catalogue in Hanson's "The Plains Rifle". My copy is in storage, but I'm pretty sure I'm right on that. The same snail treatment is found on a Deringer percussion in Jim Gordon's three volumes. Tryon supplied completed rifles in several grades to the trade, as well as all types of parts to smiths & manufacturers. My best (very humble) opinion is that this very nice rifle was built by a private smith using Tryon & Leman parts. It might also be a Tryon product using a Leman lock. Perhaps Tryon was low on percussion locks at the time & did some swapping with Leman, or purchased some locks from him.
Roger B.

News:

Author Topic: H.E. Leman Rifle Questions (Read 11898 times)

mgrgrt

BGC

mgrgrt

mgrgrt

mgrgrt

mgrgrt