Tired of Misconceptions

[Majorjoel]

It seems that the many flintlock to percussion conversions done during a rifles long period of use makes for a lot of longrifles on todays market labeled as such (conversions). We as students have had to learn the various idiosyncrasies that make a rifle built as a flintlock and it's differences between those built as percussion. I know there are a few gray areas in determining these details. Two side plate bolts vs one is one of these areas. The real difficulty in many borderline cases is to determine the age of the piece and always remember that flintlocks were still being made well into the percussion period.  There is one issue that really has been bugging me for some time now. That is to look at a rifle with a back action lock and hearing the seller or owner say it has been converted from flint to percussion ignition. In this situation I will stick my neck out here and say nuts to this! I have learned that 99% of back actions locks were made as percussion locks. The acceptions are mainly swivel breech systems and late African trade guns which are both quite obvious to distinguish. I know there are a lot of folks out there that may own an old rifle and have no clue of these facts. But then there are those dealers that keep using this tactic to make an item seem more valuable. This is what I am tired of seeing out there.

[Dphariss]

In rifles used much as percussion there will be differences in the corrosion at the breech.
Sometimes extremely obvious others not so much.
For example I have seen rifles that had the breech area eaten away so that the drum seat stood proud converted back to flint.

Dan

[bgf]

I agree, but maybe not the way you want .  The real tragedy is the idea that a flintlock makes a gun more valuable; proof of style trumping substance.  Many were and still are almost certainly "reconverted" that never saw a flint, thus ruining some early percussion locks and the accuracy of our historical material.  Hypothetically, take a rifle with a conversion lock and TWO screws, but in excellent condition (i.e., no cap spatter).  Most seem all too eager to "repair" the damage with a flintlock, but it is possible and even likely that many early percussion locks were simply adaptation of existing flint locks and that the rifle just wasn't shot much.  To me, if the architecture of a rifle is pleasing, I don't really care what ignition system is on it -- as long as it is  as close to original as possible.  From the historical standpoint, the number of imagined conversions and faux re-conversions is despicable, especially in the Southern rifles (many double-takes there).  Add to that that a period conversion to percussion is more valuable than anything less than a perfect reconversion to flint, which is rare if not impossible.  Once the evidence is destroyed, we have lost more than we gained.  It seems like a lot of the thinking is driven by how the stuff will look in coffee table books or on the wall than by any regard for the truth.

[Majorjoel]

Very well put bgf! I agree with your entire message. On another note though, if you have any kind of confidence in price guides like Norm Flaydermans regarding Kentucky rifles, you will quickly see that the original flintlocks go for a premium and the same pieces converted to percussion are marked down by about 1\2. Not that I go along with his guide. I also see that even Mr. Flayderman does not practice what he preaches by the prices he seeks on his web site. My biggest complaint are dealers like Cabella's who list an occassional original longrifle and claim the piece which has a one screw back action lock as being converted from flintlock. I would sure like to see what that rifle looked like in it's flintlock state!

[Dphariss]

Very well put bgf! I agree with your entire message. On another note though, if you have any kind of confidence in price guides like Norm Flaydermans regarding Kentucky rifles, you will quickly see that the original flintlocks go for a premium and the same pieces converted to percussion are marked down by about 1\2. Not that I go along with his guide. I also see that even Mr. Flayderman does not practice what he preaches by the prices he seeks on his web site. My biggest complaint are dealers like Cabella's who list an occassional original longrifle and claim the piece which has a one screw back action lock as being converted from flintlock. I would sure like to see what that rifle looked like in it's flintlock state!

I am reasonably sure there are rifles made in percussion in collections that are now flintlock. Because they are worth more or so they would fit into some collection better. Its not a question of "why would they?" in this context but "why wouldn't they?"
When its driven by money rather than appreciation for the firearm and its history things are going to get screwed up. But people doing it for money or maybe ego care little about history or art.

