This rifle might deserve a little closer look before we chastise it too severely. It appears, at least to my eyes from the photos provided, to be well used and "worked on" at some time. The rear sight is sits farther back than normally placed, the lock bolt screw looks modern, and I would guess the gun was originally percussion with its single lock bolt on a PA gun, but now has a bushed flash hole from a suspect later conversion to a flint lock. It would be good to see a close-up of the current lock and flash hole to see if they are original to the rifle, or later modifications which I suspect.
I would think when new, the gun was in fact an effective shooter, functioned well, but made for the common man who had a limited budget. A lot of fine, attractive rifles were still being made in the 1840s, as were a lot of lower cost rifles for those who could not afford the nicer ones. The same was true during the Golden Age, both great rifles and common (low cost) rifles were made... since we've always had both wealthy and poor citizens who needed a rifle. Shelby Gallien
Apparently you only looked at the photos.
The rifle WAS unfired and unmodified.
Note the lack of chlorate damage to the barrel and note the wood behind the fence.
The rifle came from an estate in Montana and I seriously doubt anyone bothered to convert it, if it was it was extremely well done on a gun that had little collector value 30+ years ago.
The bore was new and shiney as I recall.
I DID look at it closer since I took the photos and had access for several hours. There was NO wear to the varnish, no wear to the metal parts. Nothing other than what one would call storage wear and tear. While it is in some ways shaped fairly well the installation of parts was sloppy.
Since I took these photos at a gunshow over 30 years ago its not likely I will come up with more photos of any import the best ones are the ones posted. I do know, as previously stated, that it still had a burr around the vent from the drill. For that matter I had no Macro lens anyway.
I also know what Connestoga was. There are rev-war guns that are really poorly laid out. Then increasingly after perhaps 1830 the "shoot inlays at the stock with a shotgun" approach to decoration became popular apparently if enough metal was put in the stock the ugliness of the design did not matter. Never mind the lines or even how the inlays fit the design, just slap them suckers in there. So the art deteriorated.
I would also point out that low cost does not have to equate with ugly. There are some low cost "barn guns" or whatever one wants to call them, with very good lines and if viewed in silhouette would pass for a high end rifle. A great many excessively inlaid guns that were obviously expensive are far worse in silhouette than this Leman product. This is one of the things I cite as deterioration of the art form. Has nothing to do with having a buttplate or carving or inlays its the basic ugliness of the rifle/gun that irks me and its carried on right to this day. Worse there are people today who make some ugly, malformed representation then put in CD collection or on a website and get congratulated for the work mostly becasue nobody will say "thats improperly shaped".
Dan
