I'm glad Top Jaw asked the questions about restoration. I know some would say not to touch it but why? I understand the "story" perspective but in a case like this I wouldn't think anyone would object to restoration. This brings me to a broader question: Many long rifles (like just about any other historical item) have been altered, damaged, converted, etc. over their lifetimes. If done properly, what's wrong with restoring a rifle as near as possible to it's original condition and configuration? Unless later alterations really are related to a particular significant event or person, why not reconvert or repair? In the cultural resources management field and specifically in dealing with properties that may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, we deal with what is referred to as a "period of significance". If a property (building, structure, landscape, etc.) is being nominated for the Register, the period of it's significance is important. For example, if Washington had his HQ in a particular house for a period of time, it's that period that is historically important. Without that association, it may be just another 18th century house not all of which are Register eligible by a long shot. Consequently, can't the same argument be made about a long rifle? What is the period of significance of Top Jaw's rifle? Isn't that period the time during which it was made and presumably used? In which case, why not restore the rifle to that period appearance? Getting back to buildings (again...for example), proper restoration (using period materials and techniques) of a historic building typically brings it back to it's "original" appearance and it's monetary and historical value is enhanced. Why should a fine long rifle be considered any different or is it just one of those "because" things?
