Strange flintlock gun

corrado26 · 8th January 2020, 05:05 PM

Did anybody here see such a gun with such a strange flintlock? There are no marks or stamps on it and the brass pan reminds me on locks of the Osmanic Empire
corrado26

Kmaddock · 8th January 2020, 06:25 PM

Hi
Most locks I have seen with Brass Pans have been French so this would be my guess
have a google of
1777 French Flintlock rifle
and you will see similar style
regards
Ken

fernando · 8th January 2020, 06:54 PM

Bizarre !
It does have some 1777 looks indeed but, that whole lock design

.
I assume the touch hole is on the first concavity, right ?

.

corrado26 · 8th January 2020, 07:12 PM

No, the touchhole is in the middle. Compare it with the lock of an osmanic pistol

fernando · 8th January 2020, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corrado26

... No, the touchhole is in the middle...

Oh ... i see now; my bad

SchildaBrit · 8th January 2020, 10:15 PM

"There are no marks or stamps on it and the brass pan..."

I'm not surprised. The fuzzy photos make it difficult to judge, but the cock appears to have been made up by bending sheet metal. And that makes it, in my eyes, a modern effort "in the style of...".

Lockplate also looks like a bit of modern sheet metal, cock fixing screw also modern? It may include some original parts, but the lock assembly as a whole is IMHO not from the same period as the musket - which looks like a cut-down.

All this is just my opinion. Better photos would help.

Fernando K · 8th January 2020, 10:41 PM

Hi

In my modest opinion it is a recently built lock. The cat's foot has a strange shape, it is not the C-shaped cat's foot (cock) of Boutet's productions, or in "gooseneck" or in the reinforced, like some English weapons or the "chien a espalet" "of the French. The anti-friction wheel in the frizzen spring, the rain-proof bowl and the cock top are seen in fine weapons, be they dueling or sports, never in military weapons. It is known that Ottoman weapons copied European designs, so they find "rainproof". For me, brass or bronze was chosen because they are easier to work. It would be necessary to see the inside of the lock, to see if something is discovered

Affectionately

corrado26 · 9th January 2020, 10:16 AM

.............and here some better fotos of the lock. I don't believe that the lock is a modern make, some items show the number "2" and its fit into the wooden stock is very good. It is correct that the frizzen roll normally has been not in use at any army but perhaps this gun goes back to the order of an infantry officer who wanted to have a faster shooting flintlock gun?!?!
corrado26

Kmaddock · 9th January 2020, 10:58 AM

A lot better pictures, thanks
It all looks v v clean to me and the screw heads are so perfect
My gut would say this is not a 200 year old gun lock
also those who know about fonts might recognise if the number 2 is a modern or not font
woodwork does look well aged though and if the fit is good this confuses me
Thanks for showing
Ken

fernando · 9th January 2020, 12:35 PM

The assembly numbers (#2) would place this lock in a not so modern time period ... unless its maker wanted to play tricks.
It would be nice to hear again from Fernando K, when he looks at these so much better pictures.

Pukka Bundook · 9th January 2020, 12:41 PM

I can not say anything about the age of this lock, other than it looks very competently made.
It is very well put together if 'new'.
Very good fit where the breast of the cock rests on the fence of the pan.
Very pleasing little lock!
I do not think it is new, although it looks that way.. well cleaned maybe?

Fernando K · 9th January 2020, 01:01 PM

Hi

Now, with better photos, I discover other inconsistencies. If the frizeen screw is located from the inside (inside the lock) to the outside, the spring screw would be too: here the screw has its head on the outside. In addition, as Corrado says, if a lock was wanted that fired faster, the real dock would be fixed with a nut nut, Here the design is the traditional one. The guard, in these models, is fixed in the front, by an ear that penetrates the wood, and which in turn, is fixed by a pin. Here it is fixed by a screw-O but, by a plate that at its end has the transport ring, also fixed by a pin. In other interventions, it has been said that the adjustment of the wood is very good, and that is not proof of authenticity. The wood may have been aged. A good test would be to establish the passage of the screws of the lock. It is known that formerly the screws were not standardized, and each factory had its own system. If the steps are modern, it would be one more test

Sorry for the translator. Affectionately

Kmaddock · 9th January 2020, 02:11 PM

Normally on antique guns of mine the bit on the trigger that pushes up the sear is quiet worn but it looks perfect on this gun
Maybe just never used much though
Regards
Ken

corrado26 · 9th January 2020, 03:44 PM

I talked with a former owner of this gun, who had collected nothing else than guns, carbines and pistols made by the same factory: It was made in the "Königlich Württembergische Gewehrfabrik Oberndorf" (Royal wuerttembergian Arms Factory of Oberndorf/Neckar, the later MAUSER Works and today Heckler & Koch).
As you can see from the fotos attached the pan of the Wuerttemberg pistole M 1817 has an iron piece left of the pan which was the rest of the cock after having fired. The same is with the brass pan of the gun in question.
The reason why this gun has been made in this factory is regrettably unknown.
Maybe it was a test gun or really a gun made on private order.
corrado26

fernando · 9th January 2020, 03:59 PM

So that does it ... right, folks ?

