![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,469
|
![]()
Outstanding teamwork Fernando and Stuart!!! You guys are great, and this is what I always hope for around here...working together to solve some of these mysteries.
I can understand the dilemma Dave is experiencing getting the photos, and its great to have him working with us in adding to the descriptions concerning this marking. It's kind of fun in a way, sort of like police investigation going through 'mugshot' books ![]() Fernando, thank you for the well explained comments pertaining to the shortening of gun barrels. After reading that it reminded me of the Snider-Enfields where changed to breech loading they removed a section of the barrel at the breech to open for insertion of the cartridges. Good notes on the shorter guns for private defense also, and agreed they still would be a bit unwieldy as 'concealed' weapons with these barrels. On the note about the spear holding figure, in "Armourers Marks" by Gyngell (1959) on p. 39, where one marking is of a warrior standing with what may be either a gun or a spear held in his right hand, attributed to Hoppe of Solingen c.1630; another by H.Michael of Munich c.1670 holding also in right hand some type of shorter hafted weapon. These are supported somewhat by the markings with similar theme added by Stuart, though these seem more stylized figures holding halberds, and the bloused pantaloon costume of European fashion seems apparant. These images are clearly intended to represent native figures, most probably of the New World and impressions of the so called 'savages' encountered in colonial settings. Europeans were intrigued by the 'wildness' of these new civilizations and the markings reflect this interest by the suggestion of power implied by the representation of these warriors. It does not seem unlikely that the use of these figures might have been applied to trade weapons or materials intended for use in the Colonies or in dealings with the Native Americans. As mentioned, with the demand for materials for servicing weapons and more weapons were needed, any components at hand would have been used in furbishing or altering them. There is still the question of the actual bore of this barrel, which would seem to add a bit more perspective in this analysis. Thanks very much guys. All best regards, Jim |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 12
|
![]()
Managed to get some photos of the relic in question. The camera made manifest some details that were impossible to see my first time with it...it does look as if there is a head of some sort on the shaft. Similar to but not exactly like the Kalthoff marks shown above...
The barrel is has a tapering octagonal breech section that terminates in a ring that is 17 1/2 inches from the breech. At present it only has about 12 1/4 more inches to the muzzle. There is a seat for a rear sight about 9 1/2 inches from the breech - whether it is original to it I cannot say, but many earlier 18th century fowlers do have rear sights on them. Barrel is 1 3/16 (about 3cm) wide at the breech...bore seems to be right at .62. Even where it is cut off the tube is very thin, about a millimeter wall thickness. Some question was made about the small bore of these "fowlers" - while it is true that a 12 bore throws a much better shot pattern, the lightness of the ammunition and the lightness of the gun made these smaller bores very popular, at least with the natives of this country. Just as the 19th century Northwest guns were about 24 bore, @ 58 caliber - most of the archaeologically recovered guns found in native sites here measure something from .54 to .62 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 12
|
![]()
Now for a few of the guard. It has been artfully altered to "rifle style" by being sawn apart and added to. Part of the front finial is gone, I think, and the rear one totally so. But apparent is the thin "neck" at the front of the guard, and the early mid eighteenth century shape still left on the front tang...I think the guard is probably the same age as the barrel...
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 12
|
![]()
And a parting shot...the entry pipe could also be an original part. It has been filed slightly octagonal...when...hard to say, but I would think that was a later alteration. The one rammer pipe is also similarly shaped.
Also a shot of the buttplate, rifle shaped but with odd screw placement, and also a crappy profile, showing the rifle-like lines it got when restocked. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 12
|
![]()
Top of barrel. Not clear but you can see the rings where it goes from octagonal to round. There is a brass based front sight near the muzzle...
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND
Posts: 2,802
|
![]()
Think you need (if possible) to get a look at the underneath of the barrel. The style looks very British to me, but the mark you show says something else. The proof marks (if any) will tell the story.
Regards Stuart |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,060
|
![]()
Hello,
the Barrel is from the second half of the 17th C and shortened. (probably made by Matthias Kalthoff Copenhagen, Denmark.) The lock the all mounts (also the tricker guard) and stock are later from around 1800, also the rounded top shape of the butt points me to northern Europe. regards from Holland |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|