This gun is not signed. Attribution by owner
Comments:
This appears to be a pretty, dainty little rifle with a lot of attractive features. Can we get some data on it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with others that we should really know if, and how, this rifle is signed. The furniture looks like Kuntz work, but the photos leave much to be desired on two counts. First, most key shots are taken at an angle rather than directly over the gun, so we cannot fully see butt architecture. Second, both flash and photographic angle tend to make it difficult for the viewer to see much of the engraved details of the patchbox. Better photos showing more details and shot directly over the gun would be greatly appreciated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measurements may be forthcoming, however the wrist , according to the owner is in need of stabilization. The patient is in the OR now.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is an important fact regarding the gun, since unsigned guns face the risk of improper attributions at times by owners. This is particularly true if the gun has parts from an earlier gun, major damage or restoration that masks original details. It is also true when guns from the same area look a lot like those by a more famous maker. It's easy for an owner to presume his gun is by the better maker, rationalizing it by thinking the maker probably had an off day, or let his apprentice finish it up, or the customer demanded the "not exactly correct" details.
__________________________________________________
From the photos submitted I would agree the rifle appears to be an unsigned Peter Kuntz. A good close up of the patchbpx, barrel tang, rear entrance furrel, rear sight etc would seal the deal. Looks like a very nice rifle.
