Info on blunderbuss

[Kmcmichael]

I would like opinions on this. The carving looks sort of American to me but I think the gun came from England.
It is owned by an old friend. He knew I liked flintlocks and asked for any possible info. It seems obviously converted to percussion.

[WESTbury]

Looks like what is usually called a Coaching Gun. Certainly not a military arm, too light weight.

The barrel proofs and other stamps on the barrel are somewhat indistinct. The proof marks look vaguely like British Commercial Proofs, but again, they are indistinct.

[Mike Brooks]

English ca. 1770 give or take 5 years. I believe Lett worked outside of London, but I'd have to go find my books to tell you exactly where he worked. One of the smarties here will know.

[Kmcmichael]

Better proof mark pics. Smarty is a relative term. I’m am looking from the bottom of the totem pole on this!

The silver inlay seems odd but seems to have been done well. Was that a common?

[mr. no gold]

Looks like a high end, but almost used up English piece. The hole on the top barrel flat at the breech may have been the keeper anchor point for a bayonet, which many had. Without seeing the muzzle, however I can't tell. The silver wire inlay is a bonus and suggests the high cost of this gun when new. Your friend might want to consider restoring this unique arm. It is the only one I have ever seen that has silver wire ornamentation. As to year and where made, Mike gave you the correct information.
Dick

[Mike Brooks]

Silver wire was fairly common on higher end  guns. Wire work was an industry all its own in the London gun trade. Generaly done by specialists in their own shops under contract.

[smart dog]

Hi,
I believe it is all English from the 1760s.  The barrel is marked "Clark, Holborn, London", which indicates the John Clark who had a shop in Holborn section of London.  John Lett also worked in the 1750s-1770s in London.  An interesting connection is both Clark and Lett apprenticed to Jonathan Stanton during the 1750s.  Stanton apprenticed to William Turvey and took over his  business when he died in 1745.  His shop was also located in Holborn.  The silver wire inlay is very much in the style found on guns by William Bailes so Clark and Lett may have used the same artist.  That would further cement the date to sometime in the late 1750s-1760s.  I think the flat-faced lock points more toward the 1760s rather than earlier but it still could be from the late 1750s.  I cannot tell from the photos but it almost looks like the stock is a take down design.  If so, that means the fore stock and barrel were removed by unhooking the standing breech allowing the butt stock and barrel to be placed is a small case.  It is very high end for a blunderbuss or coach gun.  I don't know what the crown stamp on the barrel indicates.  It does not appear to be a maker's mark of any kind.  I wonder if it meant ownership by the royal family?

dave 

[Pukka Bundook]

Can I ask what the barrel is made from?
The worn edges look like iron that has been bronzed or something?

Smart Dog Dave,
I too was thinking how the silver wire looks very like that seen on William Bailes work.

Yes, the stock is divided at the fore-end, for more compact travel.
I Believe the re-enforce at the trigger guard suggest 1760  or so , as a general rule.

[Mike Brooks]

There you go! The smart guys save the day again!

[Feltwad]

I agree with most that is wrote has for a coaching gun it is the right size  but I have come across the same that were also known has a jailers gun  some with  the name of the jail
Feltwad

[mr. no gold]

Good commentary on this rare gun! Looking at the percussion conversion, I am wondering whether it might have been changed over here in America. There are some aspects, the drum for example that suggest that. The foreshock. on the gun is certainly unusual; perhaps some better, close up photographs can help.
Dick

[Kmcmichael]

I have requests more photos from my friend of the muzzle.
Some of the wear and tear on this piece stems from ten year olds playing cowboys and Indians.
We both find the members of this forum knowledge to be truly remarkable. Caveat he is even dumber than I am.

It was mentioned that the gun might be redone. Was the insinuation to revert to a flintlock? If so, would finding the appropriate lock be an insurmountable task. I assume they would need to be custom made?

