Question about barrel stamping

Jim McDougall · 24th September 2009, 02:53 PM

[QUOTE=fahnenschmied][QUOTE=I have found a number of references that may discuss more on possibly determining more of the form of this rifle, but as you note you are more focused on the marking.

....Thats just my point I am trying to get across to my museum - it is not a rifle at all, never was, only a gun restocked at a later time with an American rifle style stock without a patchbox. I was interested in barrel markings because that is my best clue as to what it might have been.
Most English barrels I've ever messed with from the time have some sort of view and proof marks. What I'm really looking for at the moment is a list or chart with 18th century proofmarks, or barrel marks, from France, Holland, Belgium, Spain and elsewhere in Europe. Its not a Suhl chicken, thats for sure!
I am almost certain that the barrel isn't American made. The only Pennsylvania barrel marks I know in imitation of others are the marks on some Leman made guns in imitation of Birmingham ones on some guns made for the Indian trade.

Yes, sometimes I see things that make me wonder....artillery and vehicles slowly rotting outside in the rain....bows left strung...locks with the cock fully back...things drastically mislabeled. Once as a lowly college student I saw a nice old german wheellock rifle on display at our state museum, but the spring bridle had been put on the wrong way. I tried to tell the curators about it but I'm not sure they tell which gun I was talking about, or what a wheel lock was...

Dave[/QUOTE]

It does sound like this is likely to be as you suggest, a restocked barrel using some earlier components, which certainly was not an uncommon thing in those times. One of the key things emphasized in studying frontier history is that 'nothing was thrown away', signaling the profound recycling of the important weapons components.

I am hoping that our readers who are focused on firearms might have the tables or charts needed that might include something similar to the markig you describe. The closest thing I have found is the two standing figures I have noted from Germany in the 17th century. As always, such marks often quickly diffused into the arms producing community as they sought to capitalize on the standing reputation of the original users.

Thank you for adding the extra detail and comments, its good to have someone with interest and clearly sound knowledge on these American colonial arms. Even though you note certain disinterest in the 'American long rifle worship' , you obviously have excellent working knowledge in its particulars.

All best regards,
Jim

Jim McDougall · 25th September 2009, 03:58 PM

Continuing research on this, and with my limited knowledge on these guns, I am wondering more about the descriptions. As far as I can discover, the bores on most of the fowlers I have found are much larger, many of .70 cal range on most of the European barrels. The bore described here seems much smaller and is unclear. It is unclear whether the barrel, obviously shortened, is fully octagonal or partially round, partially octagonal as many of them are.

It is noted there are no visible proof marks which seems unusual as most European barrels did have some sort of proof, perhaps the shortening of the barrel removed the proof? I am not familiar which part of the barrel would have been removed in this modification.
Also, if anyone out there might answer here, what does the term 'pinned' mean, on the barrel? It suggests that this feature would preclude the use of a plug bayonet.

Apparantly just prior to, and during the Revolutionary War, in 1775 there was a Colonial organization termed the "Committee of Safety" which was a number of gunsmiths in the colonies who produced guns for the cause. While the numbers seem unclear, it is noted these guns, whether produced wholly or refurbished from extant components, were typically unmarked as the smiths did not wish to face repercussions from the British. With this, as far as is known, none of these guns have been effectively identified, however one profound attempt occurred with "Committee of Safety Musket? Prove it", (William H. Guthman, Man at Arms magazine, Jul.Aug.1979).

It appears that many guns were dramatically shortened in the barrel length for either horseback use or use in thickly forested or rugged terrain, while often for hunters, it seems possible for some of the guerrilla type warfare well known. Although the actual employment of 'guerrilla' type warfare by Colonial troops is often though universal, the truth is that for the most part, especially where forces were trained by von Stueben, the European battle formations were used.

In hopes that perhaps somebody out there might join in, I will keep researching while we wait. It is great to learn more on these guns, and seems surprising there appears to be so little interest out there on this historical period or these fascinating weapons!

