« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: RCA 102 & 105  (Read 3912 times)

Mike R

  • Guest
RCA 102 & 105
« on: January 11, 2011, 08:43:09 PM »
I read recently [elsewhere] the opinion that the brass barrel rifle [RCA102] and the RCA 105 rifle were made by the same hand.  After looking the pictures over I cannot see any connection.  Does anyone have an educated opinion on this statement?  Am I missing something or do the pictures not show the connection?  
« Last Edit: January 11, 2011, 08:43:28 PM by Mike R »
Logged

Offline Tom Currie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1294
Re: RCA 102 & 105
« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2011, 09:01:16 PM »
Mike, The brass barreled rifel is RCA 103. Does that change your question ?
Logged

Offline G-Man

  • Member 3
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2217
Re: RCA 102 & 105
« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2011, 10:37:42 PM »
I can't speak for Wallace but when I last saw his displays with the BBR (#103) I believe his thoughts were that it was made by Hans Jacob Honegger/Honaker and would thus be the earliest surviving example from that family.   The only other complete rifle I am aware of thought to be by the same hand as the BBR is # 145 - that long barreled piece that was added to RCA II right before publication so its photos were split in two different places in the book.  That one has many recognizable features that tie it to the BBR, so that is probably not the one you were thinking of (?).

Guy
« Last Edit: January 12, 2011, 03:04:16 PM by Guy Montfort »
Logged

Mike R

  • Guest
Re: RCA 102 & 105
« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2011, 04:16:45 PM »
Yikes!  I typed 102 when I meant 103--but that does not change the question. The source of the 103--105 comparison was an article in Muzzleloader Mag some years ago and it is possible that the 105 was a typo, I don't know, but it was definitely 105 in the article---145 makes more sense.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2011, 04:18:55 PM by Mike R »
Logged

Offline G-Man

  • Member 3
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2217
Re: RCA 102 & 105
« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2011, 04:28:29 PM »
That's interesting Mike.  I took a long look at 105 this morning and I didn't see anything obvious to tie it to 103, 145 or any of the other guns in the Step Toe "Group" at least, either architecturally or from a decoration standpoint.  But I could be missing something.  I have had the pleasure of examining the BBR a few times at Wallace's booth, but have never seen #105 up close.  Maybe Gary will see this and know something to add.

Guy
Logged

Offline flintriflesmith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1509
    • Flintriflesmith
Re: RCA 102 & 105
« Reply #5 on: January 15, 2011, 07:50:48 PM »
I have to wonder if the original reference was supposed to be to the relationship between the BBR and RCA #145.

Mike, as you suggest, it could have been a typo. Were there any details supporting the attribution?

I see no association between BBR and #105.

Gary
Logged
"If you accept your thoughts as facts, then you will no longer be looking for new information, because you assume that you have all the answers."
http://flintriflesmith.com

Mike R

  • Guest
Re: RCA 102 & 105
« Reply #6 on: January 17, 2011, 05:22:44 PM »
Quote from: flintriflesmith on January 15, 2011, 07:50:48 PM
I have to wonder if the original reference was supposed to be to the relationship between the BBR and RCA #145.

Mike, as you suggest, it could have been a typo. Were there any details supporting the attribution?

I see no association between BBR and #105.

Gary

No details and it was a second hand reference, so I feel it must have been either a typo or a mistake by the writer in relating the number-- "one-four-five" might have been heard as "ONE-OH-FIVE" ???  In any event it was in an article by Mark Baker in a MuzzleLoader mag article a few years back and the attribution was to a noted gunmaker who I won't name to protect the innocent....
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »