Need some help Identifying this English Flintlock

[WisconsinShooter]

Hi.  Pretty new member here and I am looking for some information on what I believe to be a British flintlock fowler.  I purchased the gun on line and it is not yet in my hands. Seller described the gun as having a 46 inch round barrel, 20 gauge, lock works well, shortened stock.  Brass engraved butt plate, wrist and left side of stock. "London" stamped on barrel.  I'll attach all of the pictures that the seller provided and will be very happy to post more once the gun is in my hands.  Looking for your help figuring out the  approximate date of manufacture, possible maker, place of origin, originality of parts, etc.  I make a point of collecting and documenting as much information as possible on each of my antique guns so that it can be passed on to the next generation.  This is the first original flintlock I have purchased so I have a lot to learn. Please educate me. Thanks.

[Mike Brooks]

English. Export grade. Made 1785 to maybe 1800. Everything looks original. It was stocked clear to the muzzle when it was made and had no nose cap.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Nice piece!  Good to see something that hasn't been touched very much if at all in the modern era.

[smart dog]

Hi,
It looks like a nice English export gun.  I cannot see the barrel proof marks clearly to tell if they are Birmingham or private Tower marks.  That affects the dating.  I am also not sure the lock is original to the gun.  Again, the photos are not clear but the rear and nose of the lock seem out of alignment with the lock panels. The lock may be later than the gun.  Clearer photos will help.

dave

[backsplash75]

I have one like it- sadly with a replaced lock. Post a better picture of the proofs/barrel marks. I suspect it has pre 1813 Birmingham proofs and a TK maker's mark. Looks like a Ketland Export fowler ca. 1794-1813 based on info board user and Ketland guru JV Puleo posted.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Hi,
It looks like a nice English export gun.  I cannot see the barrel proof marks clearly to tell if they are Birmingham or private Tower marks.  That affects the dating.  I am also not sure the lock is original to the gun.  Again, the photos are not clear but the rear and nose of the lock seem out of alignment with the lock panels. The lock may be later than the gun.  Clearer photos will help.

dave

I see what you're saying there but I can't get the photo to open larger.  It *looks* right in this photo, and I was kind of assuming that the piece at the tail was just wood break out.  I do see some shiny metal right near the breech/vent, could be frizzen rub or something else.

What is up with the image hosting?  Lately none of them have been opening up full-size for me.

[WisconsinShooter]

Thanks so much for your responses.  Greatly appreciated.  I apologize for the poor quality of the pictures and will definitely be posting much better ones once the gun is in my hands.  Could you explain the significance of "export grade" or of being made for export.  Does this reflect poorer quality.  Were the majority exported to the states? Interesting to hear that it would have not had a nose cap.  It's unfortunate that the front portion of the stock is missing - I assume that these stocks were a bit fragile and that such breaks would not be uncommon.  Thanks again.

[Pukka Bundook]

Its a very nice gun, but am pretty Sure the lock is a period replacement.

Very best,
Richard.

[bluenoser]

It would appear the original lock was approximately 3/8" longer and the tail was a tad lower

[Eric Kettenburg]

That could be - it depends upon whether the large gap/sliver there is wood break out (common at the tail) or if it is the remnants of a larger mortice.  I can't make any real determination from these photos.  Usually when I click on the photos in the threads, they open up in a new window or tab at a larger or full resolution, but lately all that happens is that I get a imgbb ad page.  Is this just happening to me or to everyone?

[JTR]

Usually when I click on the photos in the threads, they open up in a new window or tab at a larger or full resolution, but lately all that happens is that I get a imgbb ad page.  Is this just happening to me or to everyone?

I get the same when opening these pics.

[bluenoser]

[Eric Kettenburg]

Still kind of 50/50.  Could be an earlier mortice, could be a big sliver knockout.  I expect to see the wear on the lower side around the sear; that's extremely common as the sear wears and the lock is pulled in and out and the sear hole either wears larger or is purposely enlarged to prevent binding.