SchildaBrit · 9th January 2020, 05:32 PM

..as in this case.

Corrado, I must revise my opinion in favour of your gun.

The blurred photos in the first post washed out the microscopic surface irregularities in the lock plate and cock, leading me to the false impression that they had been fabricated from modern sheet metal. With the new, improved photos I can now see that this is not the case. That is not a brand-new lock, but this revised opinion does not mean that it is original to the gun. The cut-out for the lock appears to have been scraped - presumably to aid the fitting of the lock - at a later stage. Note the lighter surfaces where (I think) the wood has been scraped.

As you say, some parts are marked with a 2. It bothers me that the 2 on the frizzen is on the outside. Assembly sets were - in the period of the original musket - marked with short file strokes on the inside. as marks on the outside would spoil the appearance. File strokes were easy to apply, whereas stamping with numbers suggests a more modern kit approach.

"...has an iron piece left of the pan which was the rest of the cock after having fired. The same is with the brass pan of the gun in question."

I believe the usual term for this feature is a "fence". The incorporation of a fence into the iron or brass portion of the pan is common enough that it does not help to identify the origin.

"It was made in the "Königlich Württembergische Gewehrfabrik Oberndorf"
Corrado, with all due respect to the person who told you, what is the evidence for that? Is it just hearsay?

8th January 2020, 05:05 PM	#1
corrado26 Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Black Forest, Germany Posts: 1,204	Strange flintlock gun Did anybody here see such a gun with such a strange flintlock? There are no marks or stamps on it and the brass pan reminds me on locks of the Osmanic Empire corrado26 Attached Images

8th January 2020, 06:54 PM	#3
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Bizarre ! It does have some 1777 looks indeed but, that whole lock design . I assume the touch hole is on the first concavity, right ? . Attached Images

8th January 2020, 07:12 PM	#4
corrado26 Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Black Forest, Germany Posts: 1,204	No, the touchhole is in the middle. Compare it with the lock of an osmanic pistol Attached Images

9th January 2020, 10:16 AM	#8
corrado26 Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Black Forest, Germany Posts: 1,204	.............and here some better fotos of the lock. I don't believe that the lock is a modern make, some items show the number "2" and its fit into the wooden stock is very good. It is correct that the frizzen roll normally has been not in use at any army but perhaps this gun goes back to the order of an infantry officer who wanted to have a faster shooting flintlock gun?!?! corrado26 Attached Images Last edited by corrado26; 9th January 2020 at 11:02 AM.

9th January 2020, 02:11 PM	#13
Kmaddock Member Join Date: May 2014 Location: Ireland Posts: 543	Normally on antique guns of mine the bit on the trigger that pushes up the sear is quiet worn but it looks perfect on this gun Maybe just never used much though Regards Ken Attached Images

8th January 2020, 06:25 PM	#2
Kmaddock Member Join Date: May 2014 Location: Ireland Posts: 543	Hi Most locks I have seen with Brass Pans have been French so this would be my guess have a google of 1777 French Flintlock rifle and you will see similar style regards Ken

8th January 2020, 10:15 PM	#6
SchildaBrit Member Join Date: Dec 2019 Posts: 33	"There are no marks or stamps on it and the brass pan..." I'm not surprised. The fuzzy photos make it difficult to judge, but the cock appears to have been made up by bending sheet metal. And that makes it, in my eyes, a modern effort "in the style of...". Lockplate also looks like a bit of modern sheet metal, cock fixing screw also modern? It may include some original parts, but the lock assembly as a whole is IMHO not from the same period as the musket - which looks like a cut-down. All this is just my opinion. Better photos would help.