[mr. no gold]

Thank you for the update on the 'buss.' Too bad the kids played with it; I have seen some wonderful pieces turned into 'pieces' by children playing with grandpa's old gun. To answer your question, there are folks on this site who do wonderful restoration on old arms.
First, did it have a bayonet? Condition from breech back to butt appears to be quite good, so do not clean, wax or do anything else to it.
The forearm can be easily restored with having missing wood added in and colored to match. The gun can be returned to flintlock or not as you wish. Correct parts are available and match in quite well, by a skilled restorer. Be sure that no metal is cleaned or otherwise changed. Patina is everything in America, not so much in Europe. but you have an abundance of it and it will solidify the upper value of this gun. You will have to spend some money to get a top notch restoration done, but in the long run should be worth it. Good luck!
Dick

[Kmcmichael]

It is a great curiosity to both of us. I am afraid any restoration will be done by me. It has no real emotional value for him only curiosity. His neighbor as a child was the one playing with it. I have put together a few kits and other woodworking and gunsmithing etc.
Is the value such that one could pay for a restoration?

[Bill Paton]

Very interesting piece with lots of history. The bell muzzle brings up questions in my mind. The single image is hard to read, but the metal looks different than the barrel and the long, straight cone doesn’t match the high quality style of the rest of the gun. I am eager to see closeups of the muzzle from the end and sides. Might there be a weld or braze line attaching the bell to the barrel (on either the outside or inside the bore), indicating a later add on to a shortened high quality fowler?

Bill Paton

[LynnC]

I too noticed what appears to be a rather plain muzzle as opposed to the rest of the gun. Close up photos would help

[smart dog]

Hi,
I wonder if that gun was made as a blunderbuss originally.  The stock is very petite like a classic sporting gun and the flare at the muzzle looks weird and crudely shaped.  Plus there is the brass  like coating on the barrel.  A photo of the muzzle would be helpful.

dave

[Feltwad]

I think this has been an interesting thread which I think the  member who entered it will appreciate  and some have not commented that it is not a long rifle . This happened to me not long ago and my thread was locked  for that reason , this now makes me very  careful  if I have  anything to enter  that I think will  be of interest to members 
Feltwad

[James Rogers]

Hi,
I wonder if that gun was made as a blunderbuss originally.  The stock is very petite like a classic sporting gun and the flare at the muzzle looks weird and crudely shaped.  Plus there is the brass  like coating on the barrel.  A photo of the muzzle would be helpful.

dave

I'm right with you on that. 
The wire, the dainty stock flow, muzzle flare,   and that unusual takedown split could be satisfied with that theory.

[Kmcmichael]

Another up close of the buttstock inlay.

[smart dog]

Hi,
I honestly do not believe this gun was originally made as a blunderbuss.  Maybe a large barreled duck gun originally but that bell was added later. Somebody diddled with it in a major way.  The forearm is a replacement and was not made during the same era as the butt stock.  The barrel key escutcheons are much later than the original and the barrel key is put in from the wrong side, and of course the ramrod is probably 100 years later than the gun.  Somebody butchered what was a really great gun.  Sad.

dave

[Mike Brooks]

Hi,
I honestly do not believe this gun was originally made as a blunderbuss.  Maybe a large barreled duck gun originally but that bell was added later. Somebody diddled with it in a major way.  The forearm is a replacement and was not made during the same era as the butt stock.  The barrel key escutcheons are much later than the original and the barrel key is put in from the wrong side, and of course the ramrod is probably 100 years later than the gun.  Somebody butchered what was a really great gun.  Sad.

dave

Ditto. But you have to say it has the coolest buttplate thingy in the history of English gunmaking. I'd love to see the whole back side and the full top.

[smart dog]

Ditto. But you have to say it has the coolest buttplate thingy in the history of English gunmaking. I'd love to see the whole back side and the full top.

Hi Mike,
Absolutely!  It is phenomenal work.  As fine as I've ever seen.

dave

[Pukka Bundook]

Mike,
Do you think the buttplate has a trapdoor for a bayonet?
For some reason, these enjoyed a certain popularity for a short time.  Cant think why but that's how it was.

Dave of course dead right on the key escutcheon and and barrel not being made the way it now appears.
The work suggests it was done in the Middle East. the form of the bell....  There was quite a business going one time, belling out barrels into blunderbusses.

[Mike Brooks]

the buttplate appears to be skeletonized  and I don't think it has a bayonet trap, although they are very nifty. I have a buttplate with a trapdoor and little bayonet I was always going to build a gun around. But, Getz has had the bayonet for 25 years so I doubt the gun will ever get built.