Is this a Samuel Morrison Flintlock

[jimsjunk]

Hello All,
I am new to the forum.  Looking for information on a flintlock I just picked up.  I believe it may be a Samuel Morrison, upper Susquehanna style rifle.  Please see pictures by following link to my photobucket album.
Any info would be appreciated.  I had been chasing after this flintlock for 20+ years, finally able to close the deal.  Also under different topic a question on J Edmonds.
Thank You
Jim








this link to the album
http://s143.photobucket.com/albums/r147/jimsgunsandengraving/morrison/

[nord]

Jim,

Signature, patchbox, and general appearance lead me to believe that Morrison is correct. There are some issues however:

Without any doubt in my mind the barrel has been cut at the breach end. This moved the signature far to the rear of where it would normally reside.

I further suspect a replaced lock as the relief around the present plate is not at all up to what I've come to expect from Morrison.

If you combine these two details it then becomes highly questionable (to me anyway) whether the gun was made as a flint lock rifle. I would heavily suspect a conversion and I'd further lean toward an original mule ear.

Look at the area just above and to the rear of the hammer and you'll see an area that at some point was cut away to accommodate the present system. Also note the fit of the lock into the mortice. These are clues that bear examination.

And if I'm correct, then sort of a shame as I really like the mule ears. I have a Morrison similar to this rifle. It's listed in our library and I urge you to compare yours and mine. I envy your strong signature as mine was so light that I thought the rifle unsigned for many years.

And, by the way... Yours is a nice rifle!

[jimsjunk]

Hello Nord,
Thank you for the info, It does look alot like one in the library.  The barrel is 41-3/16 inches. I do see what you are saying about the cut behind the hammer.  It must have been do long ago.  I collect civil war mainly, what value range would this be with its changes.   Apx what time frame do you believe this was built.
Thanks again for the info
Jim

[nord]

Jim,

Value is too subjective to speculate. I view the piece as a very nice gun with some fairly serious demerits. Serious, but not fatal by any means.

If my observations are correct and this rifle was an original mule ear, then the 1840's more or less would be my guess. In other words well past the Golden Age but still a remarkable piece of art. I suspect the carving is original and that adds to the overall desirability of the piece.

As to the possible conversion it's difficult to say much with any certainty. The fact that the work appears to have been done without any great effort to hide the fact makes me wonder if the conversion might not have been done for practical reasons during the working life of the rifle.

In any case there's little evidence of erosion around the lock and the touch hole. Whatever the history I'd venture to say that the gun has seen little use since the barrel was cut.

[Don Getz]

A few things to check on this gun.   You should be able to determine whether or not this gun was an original flintlock or
mule ear by removing the lock and looking at the inlet.   Also, it would be nice to see a picture showing more of the
butt, up thru the lock area.   Would like to see the side plate, or plates........Don

[Fullstock longrifle]

I noticed an inlay in picture #6 for what appears to be a vent pick on the underside of the stock near the toe plate.  Would a side slapper have a vent pick?

Frank

[Curt J]

A vent pick might also be a nipple pick. I have a rifle by J. W. Keller, Casey, Illinois, that has one, and it was certainly never a flintlock.

[Hurricane ( of Virginia)]

Of note , the engraving on the brass plate on the chhek piece is much less refined than I would expect for the fine gun...makes me wonder if it was added?
Hurricane

[jimsjunk]

Thanks for this great info.  I have added a few pictures of the lock area. I do believe the engraving by the cheekpiece was added at a later date.  And there is a place that looks like it has part of a feather quill in it.

[Don Getz]

The lock inlet appears to be made for the flint lock.  Another thing I was thinking about.....the double set triggers.  I don't
think it was converted to flint from a mule ear, seems like it would be difficult to make the double set triggers work with
both locks.   On the other hand, the brass below the cheek piece sure looks like an "add on", not engraved by Morrison....................Don

[JTR]

I don't see any reason to believe it wasn't a flintlock originally.
The cut out area for a flint hammer looks like you'd expect it to look.
With the barrel cut back, you'd expect to see a percussion ignition, and although this flint lock looks nice, it could be a reconversion. Also, the active rust around the touch hole sort of points to some recent activity.

