Beckwourth rifle

[Hungry Horse]

 Do any of you have personal knowledge of the authenticity of the James P. Beckwourth rifle pictured on page 11 of the latest Muzzleloader magazine? This feels like one of those too good to be true guns. The marked lack of erosion from caps, on the lock, hammer, and barrel, and the curious signature on the bottom of the barrel, that for all the world looks like it was done with a vibro-engraver make me wonder if this gun is really authentic, or has been heavily "restored", or is just a straight up fake.

                 Hungry Horse

[Hungry Horse]

Just the fact that over a hundred and fifty of the learned folks on this forum haven't responded tends to make me feel my suspicions, are likely well founded.

Hungry Horse

[Arcturus]

I don't have enough expertise to make an informed opinion as to the pedigree of said rifle.  But wanted to mention the additional photos and information on the Muzzleloader magazine website.  Did you go online and see the other pics of the rifle, including x-ray photos? There is an internet address at the bottom of the page in the magazine.

[Shreckmeister]

I think its a J P Beck and they added wourth (worth)   I can't stop laughing at my own joke. Added worth. Get it . Jeff and James will even be laughing at that one

[Hungry Horse]

Jerry;

  I went to the website but couldn't find any of the pictures you mentioned.

             Hungry Horse

[Chuck Burrows]

Is the rifle in the linked image anything like the one in the article:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/James_P._Beckwourth_(ca._1860).jpg

It dates from around 1865 - the original image is reversed so the rifle's a right hander not a lefty.

[Arcturus]

Hungry Horse,
It doesn't seem you can link to the page on the website.  You have to type in the address at the bottom of the page in the magazine.  [www.muzzleloadermagazine.com/MJ15]. 

[Hungry Horse]

 Jerry;

  Did that and got a 404 error message.

           Hungry Horse

[JTR]

Try this one,     http://www.muzzleloadermagazine.com/index.php?main_page=page&id=14

Or this one,    www.muzzleloadermagazine.com/MJ15  without the brackets and the period at the end.

John

[Hungry Horse]

O.K. I've seen the other pictures and "documentation". The picture of Jim Beckwourth with a rifle could be any similar rifle, given the fuzzy image. I still see no evidence of cap erosion on the barrel, lock plate or hammer, most telling is the lack there of inside the lock under the drum. The barrel pins shine brightly in the photos, indicating they have been replaced. all the tacks are bright even at the edges, leading me to believe they are modern. The signature is not engraved, so it must be scratched in the barrel, I suspect a mountain man/trapper wouldn't have the skill to execute such a pristine signature. This gun smells to me like an old wreck that has been refurbished and given a new provenance. JMO.

                Hungry Horse

[lexington1]

I'm guessing that the lock on this gun has always been a cap lock, being as there is no half cock notch. Kind of tricky to shoot a flintlock without one. Of coarse it could have been filed off, as sometimes happened when they were converted. Or the lock itself may have been swapped when converting it. The stock on the rifle that Jim Beckwourth is holding in picture appears to be fairly curly ahead of the lock, where the rifle in question looks like plain maple.

[realtorone]

Hungry Horse I also see no pitting and erosion which should be there both inside the lock, the outside of the plate and on the hammer and nipple and drum although the  hammer and nipple and drum could be recent replacements.When I was in Great Falls 71-73 I got a chance to look at a number of rifles used in the mountain environment and most looked like urine had been used to clean the lock and the bore.

George

[Hungry Horse]

 I don't think this gun was ever flint. The single lock bolt, and the hogged out lock mortise, make it unlikely. I also don't think this is a product of the Hawken brothers shop. The iron fittings are too crudely fashioned for their work. The drum looks suspiciously like the rectangular boss on its end has been welded up and dressed with a file. The lock plate, and hammer, look like new parts, aged to fit the rest of the gun, with no pits, or major dents, and nicks.

               Hungry Horse

[Shreckmeister]

     I recently attended a longrifle show where the owner of a nice longrifle, knowing I was a collector, proceeded to tell me that he suspected his
rifle had been the personal rifle of the maker because it was so highly embellished and the signature included the maker's
middle initial.  Notice I say he suspected it was the personal rifle.  Later in the day I heard him tell another man that it
WAS the personal rifle of the maker without equivocation.  Different audience, different presentation.

[Hungry Horse]

 Maybe I have just been sold too many blind mules in my life, but when things just don't add up, I start asking questions. Another example of things not adding up is the Ohio rifle made by Henry Walter on the cover of the January edition of Muzzle Blasts. Much is made of the 1804 date engraved on the silver inlay on the upper barrel flat. But, wait just a minute. The makers name and "OHIO" are both nicely engraved with some skill, as is the rest of the furniture. The letters are slightly slanted, and the graver has been slightly tilted to create a flair in the curves. On the other hand the 1804 looks like it was scratch in with a rust nail. Obviously someone added the date later, or old Henry had a stroke before adding the date.

             Hungry Horse

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Interesting no sign of a front lock nail in the side panel....but the ex-ray seems to show a slot in the bottom of the barrel that would have been about where the front lock nail would have gone if an inch hadn't been cut off the breech (also getting rid of pitting.....its just confusing..  I am not buying the + and - interpretation either...... if he bought it in 1824 to take to the mtns it should have been a flintlock........ if he bought it in the late 1830s/40s it might have been a caplock..but it doesn't look like Hawken work for those later years does it??  I wouldn't spend money on it.......... the signature analysis looks off to me as well... there is a lot of difference in those signatures.... ??

[Shreckmeister]

Do we have the expectation that the signatures on rifles were signed in the same manner that the maker actually signed documents?
I don't think that really tells us anything.  Not trying to support that this rifle is what it is said to be.  Just making this observation
in general.

[Hungry Horse]

 I have seen gun owners names cut into the stock, and scratched into the metal work, but I have never seen an owner sign his name on the bottom of the barrel. Unless at some point and time, that was the top of the barrel. Obviously the signature was applied before the dovetail was cut in the barrel.
 The barrel being shortened at the breech would explain the lack of cap erosion on the barrel, but the lock, and hammer, don't have any either. I would have to say this barrel is not likely to be original to this stock. The gun this barrel came off of had two lock bolts, and this stock only has one.

            Hungry Horse