Dan

[JTR]

Ohhh geeze, so now Dan turns it into another thread about lousy, cheap, unscrupulous no good collectors, again!  
Sad Dan, sad!  You really need to grow up and move past this

John

[Majorjoel]

I really have nothing against back action locks. As a matter of fact, I kind of like them and respect their place in history. It is an interesting mechanism and to shoot a rifle with one gives very reliable instantaneous ignition. It also adds a great deal to the form and architecture of the Kentucky rifle. A different architecture for sure, but this difference can be a pleasing variation. Especially when high art and craftsmanship comes into play as it did in several examples of back action longrifles. I remember seeing a really nice example on a for sale table at the 2010 CLA show down in Lexington. It was furnished in silver or German silver with a very fine engraved 4 piece patchbox in the "Kuntz" Philadelphia style. A halfstock if my memory serves me. I think it was signed H. Lechler. 

[Feltwad]

I have always believed that flintlock guns converted to percussion using the drum and nipple principle  are part of the guns history to convert them back to flintlock using modern parts is wrong  . I have seen this done which was mostly for financial gain, the only time that I think this should be done if the lock  and the drum and nipple has been lost or robbed for parts and to save the piece from further distruction.
Feltwad

Drum and Nipple

[TPH]

I am reasonably sure there are rifles made in percussion in collections that are now flintlock. Because they are worth more or so they would fit into some collection better. Its not a question of "why would they?" in this context but "why wouldn't they?"
When its driven by money rather than appreciation for the firearm and its history things are going to get screwed up. But people doing it for money or maybe ego care little about history or art.

Dan

I have to agree with you Dan, why anyone would doubt that there are original percussion guns made with unused flintlocks converted before use to percussion to put on a new rifle I have no idea but it certainly was done.  It is a matter or economics.  If a gunmaker had flint locks in his possession and all of his demand was for percussion rifles, then why would he not use them by converting them?  A gun like this "re-converted" to flint is a modern mistake, reflecting either greed or, more likely ignorance, but they do exist.

[JV Puleo]

I agree with Dan as well... and I once owned a club but fowler made with British Land Pattern furniture and barrel and a Ketland import lock that was originally flint... but there was no doubt that the gun, as found, had never been a flintlock for the simple reason that the lock was located too far back on the barrel for there to have been room for a touch hole. I didn't even notice this until I'd had the gun some time. (It also says a lot about how much breech plug they thought was safe. It couldn't have had more than two or three threads behind the drum.)
The gentleman I bought the gun from had gotten it from a neighbor who was in his 90s, who told him that it was the gun his father hunted with... in the 1890s!

I'm very encouraged by this thread. I've been railing against reconversion, which I classify as vandalism, for close to 30 years... and generally felt as if I was talking to a brick wall. Its gratifying to know that others have come to the same conclusions.

Unfortunately, there is more than money at fault here. There are also well meaning collectors who really think of this as "restoration." One of my friends just got a regimentally marked short land pattern musket - the extremely rare "S" pattern, that is in excellent condition and marred only by the ham-fisted reconversion. The price reflected this... and the markings on the barrel are undoubtedly right otherwise he wouldn't have considered buying it...but in the end, part of the history of an interesting musket that was surrendered at Yorktown has been permanently lost while nothing has been gained.

[lexington1]

I agree with with the argument against reconversion in the majority of the cases, but I think that there are times that it is warrented. Examples would be when the conversion is extremely poorly done and destroys the artistic merit of the piece or perhaps pieces of the percussion lock or even the lock itself is missing, etc. Not everything that happens through history is positive and should be left alone. What if someone had broken into the Louvre and painted a mustache on the Mona Lisa? Certainly the defecation of the painting would be a part of its history, so should it be left as is? Which brings up another point. It is often said that we are just caretakers of these pieces for the next generation, etc, but why is it that the very best guns are often bought by high end collectors who put them away and never allow anyone access to them or study them?  Although that may preserve the integrity of the the pieces in a sense they too are lost to history. Again I agree with much the discussion here but just playing devils advocate 

[jdm]

Well here is my two cents,good or bad.      If the reconversion looks bad change it.  The proper lock in a longrifle can change the flow of the lines of the rifle. Make the wrist look more slender less clunky. If it was altered to percussion during the working period and was well done I would leave it. Years ago I had the privilege of owning a carved John Armstrong . It was percussion on a flintlock plate. Done by Armstrong with an Armstrong hammer. It has changed hands a couple of times now. Some time after it left me I saw it pictured in one of the books as one of the few original flint Armstrong's. Kinda hated to see that. Having said all of that it's my op ion that collectors are who saved paces of history . They started saving these things before musems  or investors cared.  Jim

