Estate Sale Gun - Rough Shape

[gwill]

I picked up this gun over the weekend at an estate sale.  I was fortunate that it wasn't loaded but it's in rough shape and reminds me of a Civil War era gun but I'm not sure.  I'd like to learn a little more about it if there are folks here who can help me out.  It's approximately 62 caliber and the barrel is octagonal to round although it looks like only the top 3-5 flats are filed octagonal.  The barrel has several stamps - I can make out 2 - D.V. and 50.  There are a couple of stamps on the stock but I cannot read them.  As I said the gun is in rough shape but I'd be very interested in any opinions about its origins. 

[Joey R]

I see many Harpers Ferry attributes. Cheek piece,sideplate,trigger guard,barrel band,patchbox and such.JMO

[smart dog]

Hi,
Boy it sure looks to me like an early 19th century Harpers Ferry rifle that someone buggered.

dave

[JV Puleo]

Not bad. I'd have bought it in a heartbeat. Its the wreck of an 1803 rifle.

[gwill]

Gentlemen you've nailed it. Thank you!

[Feltwad]

Will make a good restoration job
Feltwad

[eddillon]

1803 Harper's Ferry minus the under rib.  Definitely a worthy candidate for restoration.

[Bill Paton]

Gwill, PM sent. Bill Paton

[gwill]

Thank you all for the comments. I'm thinking that I'll try to restore it once I complete the builds I have started now.

[Eric Krewson]

http://caseantiques.com/item/lot-518-1803-harpers-ferry-rifle/

[Hungry Horse]

Eric;

  Thats a lot of money for a rifle, with a Navy Arms lock plate, that is not the correct style. The least they could have done was use one of the Davis plate that is correct, and stamped the correct year on it.

                                                                                       Hungry Horse

[longrifle]

I agree very interesting. That will be a good one for restoration.

[gwill]

To add a couple more details about the gun.  The lock plate is dated 1815 - not easy to read but with the right light and by carefully inspecting a photo it's definitely 1815. The barrel is 33-1/4" in length and it's a .62 caliber smoothbore. The octagonal portion is 11-1/4" in length and the patch box is 7". All this seems to indicate it's a Type II. It sure has been a blast to learn about these guns and many thanks to those who've pm'd me with such great information.

I'm planning to restore (stabilize?) the gun but am starting out by reading and re-reading John Bivin's articles on restoration before I do anything. It's missing some parts and I see that The Rifle Shoppe has many of these so I'll place an order. If anyone has any do's and don't's I'd appreciate the input.

This is too much fun. I promised myself I wouldn't try to collect these things but estate sale and antique store finds are making it hard to avoid...

[JV Puleo]

Do not reconvert it. It's an honest example of a well used martial rifle that had a very long working life... if you fiddle the lock it will just be another reconversion. Probably 90% of these guns were converted during their period of use and today about 90% of them are flintlocks, albeit usually identifiable at a distance that they've  been fiddled. The percussion parts are original. No reproduction parts will be.

[Feltwad]

I agree with JV Puleo the gun should be restored has a drum and nipple it is part of the guns history  to converted it  back to flintlock  will destroy its history  most that have been converted are only for financial gain .Always remember restoration should never be taken too far { the gun is part of our heritage we hold them in trust for those that come after]
Feltwad

[gwill]

Thank you for the comments. I agree and am not planning to reconvert the gun to flint. The percussion lock and especially the original dated lockplate is the heart of what the gun is now.

Just to clarify the parts I'm ordering from The Rifle Shoppe are a lock and tang screw, a rear sight, a ramrod and an under rib and middle thimble. All are missing from the gun now.

[Bill Paton]

Greg,
You certainly got lots of interest in your new find! Glad to hear you are going easier on the “stabilization” project. It has spent well over half its adult life as a fowler/shotgun, and the rear sight and rib were removed on purpose for that use. The neat way the section of under rib was left on to retain the necessary front thimble, along with the relic condition, add lots to the gun’s charm and legitimate history in my eyes. I would like to see the two screws and ramrod replaced, rear sight left off, the brass left corroded, the rust carefully stabilized but not taken back to bright smooth metal, the stock oiled but not smoothed, and the cute, clever “short rib” left as is.

My personal opinion of the “caseantiques” rifle in an earlier post in this thread is that it is way over-restored and over-priced. (I think the “.65 cal” is a typo and/or mis-measurement  and it probably has a good original .54 bore.) Your gun as is would be much more welcome in my home then that auction gun with new replacement parts and a good bore.

I think yours represents a transition to Type II, with the short barrel probably original to it and not shortened later. The books say that 33” barrels were left over from the Type I early production and were used in the earliest rifles made in the second run starting in 1814. When they ran out of short barrels, they made the upgrade to the much more common 36” barrel.

You have a wonderful treasure with several interesting historical faces. Next time I’m in Indiana, I’d love to stop by and fondle it! Congratulations on a great find.  Bill Paton

[Curtis]

Awesome find!

Curtis

[Hungry Horse]

If this gun is indeed .65 cal. And smooth bored, it may have been reamed smooth after its service life. But it might be a forage model issued that way. This could explain the missing under rib, if the stock has been bored out for a larger diameter ramrod. Go slow, and ask a lot of questions.

        Hungry Horse

[gwill]

Thank you for your comment about the under rib Hungry Horse.

I'm just now trying to carefully clean up the barrel and lock. By inspecting the barrel out of the stock it seems that the original finish was a rust brown (is that correct?) and that the browning was done while the barrel was in the stock as the underside of the barrel in the stock does not show the finish.  The lock also looks like it was browned.

I've been puzzled about why the barrel section that should have been under the rib has exactly the same finish as the rest of the barrel and as best I can tell there is no evidence that a soldered rib was removed.  So I've been wondering if the browning that is present was applied after the under rib was shortened. Hungry Horse your comment highlights another possibility.  I had not consider that the short under rib could have been original to the gun. To your question it doesn't look like a ramrod has been in the stock for a long time so it's a little hard to get an exact diameter but the entry thimble isn't big enough to easily accept a piece of 5/16" ramrod.

If photos would help just let me know and I'll post some later today.

[JV Puleo]

What you are calling "browning" is just the natural discoloration from age (i.e. rust). The barrel was not browned (or blued) to begin with. What you see under the barrel, against the stock, is the remnant of the original finish. As to the rib... it was probably cut off about the time the tun was bored smooth but there isn't any compelling reason to do this so I'd guess it may have just come unsoldered and was cut off rather than being properly reattached.