All in all, you have a nice rifle! Obviously the big detractor is the cut back barrel, and as is, I'd think the gun is worth about $3500/5000. Others might or might not agree with this value!

The brass inlay below the cheek piece has later engraving as pointed out, but it looks to me that on the left side in the picture is the name John? It looks like there might be something else on the right side but I can't see it clear enough in the pic. Maybe a date?

John

[jimsjunk]

How can I tell for sure if the barrel was cut back, I guess if I removed the stock the attaching lugs would have been moved, I dont belive I want to remove the stock. Do ou think it was a few inches removed.  These rifles have been in a family collection for more than 50 years.  I heard that they used to loan them out for parades and that might be where the rust came from.  Some of the rifles never made it back, I wonder what they where.  I do thank you all for the wonderful information.  I plan on attending the Forks of Delaware show in Allentown in a few weeks.  If anyone will be there and like to see this just let me know. 
Thank You
Jim

[JTR]

Generally speaking, the maker name/initials are about half way between the rear sight and the breech.
Generally speaking, the rear sight is more or less right above the rear ramrod entry pipe. You don't show a picture of that area, but maybe you could comment on it?

True, pulling the barrel out would certainly tell the tale, but at this point it is what it is.
Maybe you'll have some good luck with gun in hand at the show. A gun in hand is always easier to evaluate than through pictures.

John

[mr. no gold]

You could measure the barrel; generally a barrel under 40 inches stands a pretty good chance of having been cut back. By the signature location, it appears that it has been shortened by several inches. If you want the exact number, you probably will need to take the barrel out and have a look. Nice rifle, looks rare, and we appreciate your bring it to the ALR.
Dick 

[jimsjunk]

I measured the barrel this morning and forgot to post the info.  It is 41-3/16 inches long, the muzzle protrudes past the end cap by about 1/8 inch.
I just love learning more about this. I will check to see where the sight is in relation to the ramrod pipe.
Thank you again

[bgf]

The lock inlet appears to be made for the flint lock.  Another thing I was thinking about.....the double set triggers.  I don't
think it was converted to flint from a mule ear, seems like it would be difficult to make the double set triggers work with
both locks.   On the other hand, the brass below the cheek piece sure looks like an "add on", not engraved by Morrison....................Don

I was thinking the same thing about the DS triggers on it last night, also, but the Morrison mule-ears appear (at least on the ones in the museum) to have a vertical sear that would likely have worked with "normal" set triggers just like those made or available for flintlocks, etc.  That is really the exception for mule-ears later (when they have a lot of variety in trigger mechanisms), but it makes sense when replacing flintlocks with the first percussion locks in the experimental/early stages. 

I am probably one of the few people disappointed to see a flintlock instead of a mule-ear -- probably the only reason I recognized the name Morrison.

[nord]

Nope! You're a distant second in the disappointment department. To me a Morrison is a mule ear!

The lock on my Morrison is crude to the point of being a work of art. With only very minor modifications the trigger set would work nicely with a standard flint or percussion assembly.

I stand by my opinion that this rifle has been modified to flint. This is not to denigrate the piece. It's just that what I see doesn't appear to approach the quality I'd expect from Morrison.

[Don Getz]

I have been looking at the lock inlet.   It looks kind of strange to me, thinking there might have been a mule ear in there
at one time.   If one could examine it first hand, perhaps we could unscramble it   I think I have seen that patchbox on
a Joe Long, a fancy one.   On that subject, the Muncy Historical Society has a great Joe Long in it's collection.  The late
Bill Kennedy did some restoration on it before it was put on display.   It is a fancy Joe Long, even has a SWAMPED barrel
which in itself is extremely unusual............Don

[Spotz]

I am pretty sure this is a not a Morrison.  Morrison signed "S*M" which is read from the sideplate side.  This is "W* (maybe F )" reading it with the sideplate facing the reader.  Could it be an early William Filman?  Filman is a maker in the same town (Milton, Northumberland County) as Morrison. 