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

I have a friend who started a business called Bloomington Gold...... deals with collectible Corvettes.... I think you might find this article on whether to restore or to preserve interesting ....

http://www.bloomingtongold.com/inc.php?link=Restoreitornot

[eddillon]

If we restore an old classic car to factory "new" and doing so enhances the value, why is it sinful if we return a rifle to the system of ignition employed bythe original maker of the piece??  

[JV Puleo]

Short answer... because its anti-historical. If preserving historical artifacts is what we are about, we can't condone the vandalizing of them. Say what you will about what a gun once looked like... we don't and can't know...we've never seen it and we can't return it to its "original" condition. We can remove some old parts that were added during its period of active use and replace them with new ones ... how this constitutes an improvement in a historical sense escapes me. How about the cute trick of dealing with cap corrosion by shortening the barrel from the breech, moving the pin lugs and shortening the stock?... done on high end Pennsylvania rifles. How in the world can changing a rifle that much be called "restoration." Arguably one could make a more convincing case for military arms but it is just as anti-historical. Most "restorations" of early Land Pattern Muskets are wrong no matter how well done the work is done, simply because much less was known about very subtle changes that had not yet been recognized.

The article Dr. Tim Boone posted is very interesting. The observation that cars are about the only "collected" item where restoration is not a detriment is spot on. I've had antique cars on an off since the 70s... a 26 Cadillac, 10 and 11 Reos, a 29 and a 34 Rolls-Royce  etc... I am currently rebuilding a 10 Mitchell. I've always had a problem with the "looks new is better" and the "cosmetics are everything" school of car restoration. Its refreshing to see that this point of view is being widely challenged... Unlike antique arms, there really isn't any such thing as static storage for a car. They go bad just standing in the garage, so some constant maintenance is always required. And, unlike guns, most are expected to actually work... we can shoot old guns (I do occasionally) but being shootable is rarely a major criteria in serious collecting.

Running is a major criteria in car collecting and if you're going on a public road, its a good idea to give some thought to safety issues that didn't exist 60 or 80 or 100 years ago. I'm putting 1913 vintage electric lights on my 1910 car because I've been stuck on the road, after dark, with nothing but kerosene side and tail lights. This is a detail that would cost "points" if I had the slightest interest in competitive judging... In fact, none of my cars would ever have won a trophy at a car show... At best its problematical how much restoration enhances value when its also well known and accepted that its practically impossible to recoup restoration costs when a car is sold.

[Bob Roller]

I have been involved for years with the Model J'"Duesenberg cars and have furnished historical info on them to owners. Almost ALL of these cars are grossly OVER restored and I have seen some that look like they were porcelainized. I hope this absurdity doesn't get into restoring antique guns.

Bob Roller

[Majorjoel]

One of the reasons I like antique guns is that you do not need a garage or a warehouse to store them! Some collectors I have met have taken the size thing another step, they collect miniature arms and only need a suit case. Back in the early 80's I had the bug for 1950's chevy's. I just had to sell my 58 Brookwood station wagon because I hated to see it rusting away in my garage. Today, I cannot see or understand the crazy values put upon anything made within my lifetime. Heck, I consider any firearm made after the Civil War to be Modern.

[Dphariss]

I am reasonably sure there are rifles made in percussion in collections that are now flintlock. Because they are worth more or so they would fit into some collection better. Its not a question of "why would they?" in this context but "why wouldn't they?"
When its driven by money rather than appreciation for the firearm and its history things are going to get screwed up. But people doing it for money or maybe ego care little about history or art.

Dan

I have to agree with you Dan, why anyone would doubt that there are original percussion guns made with unused flintlocks converted before use to percussion to put on a new rifle I have no idea but it certainly was done.  It is a matter or economics.  If a gunmaker had flint locks in his possession and all of his demand was for percussion rifles, then why would he not use them by converting them?  A gun like this "re-converted" to flint is a modern mistake, reflecting either greed or, more likely ignorance, but they do exist.

