Please help identify - american military “carbine”?

[DaveM]

This cool piece turned up. It was noted to be “as found in attic”. It looks like it was lightly cleaned in the past, but otherwise seems to be complete and original.

The gun is beefy - yet overall the gun is on the smaller / shorter side compared to muskets, which makes me think of a carbine. The barrel seems to be original length at 33-1/2 inches long (about .78 caliber) smooth bore. The gun appears to be in original flintlock condition. The lock is about 5-7/8 inches long.

The gun looks like it was made for a bayonet. The front top sight maybe a lug, and the brass nose cap is loose with a lug on the bottom of the barrel. Maybe the bayonet placed forward of the nose cap using the top lug. The wood stock stops about 4-1/4” short of the muzzle. Maybe they would pop off the cap when a bayonet was fitted? The cap pin through the cap lug was filed off flush so the cap easily pops on and off.

The stock at the rear ramrod pipe has a “swell” to it.

The lock is marked inside with what looks like an arrow. I don’t see any proof marks anywhere. It is hard to tell if the barrel or lock are marked on the outside - I hate to clean it, and it is crusted with dirt.

Thoughts welcome - Thanks!

[JTR]

Nice find! 

[DaveM]

I took off the barrel, and the lugs all match the stock pin holes perfectly, with no sign of any old or removed barrel lugs.

There are matching assembly numbers under the barrel and breach tang.

There appears to be “IS” stamped on the underside of the barrel.







my picture com

[rich pierce]

The tang carving, nose cap, and architecture are similar to some New England guns. Cool find.

[dadybear1]

LOOKS LIKE NICE WOOD!!!!

[tooguns]

Let me go out on a limb here.... Fowler cut down for military use? And fitted for a bayonet?

[120RIR]

That was my first reaction - New England fowler cut down for bayonet and military service. 

[Mike Brooks]

The tang carving, nose cap, and architecture are similar to some New England guns. Cool find.

Yes, there is a school of club butt fowling guns with identical features except for the stock style. Perhaps a restock?

[rich pierce]

The tang carving, nose cap, and architecture are similar to some New England guns. Cool find.

Yes, there is a school of club butt fowling guns with identical features except for the stock style. Perhaps a restock?

Best guess right there. I was trying to figure out the mix of features. Great to see the flintlock in original condition (I think).

[JTR]

That's a fine looking gun and I'm sure you're very excited to find it!
I can't say much as to what it was originally, but looks like it was used in this fashion for a long time.

I am curious about your thoughts as to what looks like a blooby oxy/acet weld bead around the exterior and interior of the pan? I wonder if the pan was broken off and welded back on in relatively modern times. or what? 

Many thanks for posting the pictures!
John

[DaveM]

I have been studyng this and my thoughts: John yes this gun is exciting to me! Not sure about the pan, but my thinking is there was some period lock repair work which was probably common to reinforce things. I don’t get the sense that this gun was messed with at all - my brother found it in the basement level of a consignment antique shop near philadelphia.

I have not found any clues to tell me it is a restock and I have searched.
-There are no signs of any old lugs or slots or evidence of changes under the barrel.
-The lug for the nose cap is an “extra” meaning close to the next lug. It matches the others.
-The stock is definitely old / of the period and in super shape.
-The forward lock bolt does not rise to require a channel under the barrel and there is not one on the underside f the barrel (sometimes this can be a sign of barrel reuse if there is a ghost channel without the need for one in the stock).
- the barrel walls at the muzzle are super thin.

To me it looks like the maker purpose made this as a military gun, where the same shop also made the club butt guns. I think it is the samemaker as grinslade # CB 7.

Comparing to grinslade CB 7:
-the butt has the same overall form, with the comb, lack of flutes, and slightly convex toe line. It just does not have cheek pieces or as much embellishment.  Whoever made these CB guns may have made other gun forms also.
-The tang carving seems much the same as the other CB guns, and the side plate and trigger guard both appear to be the same exact pattern outline as CB 7, but made plain without engraving. The sideplate on this gun is more heavily beveled.
-The fore stock wood is shaped in an unusual way with a triangular shape, like CB 7 appears to be, and like CB 16.