[jimsjunk]

I double checked on the barrel length, it is 41-3/16.  The rear sight is located about in the middle between the ramrod pipe and breech.  This would leave you to think if the barrel was cut, its original length would of been around 45- 46 inches.  I always wondered which side of the barrel you should read the inscription. 
Thanks You
Jim

[nord]

Spotz,

I had yet another look at the signature on this barrel and it's entirely possible that you have a valid point. The signature on my rifle is so faint as to be barely detectable and there's certainly no question that some of the script of that era leaves us a lot of latitude when assigning characters.

The gun, itself, is so similar to my mule ear that even if made by a hand other than Morrison's, I really have to wonder if these guys (Morrison, Long, and perhaps a few others) didn't swap out work between themselves. For the purposes of this discussion it would appear that this rifle and mine were made by the same hand and outshopped at virtually the same time.

On the other hand, if by a different hand but one closely associated with old Sam, then I could better understand that the gun was made with a standard lock... Which I sincerely doubt given what I see around the lock mortice and the crude relief above to allow for a conventional hammer. For the record I believe that Don is correct and that this stock was designed to accommodate a mule ear lock.

I'll have a much closer look at the signature on my rifle as soon as I get a bit of time. While I don't have any hope that it will photograph, I may possibly be able to glean a bit of information from it.

One last comment... Time and distance during the period these rifles were made was entirely different than today. Twenty miles was virtually next door and a day's travel was nothing. When one considers that a young man somewhere in the Williamsport area or thereabouts walked to Pittsburgh in order to purchase a good barrel without even a second thought, we need to consider that some of today's concepts don't really apply.

[Don Getz]

I know that Joe Long worked with Morrison, I would assume it was early in his career.   Many years ago I walked into the
old Pottstown gun show, I was shown a rifle that was signed "Morrison & Long", a typical gun of either one.  I did some
restoration on a Specht rifle, made in Beavertown, Snyder County.  I discovered it had the same trigger guard as one on
a Joe Long that I own.   Joe Long usually had a slightly differend trigger guard, when compared to other Snyder County builders.  Apparently Joe ran out of guards and borrowed one to do this rifle, they only lived about 3 miles apart....Don

[JTR]

Spotz,
I'm agreeing with you that is probably is a W, and probably F. The way the W is formed with the little flourishes on the uprights of the W makes more sense that them being on the downstrokes of an M.

Jim,
Another thing to check as for the barrel being trimmed back, is the distance between the three ramrod pipes. You could normally expect the pipes to be more or less equal distant between each other, say to the nearest inch or so.
If the distance between the muzzle end pipe and the middle pipe is noticeably less than the distance between the middle pipe and the entry pipe, that is another good indicator that the barrel has been cut back.
However at 41 + inches long it still has a plenty long enough barrel to look good, unlike say 36 inches or something like that.

John

[nord]

Compare with my rifle at:

http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=2135.0

===============================================================
Best I can make out without undue removal of patina...

Signature is enclosed   * ?  M *    Possibly * S  M  *

The second character appears to be a stylized script consistent with an M. Certainly rather fancy with whorls that might lead to the conclusion it was a "W" The first character is there, but so lightly imbedded into the metal that I can't make it out.

My patchbox is pinned. No screws. This being the major difference between rifles, except that mine is less decorated.

Wearplate, ramrod thimble, muzzle treatment, and overall architecture follow almost line by line.

The supposed lost pick area is more likely a missing inlay. My gun has a thin brass inlay in the exact same area.

My barrel is almost exactly 36" from muzzle to breach plug and is of roughly .45 caliber. While short by long rifle standards, the rifle has not been molested. The signature area lies just forward of center between the breach plug and rear sight.

My lock follows flint tradition with two screws as does this rifle. Given what the photos show and given what I see in my rifle, I stand by an original mule ear converted to flint.

Whoever made either of these rifles had a knack for utility and balance. While I love the longer rifles, my mule ear would be my choice afield. It enjoys superior balance and is a pure pleasure to hold.

On the downside I doubt OSHA would approve of the lock mechanism.

[jimsjunk]

Hello All,

I do believe that the same person that made the above rifle also made mine. That look very close.  I checked the distance between the ramrod pipes.  From muzzle end to center pipe is about 12-1/2 inches and from middle to lower pipe its about 11-1/2 inches.  Also from rear sight to * in signature is 5-1/2 inches and from * to breech end is about 1-1/2 inches.
Thanks
jim