Origin & Info

[Avlrc]

Any information on this old piece will be appreciated. No marks on the lock or barrel.  45 inch oct to round ,  smooth bore, swamped, narrowest point 10 inches from muzzle.  Muzzle ID about 5/8.  widest part of butt plate is 1 3/4 inch.  I think it is plain, non figured Maple, but not sure.  Thanks

[rich pierce]

Looks straight up Lancaster. Early guard, very nice. The lack of a sideplate and the little side nail inlays seems later than the rest of the gun which looks 1770-1790 to me. Interested in what others see. Going to look up that tang carving as it looks familiar.

[rich pierce]

Ok the tang carving looks like Dickert 67, Gonter 69, and unsigned #70 in Shumway’s Rifles of Colonial America volume 1.

[far55]

Hole in guard for sling swivel may indicate wartime use or later militia use, that curved lock plate looks early to me. Those long pointed side panels remind me of something I have seen in one of my books, possibly RCA 2. I''ll have to go pull it out and look.  Roland

[Avlrc]

Great, thanks for all the info.  Here is a couple better images of tang carving.

[rich pierce]

It’s a good early gun for sure. If it had been around way back when I bet Shumway would have written it up.

[smart dog]

Hi,
I believe the lock is English, probably an import.

dave

[Shreckmeister]

Very nice find!

[homerifle]

Mark that's a real good early piece! Love the carving.  Thanks for posting it.

[far55]

Well, I looked through a couple of my books, but did not find the one I thought I remembered  seeing.  Roland

[Avlrc]

In  the last picture I posted you can see what appear to be two wooden plugs.  It almost looks like he was trying to fill/terminate  the carved channels, to make those triangle marks. If that makes any sense.  There isn't anything  broke that needed pinned.

I knew the gun was early but did not really know it could be a Dickert or Gonter.  Looking in Shumway's book, the carving looks very close to Gonter.  But still puzzled about those long sharp side panels.

Thanks for all the info.

 

[Tanselman]

Are you sure those are "plugs" and not just part of the caving, with some age splitting on one edge of either "plug."? To me it looks like he terminated his channel, and then did his first triangular chip cut above it, of which there are three on each side. You might be interpreting his first triangular chip cut as the "end" of his channel, when the channel actually ended at the "plug" detail. It's a great rifle, and the kind that generates a lot of interest in figuring out who the most likely maker was. I am glad to see such a significant rifle posted. Shelby Gallien

[Avlrc]

Are you sure those are "plugs" and not just part of the caving, with some age splitting on one edge of either "plug."? To me it looks like he terminated his channel, and then did his first triangular chip cut above it, of which there are three on each side. You might be interpreting his first triangular chip cut as the "end" of his channel, when the channel actually ended at the "plug" detail. It's a great rifle, and the kind that generates a lot of interest in figuring out who the most likely maker was. I am glad to see such a significant rifle posted. Shelby Gallien

you may be right,  I never even noticed them until I looked at that last photo.  ( poor eyes)

[rich pierce]

Gonter #69 in RCA volume 1 has long lock panel tails.

[Avlrc]

More pics

[FALout]

Just a guess, maybe the lock/side panels were narrowed when converted to percussion and those triangle pieces replace a lost or damaged side plate

[rich pierce]

Terrific guard.

[Buck]

The triangular “chips” are a detail that Beck and Beyer used with frequency. The Angstadt clan also, but obviously not of that school. Gonters carving didn’t flow like the carving on this rifle.

Nice piece - thanks for sharing.

Buck

[Mike Brooks]

Terrific guard.

DITTO!

[Eric Kettenburg]

That's a terrific find.  I don't think overall it's nearly as early as the guard, which I'm sure is secondary usage as well as possibly the pipes, but it certainly could date to the War-era and represent a utility piece made for immediate need.  Too bad the lock is missing so many exterior components which would better help to date the lock as well as point toward origin.  The carving is spectacular and whoever stocked and briefly carved this rifle sure knew what he was doing.

It's possible the little teardrop bolt escutcheons are original, or possibly could have been added later to cover bolt wear.  I have no way of knowing, just mention it to illustrate that I would not use those in any way for dating or location.

Given the shape of the lock plate, it looks to my eye that the lock side lock panel is not nearly as "straight swept" along the top edge as the side plate side panel.  I see this on a lot of rifles - I have no explanation for it other than that (1) it's faster when roughing out the stock and (2) you can't view both sides at the same time so it's not nearly as important to perfectly match both panels as would be considered today.  The important symmetry is viewed from top or bottom where you actually can see both sides.  The lion and lamb rifle is also as well known example of being stocked like this, much more straight-swept along the top edge on the sideplate side than on lock side.

Could have been made anywhere, really, and I think the best characteristic to attempt to use for attribution is matching up that tang carving.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Is there actually a forward lug on the barrel/forestock anywhere for a sling hanger?  I see holes but can't tell whether they're just pin holes or if there actually is a hanger hole to match that on the guard.

[Avlrc]

Is there actually a forward lug on the barrel/forestock anywhere for a sling hanger?  I see holes but can't tell whether they're just pin holes or if there actually is a hanger hole to match that on the guard.

Ok, the front, close to the muzzle,  10 inches of wood looks like it could of been replaced 200 years ago.   It may have came from another rifle.  Funny  rest of the wood in the stock is pretty good.   That piece has a short pipe not original to gun.   That piece is chewed up bad, could of been some kind of sling attachment to it.   No, the barrel does not have anything that would support a sling.  The most chewed up part of the replaced wood is 8 inches from muzzle, that seems too close to muzzle for a sling attachment to me.  The 4 stock fasteners thingy's on the barrel are all in the original place and have not been ,moved.   Could there have been a front sling attachment utilizing  one of the barrel fasteners?   Maybe it never did have a sling.

    I don't want to take the lock bolts back out, but awhile back I did.   My friend who looked at it , said that he did not think those brass washers were original to the gun, as he could see ghost marks of the bolt heads.   Hey guys thanks for all the info.

[rich pierce]

Not to hijack, but I want to make that guard. Thinking this could be the starting point. I think I need to move the rear curl of the bow forward 3/8” to get bow to grip rail proportions right. Then craft and silver solder new front and rear extensions on.

[Avlrc]

Not to hijack, but I want to make that guard. Thinking this could be the starting point. I think I need to move the rear curl of the bow forward 3/8” to get bow to grip rail proportions right. Then craft and silver solder new front and rear extensions on.

That's  cool , will try to get you some better pics if you need them.

[Mike Brooks]

If you sent me the original guard I could make castings of it.