Original FL rifle in Montana Museum

[Dphariss]

I was asked to post these by our Guild President Bill Madden. I have never seen the rifle but Bill has furnished some photos and a description.
Museum Find – What Have We Here?

   Last month, I found a Kentucky flintlock in the Bair Family Museum in Martinsdale, a small community in central Montana. I was able to take some pictures, but because I am barely computer literate, have asked fellow Montana Guild member Dan Phariss to post them for me here.
   According to Sotheby’s, who appraised the museum’s collection about 20 years ago, the rifle supposedly dates back to the “1770s” and was attributed to having been built by “Bodenheimer” of “Lancaster, Pennsylvania”. The piece is not signed and the basis for the attribution is not known. The “whale tail” finial on the patchbox was described as being of a style found in the Womelsdorf – Berks County region.
   I told the museum’s assistant director that I didn’t think the dating was correct, that the gun was more likely made sometime around the 1820s. I also told her that the only Bodenheimer of which I was aware lived and worked during a later period in Lancaster, Ohio, and that this piece did not resemble what little I have seen of Bodenheimer’s work. However, I also told her that while I am knowledgeable about Kentuckies, there are people on this website who are much more knowledgeable than I, and with her permission, I would post pictures of the rifle on this site for review and comment. She agreed.
   I was not permitted to touch the piece or open the patchbox, and the pictures were taken in less than favorable light. I also failed to get all the pictures I would have liked to have taken.  Nevertheless, with the help of my daughter, who took the pictures and massaged them into better view, I think what were taken are sufficient for our purposes.
   By way of further background, the provenance of the rifle is unknown. It appears to be of about 45 caliber. The barrel is 40 inches long and appears to be straight.  If swamped, it is very little.  Length of pull is 12 ½ inches. The buttplate is about 4 7/8 in. height by 1 5/8 in. width. Except for a repair of the knuckles on the patchbox lid and a questionable forward screw on the toeplate, I couldn’t see any obvious evidence of repair or restoration. But, the lighting was poor, so I really didn’t get a good inspection of what might have been done to it.
   So, what have we here? When was it made? Where? By whom? I will pass along to the Museum whatever pertinent information you can supply. Thanks for all of your help.

[Dphariss]

[Bill Madden]

Thanks, Dan, for handling this post. I will monitor this site and respond to any questions that may be raised. Bill

[Majorjoel]

Just some random thoughts on this rifle. There are a few  known gunsmiths that used the curved patch box side plates that were separated from the lid. The first was Christian Siple and also Jacob Snevely from Harrisburg.  There is an example of Snevely's work in the ALR museum. http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=6215.0   I found one patch box picture of Siple's work in the Red patch box book by Chandler.    The museum rifle shown here has an interesting outward pitch to the toe of the butt stock that was used a lot in later Tennessee made longrifles.    It may help some if you could get a picture of this rifle's side plate opposite the lock.            

[Big Wolf]

Ok, I've looked at the pictures of this rifle several times, and I see things that concern me. In the hopes of spurring conversation and learning, here are my thoughts. The patchbox upper finial and lid look original, but possibly shortened. I don't see a lid catch, so unless it has a friction spring lid, how does it open? Also the carving and molding looks like it was done in the 1960's and not by a trained gunsmith from the 1800's. The screws look fairly new as well. Lastly, the forearm molding at the muzzle doesn't look approriate, or what you would expect to see on an original. So my opinion is that this rifle was made in the last 50 or so years, using some original parts. So that's my opinion, what do the rest of you think?

Oh, and one more thing, as far as the Sotheby's appraisers evaluation about the gun and thinking it was made in the 1770's? This gun is no where close to being from that period. Maybe they should stick to appraising furniture, I'm sure they're very good at that.

[Tanselman]

I tend to agree with the last response. This rifle has a number of details that do not look correct, or original. On guns like this, it screams having an in-hand inspection where the "odd" details can be closely looked at. It may be an original rifle that has been reworked/enhanced in the last 50-60 years, or perhaps a restock of old parts with some "interpretation" thrown in, but too many details give cause for concern. Without closer inspection it should be viewed with some caution as to its total originality.  Shelby Gallien

[Buck]

I agree, it's appears to be a restock. The carving is what stood out to me immediately.

Buck

[Dphariss]

As has been stated here it would take more examination than the museum would likely allow to determine if and when it was restocked.  While its often the case that the museum personnel are often poorly informed and hardly qualify to handle an antique rifle, people with the expertise and knowledge still are not allowed to touch in many cases. Broken rifles were common in the west. Probably more so per-capita than the east. Guns of all sorts had hard lives out here and in many cases still do. It could be a 1930s-40-50s  (or even 100 years earlier) restock, but if it were in Montana in 1930s-40s its unlikely. If we knew who had it before the Museum it would be a help. In " Firearms of the American West 1803-1865" pg 50. There is an account of a broken rifle being traded from the Indians in Montana (they had killed its original owner), being taken to Bents Fort, restocked, converted from flint and used there as a match rifle. Traded to a Santa Fe Trader who took it to St Louis to be "half stocked" new breech etc, etc and then he used it for years calling it as they had at the Fort "Old Blackfoot".  Garrard wrote of trading for a restocked and again broken rifle in 1846 since his eastern rifle was "too light".

Dan

[Bill Madden]

Majorjoel: I did not get a full frontal picture of the side plate. There is a picture showing an oblique view, but either Dan didn't receive it from me or he failed to post it. I have asked him to post it and two others that I sent to him. Basically, it is of the Lancaster variety, beveled and not engraved. There is no step filed at the location of the front lock bolt.

As regards the possibility that this is a twentieth century restock, that occurred to me as well. The carving and moldings don't look right. The belly beneath the lock are also seems strange. Regardless, the possibility suggested by Majorjoel that the original parts may be of Harrisburg origin is interesting. I will look more closely at Harrisburg examples to see if I can find anything that may be useful in determining the origin of the patch box, at least.

[Dphariss]

I missed these somehow in the first posting.
Sorry Bill