Other:
-The width of the stock behind the lock is very wide at 2.10” and the butt is 1-7/8 wide.
-The brass furniture is all in excellent shape, nothing bent or seems to have been disturbed or moved, or reused.
-The butt plate is a very nice french design. Revision: the butt plate looks filed down a bit on each side, moreso on the cheek side. The wood sides of the butt were shaved down also.
-the butt plate base and stock toe line are squared, not rounded. The butt plate is a bit over 5” tall so the squared toe at the base of the plate seems original. I don’t know if the club butt toe lines are rounded or square.
-the stock shaping around the lock and side plate are done the same as the pictured CB guns, for example dentical to CB 16. Seems to be very early form without much wood around the edges.
-The wood of the stock protrudes slightly, in a cone shape under the end of the nose cap.
-The ramrod is exactly the same as some of the CB guns like CB 6. This one appears to be jagged, or threaded at the low end, like it was made this length.  The ramrod is steel. It is 32-1/4 inches long (barrel 33-1/2) and looks like it was threaded with part of it broken off at this length.

[DaveM]

A possible clue - the gun surfaces are very smooth and rounded, but a bit rough on the sides of the butt. This may mean nothing, but when the light hits it right, it may show signs of being scraped down. The arrow on this photo shows what seems to be a bit of a break line on the surface. Maybe it had a cheek piece before?

I’ll stop now!



top gif

[rich pierce]

You’re making sense to me.

[JV Puleo]

I have a very similar gun though in my case it's a musket made partly from imported British parts (the lock, buttplate and triggerguard) and a much older barrel with a Queen Ann cypher. I bought it from the estate of a local doctor in northern RI. He started his practice well before WWI and was known to take old guns in payment for his services locally. I suspect it may have been both made and/or cut down by Welcome Mathewson, one of the best RI gunmakers and located in the same town as the Dr. Swain. (He was a son or grandson of the CW ammunition maker). My musket/carbine has a bayonet lug and the forend has been cut back far enough for it to be completely functional.

If Mathewson had anything to do with it I'd date it around 1805/1810, well after the embargo on English guns and parts had been lifted. Mathewson started to work locally on his own around 1805 and, perhaps not too curiously, his brother was the captain of the only militia dragoon company in the state. The family still has his saber (as well as Mathewson's personal rifle and fowler along with his daybook).

Though their role eventually changed to heavy cavalry, dragoons were originally mounted infantry, armed with short muskets equipped with a bayonet. They were intended to ride to a fight but to actually fight on foot.

Unfortunately, the Mathewson daybook doesn't give many details...it has  entries like "restocking one old soldier gun". If interested, it was reprinted as an appendix in the late Bill Achtermeier's book on Rhode Island Arms Makers. Mathewson lived into his 90s. When he dies he was the oldest man in RI. I tried to buy his house once...it was abandoned but still standing but I suspect is long gone now.

[DaveM]

JV, good to hear from you, and thanks for taking the time to respond. Your notes about about the Mathewson family are very interesting. That gives me another avenue to research. It would be interesting to see your Mathewson carbine. 

My gun was definitely altered on the sides of the butt - which is obvious now through studying it under different light conditions. It is difficult to get a good photo but the sides are rough and kind of planed off (flat scraped planes) compared to the smooth round surfaces of the rest of the piece. It was scraped down on both sides and hollowed out a bit on both sides into the toe line and comb. I could see someone like Mathewson making these alterations especially as he was brother to a dragoon captain!

I did find an interesting article online, at the link below, maybe you have seen this already? I do not have the Rhode Island gun book you note, I’ll look for that.

I am curious if you recognize the mark inside the lock? Would this be a british broad arrow mark? There may be an “E” nex to the arrow.I show a closeup here:


https://battleofrhodeisland.org/the-call-to-arms-in-rhode-island-and-the-community-of-artisans-who-crafted-them/

[JV Puleo]

I've never seen that article but a quick reading leaves me skeptical as to whether it's serious history or another ...to quote the late Col George Gubarov ..."projection of politics into the past." Gubarov was reflecting on Russian history written under Stalin and I'm afraid many of our current "scholars" have adopted Socialist Realism methods.