You missed the point I think.
Most of the time converting a rifle back to flint is a mistake. The Armstrong mentioned here is a crime and the perp should have certain parts nailed to a stump then be pushed off.

Dan 

[Dphariss]

Ohhh geeze, so now Dan turns it into another thread about lousy, cheap, unscrupulous no good collectors, again!  
Sad Dan, sad!  You really need to grow up and move past this

John

This is a "if the shoe fits wear it" situation.
Its as simple as that.
The sadness is not in my mentioning this its in people wanting to ignore it for whatever reason.
When people start jumping to defend ALL collectors I go into "he doth protest too much mode".

A close friend just took in in the shorts in a collector deal the other day. And he is a collector as well. A YEAR after the deal the guy decided he was not happy so my friend traded back. He also runs a business and it was better for him to just let it go for business reasons.

The problem here is that this is apparently a taboo subject. Like fakery. Well it happens folks.
Does it apply to ALL COLLECTORS and ALL BUILDERS? Of course not!
But its out there in the shadows and everybody knows it. Fake guns, fake knives, fake horns etc. It goes back as far as the 19th century in some cases.
We have (and have had) people using fakes or quasi fakes for HISTORICAL REFERENCE because they jibe with what they want to believe.
Dan

[Dphariss]

If we restore an old classic car to factory "new" and doing so enhances the value, why is it sinful if we return a rifle to the system of ignition employed by the original maker of the piece??  

Restoring old vehicles in usually done to stop deterioration. The same is often done to firearms. I have done it. We do it to new guns we are using. Add a little wood finish now and then perhaps.

But changing a Armstrong converted Armstrong rifle back to flint is like pulling the FI 327 from a Corvette and installing a Boss 302 Ford engine so it would better fit into a Ford collection.
Its EASY to restore a Corvette. Converting a converted longrifle back to "factory new" is impossible so its awlays "best guess".
So we get back to restoration/conservation vs "improving" for commercial reasons.

The "if the conversion is ugly" reason is not valid either. How about the guns that were ugly when built? Should they be "improved"?
All this has to be very carefully considered before any work is done. The very first question must be WHY IS THIS BEING DONE?

Dan

[louieparker]

just thinking of converting a percussion Armstrong to flint gives me a very bad feeling. But not everyone feels that way .  I had a very good friend who worked for years as a full time restorer . He told me " I have made more flint John Armstrongs than John Armstrong".  I have looked at several flint Armstrongs and only recall one that I felt was original flint .Most have been converted for one reason or another and if well done its impossible to tell how it started its life.     The one that I felt original had a most unique frizzen spring. Louie
.

[Feltwad]

just thinking of converting a percussion Armstrong to flint gives me a very bad feeling. But not everyone feels that way .  I had a very good friend who worked for years as a full time restorer . He told me " I have made more flint John Armstrongs than John Armstrong".  I have looked at several flint Armstrongs and only recall one that I felt was original flint .Most have been converted for one reason or another and if well done its impossible to tell how it started its life.     The one that I felt original had a most unique frizzen spring. Louie
.

For a restorer there is nothing too be proud off DE faulting our gun heritage.
Feltwad

[timM]

I am open minded to restoration that goes beyond just stopping deterioration. To stretch a barrel or replace a fore stock is acceptable to me. I believe restoration can be performed with minimum impact  to the starting form and be honestly done.  I also believe that major restoration can be performed to good ends. Heart verses untouched artifact, I guess.

To reconvert a lock anymore is debatable, with strong view points leaning toward conservation.   Some lock reconversion's have nothing to lose and some have a lot to lose.   These are my general view points, and I am not really looking to split hairs beyond those basic concepts.   

Something that has always amazed me is the idea that “these historical pieces / art belongs to all of us.”

Here is where the bear #$#$# in the woods: ownership goes to he who plunks down his money at the time of sale, beginning with the first sale.   With ownership goes the right to do whatever....period.  I hope to be dead before that privilege changes.

We live in an information age, so forums like this help round out opinion and maybe even offer a consensus to what is acceptable. Respectfully, tim