Late model British trade rifle stock.

[northup87]

I saw this on ebay a couple weeks back, it had so many different characteristics I'm not used to seeing I wanted to study it. I will likely pass it on down the line but was curious and wanted to open up a discussion on it.

First the escutcheon style looks to be an acorn or similar. Has anyone seen that style before. I understand it could be a later addition but it doesn't feel like it, as its tooling marks match the ramrod and barrel lug tooling marks and patina seem to match.

This seems to be a later model trade gun judging by the round back english lock mortise. Would the current production late model english L&R be the style lock seen on this gun?

The grace in the rear profile is really what sold me on the stock. Its been a pleasure looking at the tooling marks.

On a side note, I'm almost certain the buttplate was made from flat brass inlet on top bent over the horn and edges hammered to match the contour of the buttplate wood.. The stock is shaped like a rounded mandrel and the brass is some of the softest I have seen, nearly formable with your bare hands.

What book would you recommend on British trade guns?
 












pic uploader

[rich pierce]

To me the styling is mid to third quarter 18th century. It may have had a replacement lock later. Will be interested to hear what others think of the architecture.

[Rajin cajun]

Stock profile very similar to what the English called their “CarolinaGun”, this one has been recycled several times..! Nice old relic.
Bob

[northup87]

Stock profile very similar to what the English called their “CarolinaGun”, this one has been recycled several times..! Nice old relic.
Bob

Rajun Cajun Thanks for pointing in the right direction. A quick search on Carolina Trade Guns yielded many more similarities than I've seen so far.

[Mike Brooks]

It's a restock.

[Rajin cajun]

Will someone please describe what a restock is. It appears that if a weapon made 150 - 200 years ago with parts made by someone else is not as honest an artifact as one completely made by an individual.
Then why is it today we look at very talented gunsmiths that make weapons with barrels made by someone else, locks made by someone else, mounts made by someone else. Most of the time these smiths do modify these components to build the weapons, which by the way the person may have modified  the components he had to work with back then. Yet we call them originals by the smiths name on the weapon, is that weapon made by that person or not ? Is it an original or not?  I think we do ourselves an injustice by snubbing antique relics that are honest, not something fabricated to deceive, but components assembled into a weapon at the time of its use , by a person who has the ability to fabricate those components , used they may be into a useful weapon. At a time when weapons and useful pieces and parts were not that easy to find or acquire.

Bob

[Stoner creek]

My perception of an antique restock is simple. A maker has simply recycled good usable parts from an otherwise unusable firearm.
 There’s nothing in the world wrong with that. It’s actually a bit of a treat to be able to identify one that is an antique restock. Often the mounts don’t jive with the architecture of the work presented by the second set of hands that created the piece.
 Mankind has been reusing and recycling forever.

[Bob McBride]

Cajun, a period restock is just used parts stocked into a gun. Nothing wrong with it short of them sometimes being stylistically incongruous. They give a view of a particular build by a particular guy building in a style that the parts allowed while also trying to build in a style that would sell or sometimes just in a ‘get her back on the road’ fashion. They’re neat-o.

[rich pierce]

Looking more closely, look at the lock panels. So thick on the bottom. Never seen on an English gun or, for that matter, an American trade gun made by a big supplier.

[Mtn Meek]

I agree with Mike Brooks and Rich Pierce.  This is not a trade gun, but rather a period restock.  With a little imagination, one might call it a frontier restock considering the primitive nature of the work, but that is purely speculative.

Notice that the front finial of the trigger guard has broken off and the guard was inlet that way.  Originally, it might have been a simple "acorn" style finial.

The sideplate is missing, but it looks like it was a plain, flat sheet metal held on with screws.  There is nothing to suggest that it had a trade gun style sideplate of the dragon/serpent pattern.

Even though the butt plate and trigger guard could be from an 18th century fowling piece, a gun assembled from parts such as this one can be no older than the newest part on it.  Based on the shape of the lock mortise, that newest part would be the lock which appears to have been of the type that was commonly available in America in the 1820s and later.

This gun looks like it might have an interesting history, if it could talk, but it's not a trade gun.