I'll try to get some pictures of the gun I have...it may take some time as I'm swamped by work on my 18th century house.

The Achtermeier book is ok. About half of it is devoted to the Providence Tool Company. Unfortunately he included some material that is unsubstantiated "collector lore." He was a long time friend of mine and if he were still with us I'd take him to task for it. I was with Bill Achtermeier when I bought my gun.

[Robert Wolfe]

Dave, I have the Rhode Island book. If you are interested PM me.

[DaveM]

Thanks Robert, pm sent.

I had a chance to try to study the lock more closely.

Revision: it looks like welded material was simply added into the pan near the barrel end and overlaps the side facing the barrel to basically act as a partial pan liner due to pan erosion. Welded steel was also added at the touchhole as a repair due to steel erosion at the touch hole. There is not beaded repair welding on the outside at the plate face at the pan, the metal there is part of the pan. It is a removable pan arrangement, and the removable part has matching part numbers notched as the other lock parts. The pan and its removable attachment looks continuous and original. The welded material added does not extend to the forward end of the pan (meaning it would have original pan material on all sides and beneath the added material).

The frizzen does have the same matching part number of tiny notches as the internal lock parts along the rear lower edge. The frizzen was refaced.

[DaveM]

Revision: The cock was cracked most of the way through and welding was used as a repair, then filed. It does not look spliced together.

[Bob Gerard]

Curious why the jaw screw is flat on opposite sides?

[B.Barker]

That's the coolest smoothgun I've seen in a while. Thanks for sharing it.

[bpd303]

The arrow inside the lock sure looks like the British Board of Ordnance Broad Arrow mark to me. Used from the 17th century on.

This from Wikipedia...
"The broad arrow was the Board's mark, used as such from the 17th century. Stamped on guns, papers, buildings and all kinds of equipment, it originally signified royal ownership. A proclamation of 1699 clarified its use on stores of war belonging to the Board of Ordnance; just over a hundred years later, in 1806, the Board directed its Storekeepers and others to mark "all descriptions of Ordnance Stores ... with the broad arrow as soon as they shall have been received as fit for His Majesty's Service".[13]"

[JV Puleo]

I very much doubt it's a Board of Ordnance mark...for one thing, they were always on the outside where they could be easily seen. It marked the arm (or anything else) as the property of the King. There is a funny transcript in the Records of the Old Bailey about the trial of a man stopped on the street carrying a bag of nuts with a broad arrow on it. It turns out he was drunk at the time and to keep anyone from stealing his bag of nuts while he staggered home he scratched a broad arrow on the bag with a piece of charcoal. Of course, in the way of drunks it never occurred to him that he might be arrested. He was sent home with a warning. There were numerous trials of people caught with broad arrow marked items. Another concerned a brass founder who was buying scrap brass hilts of broken up hangers from a Tower workman. Because they had the mark, they were obviously stolen. The workman who was stealing the brass and selling it was dismissed.

On arms, the broad arrow was usually stamped in conjunction with a crown. It was called the "King's  Mark". This is why Tower Private Proofs are the view mark struck twice. The final proof mark was the broad arrow and if they had struck that the barrel couldn't be sold.

[bpd303]

My thought was the lock may have been govt property and imported to the colonies. Of course if the locks had been sold they should have 2 broad arrows point to point. The mystery continues.

[JV Puleo]

The two arrows point to point didn't come into use until much later.
In any case, there is very little chance the lock is English. The detachable pan was hardly, if ever used in British gunmaking. We know very little about the locks exported to the colonies but they certainly weren't exported by the government. One of the few sources we have is the diary of R.R. Angerstein, a Swedish industrial spy that toured Britain in the 1750s paying special attention to the gunmaking trade (because they purchased a lot of Swedish iron). He made a point of visiting gun lock makers and one of the comments he records was that the cheap lock went to America although it isn't clear if they went as loo9se locks or as part of inexpensive guns.