Tryon Full Stock Scroll Guard

[Eric Kettenburg]

Very interesting.  Not my area of expertise but rather than debating the point re: proofs, there are obviously none on the top of the barrel.  Why doesn't the op yank the barrel and take a look underneath?  Not hard to do.

Wood looks like American walnut to my eye also, although with the caveat that the varnish has gone very dark and admittedly there was some coarse, lesser quality walnut used in Europe as well.

[KMac]

I took the barrel and lock off and have some new photos. There are no proof marks on the top flats of the barrel, nor the underside. I also looked for any marks on the inside of the lock plate and couldn't find any. Previous post about Birmingham proofing very interesting... "prior to 1813 proofing and marking was not required for barrels made in Birmingham". 

[KMac]

Additional photos...

[KMac]

[KMac]

[rich pierce]

Thanks! Tempting to replicate this. As if I need another rifle. Or smoothbore lol.

[KMac]

Rich, let me know if you need any measurements or any photos for a build. Lol

[KMac]

Forgot to load this image of the barrel from the muzzle which shows the swamped barrel...

[RAT]

Mike Brooks is correct... made in America. The only thing English is the hardware, which was commonly imported, including by Tryon. Originally flint, later converted to percussion during it's service life. It could have been made by Tryon... IF "Tryon" "Philada" is stamped on the top flat of the barrel. If this is not stamped on the top flat of the barrel, it wasn't made by Tryon.

The lock was purchased from Tryon. I would guess the hardware also came from Tryon. With the rear sight and full octagon, I would guess it was originally rifled and re-bored smooth later during it's service life.

We shouldn't assume this was a "western" rifle. Especially if it was purchased in Philadelphia. It's very possible it spent it's whole life within 50 miles of where it was made. Scroll guards don't make a gun English, nor western, nor "proto", nor evolutionary. They were simply "in style" at the time. Gunsmiths from Massachusetts to Georgia were using them. Especially post-mid 1830's.

Please don't call this a Tatham, or Henry, or anything else without actual signatures or stampings on the gun. Comparing photos you can see it's clearly not a Tatham. It's clearly not a Henry "new English" "scroll guard" pattern rifle. There may be some common similarities, but that's no proof. A car and a tricycle both have wheels... it doesn't mean they were both made by Ford.

[RAT]

I just looked at the original photos again... no cheekpiece. With an English style shotgun butt plate and no cheekpiece this was probably made as a general purpose hunting gun. It was most likely made for the "civilized" east. It wouldn't be of much use out here in the mountains.

Without a signature, the only identifying features that are unique enough to make an attribution are the lock/sideplate panels, and possibly the front & rear sights. The way the panels are shaped at the rear... that's the key. Somebody has probably owned or seen a rifle with this feature that can help identify who made this.

[JHeath]

In an effort to learn more about a gun I own, I recently did some research on English barrel proofing requirements and found that prior to 1813 proofing and marking was not required for barrels made in Birmingham.  Although some Birmingham barrel makers did mark their work, it is not known whether these marks indicate proofing, or are just the maker's mark.  Proofing of London made barrels was required beginning in 1637.

Ron

I'm not sure, but thought that B'ham guns required proving. The B'ham proof house was built in 1813 for convenience. I think prior to that they had to haul barrels to London for proof.

[JHeath]

Good golly. Some of you guys should listen to the guys that have actually handled this type of gun and have decades of experience .

Mike, I still want to know what you mean by "this type of gun." Do you mean you've seen a bunch of American guns that resemble English guns, with all the mountings etc? That is why I asked for examples. Not because I think you don't have them, but because I want to see them. The subject interests me as a historian.

This gun to me looks like a stylistic hybrid. An American-built hybrid as you correctly say. Many English features but a long bbl. The lock came from an importer who also served the fur trade and specifically the American Fur Company through St Louis.

The WG Chance I posted also appears to be a hybrid. WG Chance was in B'ham and exported to a NY office he set up, then forwarded to St Louis including to the AFC. The WG Chance rifle has English features except the stock drop is really steep, and the crescent plate appears to be converted from a flat plate. I think English wood. It was auctioned as a B'ham rifle but maybe it was American too, with an imported lock.

The Maslin-locked English-style guns I posted are either American like the OP, or English built with Maslin-marked locks. He was another importer of B'ham stuff. And active in Phila. concurrent with Tryon. Was he an AFC supplier too? I don't know.

That's why I want to know if by "this type of gun" you mean you are familiar with a body of English or American guns having hybrid features, or both.

When JJ Henry marketed "English pattern," was he influenced directly by actual English sporting rifles? Did AFC see actual Brit rifles and request  "English pattern"? Or were there hybrid rifles by fur trade suppliers like Tryon, WG Chance, possibly Maslin, that were intermediate designs? WG Chance actually was English.

 I'm asking because somehow America goes from longrifles in the 1820s to plains rifles in the 1830s in the same time frame. And I suspect JJ Henry was not the only intermediate step.

It's a huge shift and an important event in the history of longrifles. This is a longrifle forum.

If it sounds like I've challenged you, that is only because I want to find out what you know. You say you've seen a bunch of stuff. What stuff?