Would love to see a good photo of the mortice with the lock removed, and the inside of the lock and the breech (with lock removed).

[WisconsinShooter]

Thanks for your input Erik.  I'll be glad to provide any additional photos you require once the gun arrives.  I'll also get some better pictures of the proof marks.  Anybody else wanting some additional pictures - let me know and I'll add them to my list.

[bluenoser]

 Eric makes a valid point but I cannot say I see the likelihood of a chip-out.  If it were a chip-out, I would expect it to follow the grain right through back of the panel.  Also, the gradually increasing width of the gap, starting about under the back of the hammer, combined with the rounded terminus, looks a lot like an old mortise to me.  The current width of the lower edge of the panel also appears quite consistent and I would not expect that to be the case if there was a chip-out.  Just my opinion.

[Tim Crosby]

What is up with the image hosting?  Lately none of them have been opening up full-size for me.
[/quote]

 I'm not sure it is the hosting site, when you click on some Pix they pop right up and can be enlarged. It probably has something to do with the original Pix. I am working on a MS system and to enlarge Pix I click on the little magnifying glass in the upper right corner and they can be enlarged at least 400 times. Or go to "Favorites" and use the "Zoom" feature.

  Tim

PS At 400% it looks like the bottom of the plate below the FS has been inlet through the molding. TC

[smart dog]

Hi,
I agree with Eric that it may be damage to the sides of the mortise.  I cannot really tell.  However, magnifying the later photos supplied by the OP shows what look like private Tower proof marks on the barrel.  That would set the youngest date at about 1810.  Export means generally modest to lower quality guns made for sale in other countries.  I use that term to differentiate the gun from a trade gun purchased by indigenous populations.  I don't believe this is an Indian trade gun but it could be.  I am going to guess that the lock has no internal bridle for the tumbler. 

dave

[Eric Kettenburg]

Most of those "tulip locks" that I have seen didn't (have any internal bridle).  They were just meant to function 'well enough' until they were sold and used a bit, at which point it was no longer the importer's or seller's problem.

[JTR]

Looking at that picture, Reply 11, I'd say that's not the original lock.

[bluenoser]

  I expect to see the wear on the lower side around the sear; that's extremely common as the sear wears and the lock is pulled in and out and the sear hole either wears larger or is purposely enlarged to prevent binding.

Getting a little fuzzy, but this might help.

[James Rogers]

Doesn't look like the lock matches the mortise to me but ironically those tulip type locks are consistent with this late model type export gun. Looks like many I have seen using the same hardware and of post 1800 production.  I have seen a lot of these with Birmingham proofs. Some better images of the barrel markings will better tell the tale.

[Clark Badgett]

I would love to see detailed images of the lock itself. It’s a typical “trade” lock of the early 1800s. I’ve seen the tulip on firearms by several makers and not just on locks.
I’m going to back Mike Brooks assessment. But add that the lock was replaced with a later 1810s style later due to breakage. Besides from the rear area the lower molding has been modified.

[WisconsinShooter]

Thanks for all the great information.  I will add some detailed pictures of the lock to a post once the gun is in my hands.

[Tim Crosby]

  I thought the similarities in this Pic; from a post by Bob Gerard in "Building" was interesting:

 

  Tim C.

[JV Puleo]

As mentioned above, a fairly standard export grade fowler. It had to have come in after the embargo was lifted in 1794 and it conforms to the export regulations for fowlers in that it is stocked to the muzzle and there is no fitting for a bayonet. I'd guess it was a fairly early example...maybe 1794 – 1800 at the latest. That just my impression though. I have no hard and fast dating criteria for individual guns though I feel the long hand rail stock was probably gone by 1800. It should have, or had, a wooden ram rod.

The regulations established by the Privy Council applied to all exports. The Ketland's were only one, if the largest, of the exporters so it's probably impossible to say who brought this one in. We can be certain it was made in the Birmingham gun trade for export to America.