Not that it counts for much, but I would agree with jcmcclure's observation that the overall architecture of this iron-mounted rifle shares much more with the Whitley than the other two rifles. For example, not only the entire comb, as already mentioned, but the butt-plate and particularly the comb of it, as it is set into the wood of the comb and narrows toward the front, sloping to the rear. Also, the triggerguard "spike" is much more reminiscent of the Whitley than the doubled curls on the Woodfork and the new rifle. Additionally, for me, it is easier to accept a wooden patchbox on a rifle from the 1790's or early 1800's than on one from the 1820's or 30's. The magnitude of the step, which is even greater than on the Whitley rifle, also argues for earlier rather than later. One difference from all the others is the shape on the TG bow, which on the other rifles is a chevron, but here an oval.
One complication is that there may be a different set of specifications for the same maker building in walnut and iron versus brass and maple or even iron and maple. Walnut and iron are seemingly the least costly option and will have the simplest shaping. That may explain, for me at least, the shape and position of the cheekpiece, which is totally different from any of the others, as well as the simple entry pipe and possibly the wooden patchbox. I think the thinner barrel, especially, is a product of economics and purpose. Perhaps rifles like this one were intended for later settlers (in peaceful times) or simply poorer ones, perhaps even older children or wives. Whitley and Woodfork were wealthy men, as I would assume the original owner of the newly uncovered brass rifle was, but those types of rifles were not the entirety of the business.
Just my two bits (or less).