[Mike Brooks]

Will someone please describe what a restock is. It appears that if a weapon made 150 - 200 years ago with parts made by someone else is not as honest an artifact as one completely made by an individual.
Then why is it today we look at very talented gunsmiths that make weapons with barrels made by someone else, locks made by someone else, mounts made by someone else. Most of the time these smiths do modify these components to build the weapons, which by the way the person may have modified  the components he had to work with back then. Yet we call them originals by the smiths name on the weapon, is that weapon made by that person or not ? Is it an original or not?  I think we do ourselves an injustice by snubbing antique relics that are honest, not something fabricated to deceive, but components assembled into a weapon at the time of its use , by a person who has the ability to fabricate those components , used they may be into a useful weapon. At a time when weapons and useful pieces and parts were not that easy to find or acquire.

Bob

It ain't much of a weapon, a baseball bat would be far more effective. It more closely resembles a gun. The term weapon suggests intent.
 You can't call this a "trade gun" because it isn't one. Some of the donated parts MAY be from a "trade gun" but in it's present form it isn't. Actually none of the mounts would suggest "trade gun" to me. More likely some of the parts are from a 1790's Birmingham export fowling gun. Calling the gun what it actually is is not a snub or disrespect for the gun.

[northup87]

All great info guys! Thanks for sharing! The discoloration from the side plate shows it was not a solid plate, thou some kind with cut outs as a portion is missing and I took the photo with flash its hard to see, does not look like the serpent style maybe the later scroll style like the top one pictured. 

At any rate its been a fun thing to study and enjoy. Thanks for all the help!
 

[Mtn Meek]

northup87,

I accept that the photo with the flash probably washed out a lot of the detail of the discoloration. You have the gun in front of you and can see the details better than I.

I did try an overlay of the sideplate from the T.M. Hamilton book and the stock using PhotoShop.  I couldn't get the sideplate to line up with the majority of the holes (see below).



Maybe you could sketch out an outline of what you see as the discoloration on the lock panel on a piece of paper.

[northup87]

I like that overlay program!!!  Is it a trace function in one of your photoshop apps like Corel? Very powerful tool.  As I said its something similiar to the one pictured.  The cutout area would need to be about 3/4" farther back than the one you overlayed.   The two lock bolt holes in your over lay do match the only thru holes to the lock plate on the stock the other 5 holes are just subsurface. 

[northup87]

I wonder if the acorn thumbpeice was cut from the front trigger guard filed to a point and inlet up on the top of the wrist. It looks roughly the same width as the flat front of the trigger guard.

[northup87]

Also I think the barrel was likely around 50-52". Current existing barrel channel is 42" long.  The front portion of the stock is missing and  was cut right at a barrel tennon attachment pin hole and slightly ahead of a ramrod pipe. Judging by the ramrod pipe locations spaced 13.5" apart I am going to make the assement it was a 3 ramrod pipe stock, and barrel was longer than a 48" barrel. 

[backsplash75]

All great info guys! Thanks for sharing! The discoloration from the side plate shows it was not a solid plate, thou some kind with cut outs as a portion is missing and I took the photo with flash its hard to see, does not look like the serpent style maybe the later scroll style like the top one pictured. 

At any rate its been a fun thing to study and enjoy. Thanks for all the help!
 

The top sideplate in the image you posted is from one of the later (1790-1815ish ) Ketland fowlers. I own one (and need to move it on), it has lines that could pass for 3rd qtr of the 18th century and pre 1813 Birmingham proofs +TK maker's mark but board member JV Puelo's excellent work on the topic makes a very firm case that these are post Rev War.  My Ketland fowler (replaced lock and portion of the sideplate is a restoration) has a 48 inch 20 ga barrel and is a light little thing, this looks to be a restock of something along those lines (the lack of sideplate inletting is a tell).





The stock is a bit short, here is the position of the muzzle pin on a 48" barrel.



Here is a shot of another Ketland fowler from an auction showing the intact sideplate.  These show up with several variations in escutcheons and trigger guards. Neat guns, shame they weren't here earlier (parts show up dug in a few places). 

[Mike Brooks]

What evidence is there of s serpentine/floral on this gun? I don't see it. There is no inlet........

[Pukka Bundook]

Looking more closely, look at the lock panels. So thick on the bottom. Never seen on an English gun or, for that matter, an American trade gun made by a big supplier.

Sometimes Rich, I don't say anything.    Yesterday was like that, but I must say, I am pleased when someone else says it!