RAT: relax, nobody called this a Tatham. I posted photos of hardware on a Tatham as examples of typical English mountings. Anyway Tatham was London and much higher quality. Even his military contracts.

[Stoner creek]

Good golly. Some of you guys should listen to the guys that have actually handled this type of gun and have decades of experience .

Mike, I still want to know what you mean by "this type of gun." Do you mean you've seen a bunch of American guns that resemble English guns, with all the mountings etc? That is why I asked for examples. Not because I think you don't have them, but because I want to see them. The subject interests me as a historian.

This gun to me looks like a stylistic hybrid. An American-built hybrid as you correctly say. Many English features but a long bbl. The lock came from an importer who also served the fur trade and specifically the American Fur Company through St Louis.

The WG Chance I posted also appears to be a hybrid. WG Chance was in B'ham and exported to a NY office he set up, then forwarded to St Louis including to the AFC. The WG Chance rifle has English features except the stock drop is really steep, and the crescent plate appears to be converted from a flat plate. I think English wood. It was auctioned as a B'ham rifle but maybe it was American too, with an imported lock.

The Maslin-locked English-style guns I posted are either American like the OP, or English built with Maslin-marked locks. He was another importer of B'ham stuff. And active in Phila. concurrent with Tryon. Was he an AFC supplier too? I don't know.

That's why I want to know if by "this type of gun" you mean you are familiar with a body of English or American guns having hybrid features, or both.

When JJ Henry marketed "English pattern," was he influenced directly by actual English sporting rifles? Did AFC see actual Brit rifles and request  "English pattern"? Or were there hybrid rifles by fur trade suppliers like Tryon, WG Chance, possibly Maslin, that were intermediate designs? WG Chance actually was English.

 I'm asking because somehow America goes from longrifles in the 1820s to plains rifles in the 1830s in the same time frame. And I suspect JJ Henry was not the only intermediate step.

It's a huge shift and an important event in the history of longrifles. This is a longrifle forum.

If it sounds like I've challenged you, that is only because I want to find out what you know. You say you've seen a bunch of stuff. What stuff?

RAT: relax, nobody called this a Tatham. I posted photos of hardware on a Tatham as examples of typical English mountings. Anyway Tatham was London and much higher quality. Even his military contracts.

Friend, take a deep breath! Relax!  No need to hyperventilate. This is just an old gun…..

[Mike Brooks]

I honestly don't have time to worry about stuff like this. I have real things to do that consume most of my time.

[T.C.Albert]

The NRA museum had this to say about the difficulty of researching this sort of thing. The link has the proof images and I've posted an excerpt below that.

http://www.nramuseum.org/media/940944/proofmarks.pdf

Since the U.S. has no proofing houses (as in England, France, Germany and
other European countries), most U.S. manufacturers voluntarily proof their firearms with a specified
style of proof mark......Pre-1850 European firearms oftentimes do not
exhibit any commercial proof marks and, with the exception of an occasional barrel address, they
represent the single hardest category of firearms one can research properly. Captured weapons
from major wars occasionally show two different nationalities of proof marks. Please refer to the References section in this text for proof mark source information

TA

[Ky-Flinter]

In an effort to learn more about a gun I own, I recently did some research on English barrel proofing requirements and found that prior to 1813 proofing and marking was not required for barrels made in Birmingham.  Although some Birmingham barrel makers did mark their work, it is not known whether these marks indicate proofing, or are just the maker's mark.  Proofing of London made barrels was required beginning in 1637.

Ron

I'm not sure, but thought that B'ham guns required proving. The B'ham proof house was built in 1813 for convenience. I think prior to that they had to haul barrels to London for proof.

The following statement is from the paper "English Provincial Makers’ Marks, New Thoughts on Gun Barrel Markings of 18th and 19th Century British Firearms" by Brian Godwin & John Evans, available at http://www.researchpress.co.uk/rppublishing/rplibrary/rpl003-english-provincial-makers-marks.pdf: "Prior to the Gun Barrel Act of 1813, there were no national regulations governing the manufacture and proof of gun barrels throughout Britain as a whole. However, gunmaking in London had been regulated much earlier."

See also, the Birmingham Proof House webpage at https://www.gunproof.com/

While some Birmingham makers did send their barrels to London for proofing, they were not required to do so prior to 1813.

Ron

[jdm]

The gun in question  is later than 1813 .If English it should have proof marks.

[RAT]

An English lock on an American rifle doesn't have any deeper significance other than the English made large numbers of affordable locks. Probably 90% of American rifles made during and after the 1820's have English made locks on them.

I'm positive most American gunmakers proved their barrels. But they didn't take them to the government... they took them to the "hillbilly" proof house. In other words... they took them to the field behind the barn and proved them themselves.

Why did American guns evolve to become more English-like? No great mystery... The English made some really nice guns. Not to mention the fact that they dominated world trade during the 19th century. Why do designers follow French and Italian clothing fashion trends? Why do automakers around the world follow German and American Auto trends? Why do countries around the word manufacture their own version of the AK? Or... going back 100 years... the Mauser? If something works well or is stylish... you copy it.

If you're really interested in trade rifles specifically, I suggest you call the Museum of the Fur Trade and order Volume 1 of "The Encyclopedia of the Fur Trade". It's all about the guns used during the fur trade in North America.