8th January 2020, 10:41 PM	#7
Fernando K Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 669	Hi In my modest opinion it is a recently built lock. The cat's foot has a strange shape, it is not the C-shaped cat's foot (cock) of Boutet's productions, or in "gooseneck" or in the reinforced, like some English weapons or the "chien a espalet" "of the French. The anti-friction wheel in the frizzen spring, the rain-proof bowl and the cock top are seen in fine weapons, be they dueling or sports, never in military weapons. It is known that Ottoman weapons copied European designs, so they find "rainproof". For me, brass or bronze was chosen because they are easier to work. It would be necessary to see the inside of the lock, to see if something is discovered Affectionately

9th January 2020, 10:58 AM	#9
Kmaddock Member Join Date: May 2014 Location: Ireland Posts: 543	A lot better pictures, thanks It all looks v v clean to me and the screw heads are so perfect My gut would say this is not a 200 year old gun lock also those who know about fonts might recognise if the number 2 is a modern or not font woodwork does look well aged though and if the fit is good this confuses me Thanks for showing Ken

9th January 2020, 12:35 PM	#10
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	The assembly numbers (#2) would place this lock in a not so modern time period ... unless its maker wanted to play tricks. It would be nice to hear again from Fernando K, when he looks at these so much better pictures.

9th January 2020, 12:41 PM	#11
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	I can not say anything about the age of this lock, other than it looks very competently made. It is very well put together if 'new'. Very good fit where the breast of the cock rests on the fence of the pan. Very pleasing little lock! I do not think it is new, although it looks that way.. well cleaned maybe?

9th January 2020, 01:01 PM	#12
Fernando K Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 669	Hi Now, with better photos, I discover other inconsistencies. If the frizeen screw is located from the inside (inside the lock) to the outside, the spring screw would be too: here the screw has its head on the outside. In addition, as Corrado says, if a lock was wanted that fired faster, the real dock would be fixed with a nut nut, Here the design is the traditional one. The guard, in these models, is fixed in the front, by an ear that penetrates the wood, and which in turn, is fixed by a pin. Here it is fixed by a screw-O but, by a plate that at its end has the transport ring, also fixed by a pin. In other interventions, it has been said that the adjustment of the wood is very good, and that is not proof of authenticity. The wood may have been aged. A good test would be to establish the passage of the screws of the lock. It is known that formerly the screws were not standardized, and each factory had its own system. If the steps are modern, it would be one more test Sorry for the translator. Affectionately

9th January 2020, 03:44 PM	#14
corrado26 Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Black Forest, Germany Posts: 1,204	I talked with a former owner of this gun, who had collected nothing else than guns, carbines and pistols made by the same factory: It was made in the "Königlich Württembergische Gewehrfabrik Oberndorf" (Royal wuerttembergian Arms Factory of Oberndorf/Neckar, the later MAUSER Works and today Heckler & Koch). As you can see from the fotos attached the pan of the Wuerttemberg pistole M 1817 has an iron piece left of the pan which was the rest of the cock after having fired. The same is with the brass pan of the gun in question. The reason why this gun has been made in this factory is regrettably unknown. Maybe it was a test gun or really a gun made on private order. corrado26 Attached Images

9th January 2020, 03:59 PM	#15
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	So that does it ... right, folks ?

9th January 2020, 05:32 PM	#16
SchildaBrit Member Join Date: Dec 2019 Posts: 33	Sometimes photos are misleading.. ..as in this case. Corrado, I must revise my opinion in favour of your gun. The blurred photos in the first post washed out the microscopic surface irregularities in the lock plate and cock, leading me to the false impression that they had been fabricated from modern sheet metal. With the new, improved photos I can now see that this is not the case. That is not a brand-new lock, but this revised opinion does not mean that it is original to the gun. The cut-out for the lock appears to have been scraped - presumably to aid the fitting of the lock - at a later stage. Note the lighter surfaces where (I think) the wood has been scraped. As you say, some parts are marked with a 2. It bothers me that the 2 on the frizzen is on the outside. Assembly sets were - in the period of the original musket - marked with short file strokes on the inside. as marks on the outside would spoil the appearance. File strokes were easy to apply, whereas stamping with numbers suggests a more modern kit approach. "...has an iron piece left of the pan which was the rest of the cock after having fired. The same is with the brass pan of the gun in question." I believe the usual term for this feature is a "fence". The incorporation of a fence into the iron or brass portion of the pan is common enough that it does not help to identify the origin. "It was made in the "Königlich Württembergische Gewehrfabrik Oberndorf" Corrado, with all due respect to the person who told you, what is the evidence for that? Is it just hearsay? Last edited by SchildaBrit; 9th January 2020 at 06:04 PM. Reason: added "fence" comment