Best regards,
Jim

24th September 2009, 02:53 PM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,474	[QUOTE=fahnenschmied][QUOTE=I have found a number of references that may discuss more on possibly determining more of the form of this rifle, but as you note you are more focused on the marking. ....Thats just my point I am trying to get across to my museum - it is not a rifle at all, never was, only a gun restocked at a later time with an American rifle style stock without a patchbox. I was interested in barrel markings because that is my best clue as to what it might have been. Most English barrels I've ever messed with from the time have some sort of view and proof marks. What I'm really looking for at the moment is a list or chart with 18th century proofmarks, or barrel marks, from France, Holland, Belgium, Spain and elsewhere in Europe. Its not a Suhl chicken, thats for sure! I am almost certain that the barrel isn't American made. The only Pennsylvania barrel marks I know in imitation of others are the marks on some Leman made guns in imitation of Birmingham ones on some guns made for the Indian trade. Yes, sometimes I see things that make me wonder....artillery and vehicles slowly rotting outside in the rain....bows left strung...locks with the cock fully back...things drastically mislabeled. Once as a lowly college student I saw a nice old german wheellock rifle on display at our state museum, but the spring bridle had been put on the wrong way. I tried to tell the curators about it but I'm not sure they tell which gun I was talking about, or what a wheel lock was... Dave[/QUOTE] It does sound like this is likely to be as you suggest, a restocked barrel using some earlier components, which certainly was not an uncommon thing in those times. One of the key things emphasized in studying frontier history is that 'nothing was thrown away', signaling the profound recycling of the important weapons components. I am hoping that our readers who are focused on firearms might have the tables or charts needed that might include something similar to the markig you describe. The closest thing I have found is the two standing figures I have noted from Germany in the 17th century. As always, such marks often quickly diffused into the arms producing community as they sought to capitalize on the standing reputation of the original users. Thank you for adding the extra detail and comments, its good to have someone with interest and clearly sound knowledge on these American colonial arms. Even though you note certain disinterest in the 'American long rifle worship' , you obviously have excellent working knowledge in its particulars. All best regards, Jim

25th September 2009, 03:58 PM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,474	Continuing research on this, and with my limited knowledge on these guns, I am wondering more about the descriptions. As far as I can discover, the bores on most of the fowlers I have found are much larger, many of .70 cal range on most of the European barrels. The bore described here seems much smaller and is unclear. It is unclear whether the barrel, obviously shortened, is fully octagonal or partially round, partially octagonal as many of them are. It is noted there are no visible proof marks which seems unusual as most European barrels did have some sort of proof, perhaps the shortening of the barrel removed the proof? I am not familiar which part of the barrel would have been removed in this modification. Also, if anyone out there might answer here, what does the term 'pinned' mean, on the barrel? It suggests that this feature would preclude the use of a plug bayonet. Apparantly just prior to, and during the Revolutionary War, in 1775 there was a Colonial organization termed the "Committee of Safety" which was a number of gunsmiths in the colonies who produced guns for the cause. While the numbers seem unclear, it is noted these guns, whether produced wholly or refurbished from extant components, were typically unmarked as the smiths did not wish to face repercussions from the British. With this, as far as is known, none of these guns have been effectively identified, however one profound attempt occurred with "Committee of Safety Musket? Prove it", (William H. Guthman, Man at Arms magazine, Jul.Aug.1979). It appears that many guns were dramatically shortened in the barrel length for either horseback use or use in thickly forested or rugged terrain, while often for hunters, it seems possible for some of the guerrilla type warfare well known. Although the actual employment of 'guerrilla' type warfare by Colonial troops is often though universal, the truth is that for the most part, especially where forces were trained by von Stueben, the European battle formations were used. In hopes that perhaps somebody out there might join in, I will keep researching while we wait. It is great to learn more on these guns, and seems surprising there appears to be so little interest out there on this historical period or these fascinating weapons! Best regards, Jim