[Trenchwarfare]

I figure some of youse guys saw this one on GB. It ran for three weeks, that I know of. Well, it greatly intriqued me so... Just arrived this afternoon. Sorry for the crappy photos. Converted from flint. No visible maker marks on the lock plate. Only the one proof mark. Scattered numbers, and smaller marks on the rest of the gun. Alterations could have been done in the field, or the garage. Nicely done, and quite a while ago. All patina looks the same. I'm guessing the barrel either blew, or bent, and it was altered with what was left. Whatever it, it's a really cool little piece, and the mechanical, and cosmetic condition is great. Any ideas?

 

[oldgoat46]

I want to say Dutch caribiner however it appears to be cut down but the sight on the band. man. I just down't know. The experts will be along shortly but what ever the verdict it's a really nice carbine. thanks for posting

 

[NY50/70]

Neat looking, do you plan to shoot it?

 

[Trenchwarfare]

Thanks guys. Yes, it is pretty neat. Forgot to add, barrel is only 11 1/2" long. Don't shoot black powder anymore, but, wouldn't be afraid to shoot this one. It's in great shape.

 

[TP]

Well, it's certainly not French, nor do I think it is Belgian - as a matter of fact I am as certain about that as I am that it is not French. It may be from one of the smaller German states or, very possibly, Scandinavian. Are there any proof marks? They should be visible on the breech.

 

[Essex]

I have a similarly shortened enfield 1863. that I bought at a farm auction. Using the initials carved in the stock and the family that had the auctions last name I was able to trace it back to their greatgrand father that road with Mosby here in northern Va. It is amazing the history that is lost by a younger generation that just does not care.

 

[Southron Sr]

First Things First

I would suggest that you take the barrel out of the stock. If it is European (and I have no reason to believe it is anything but European) then there will be Proof Marks on the breech.

A Google search should allow you to find websites that have drawings of the various Proof Marks on them. That way, you will be able to at least identify the country of origin of your new gun.

I would also suggest that you post pictures of your new gun on the "British Militaria" Forum as a lot of visitors to that forum are familiar with the various Continental made arms of the 19th Century.

 

[FABIAN23]

The hammer is could be either Dutch or Belgian but nipple bolster is Belgian to me. Unfortunately it is very difficult to be sure since the Belgians made guns for the Dutch. Obviously a cut down musket.

 

[Trenchwarfare]

Could someone post a link to pre 1890 gun proofs? Everything I come up with, is fairly modern.

 

[TP]

Could someone post a link to pre 1890 gun proofs? Everything I come up with, is fairly modern.

That is because the proof marks for most nations before 1890 are at least similar to those post 1890 and are not recorded since they are no longer in force. You will find pre-1890 British, Belgian and, in some cases early (pre-1897) French proof marks covered in most places.

Here is one source:

http://www.phoenixinvestmentarms.com/archives/Proofmarks.pdf

Can you show us a photograph of your breech? On military arms the proof marks if they exist are visible with the barrel in place, you do not need to remove the barrel from the stock. All we can see in the photos above are two (maybe 3?) inspector's marks on the hammer and what appears to be a property mark on the lock - a "crown over HF". That may be all we will have to go by and those are often difficult to identify. Also, remember that military proof marks very often are different from those for civilian production and will not be shown. You will not see any record on one of these charts of US Military proof marks and there are no proof marks required on US produced civilian arms.

 

[musketshooter]

I believe it's Danish. THere is a very similar cartouche like the one on the lock plate in the Gun Marks book. It is crown over HV instead of crown over HF.

 

[TP]

You mean that the mark in Gun Marks is "HV", correct? You could be right about the Danish origin, it is certainly not Norwegian.

 

[budliteguy]

Looks like you have yourself a cut down Calvary carbine. Since it has the sling attachment on the side. More than likely Confederate, Confederate Calvary would cut down smoothbore rifles to this size, to shot one handed from horse back. Loaded with buckshot it was a devestating weapon at close range. The south bought a lot of rifles overseas from different countrys during the Civil War. The lock body has been converted from a Flint Lock to precussion.

 

[TP]

Looks like you have yourself a cut down Calvary carbine. Since it has the sling attachment on the side. More than likely Confederate, Confederate Calvary would cut down smoothbore rifles to this size, to shot one handed from horse back.

Due to the ringed device at the sideplate yes, likely a cavalry carbine rather than an infantry musket, but Confederate? Highly doubtful. The shortening was done post military service.

 

[Trenchwarfare]

Here are a couple shots of the internals. Maybe the hash marks, or other markings will tell something. Confederate, probably not. But that is always a possibility.

 

[budliteguy]

I said more than likely it could be Confederate, What proof do you have that it was cut down Post Military, "about as much as I have at it being a Confederate Carbine. It is just speculation. It could also be a cut down Buffalo hunters Rifle. It appears to be a big smoothbore gun and the early Buffalo hunters used Big caliber smoothbores cut down to hunt Buffalo's from horse back. Because they were easier to reload on the gallop. But it is a nice cut down muzzleloader that has some history, If it could only talk.

 

[TP]

Here are a couple shots of the internals. Maybe the hash marks, or other markings will tell something. Confederate, probably not. But that is always a possibility.

The hash marks were in common use for assuring matching parts during the initial assembly of firearms. This continued both in the US and Europe as long as weapons were hand assembled using non-interchangeable parts. Before the days of interchangeability, weapons were assembled in batches of different sizes, some as little as 5 and some as large as, say 25 pieces and usually done by one or two men working at a bench. This one is number 7 of a batch. Other parts will usually (but not always) be marked the same.

As a side note, there is one notable seller of Civil War relics and other militaria who feels that these "slash marks" definitely indicate Confederate use and he gives such items "a loud Rebel Yell" when he disassembles them. :barf: Despite his feelings this is not true, these marks are seen on most products of Springfield, Harpers Ferry, the Virginia Manufactory of Arms and all contractors of US muskets from 1792 until 1844 when the manufacture of non-interchangeable arms finally came to an end in the US though it did continue here in small shops that made firearms in quantity for the civilian market. It remained common practice in Europe in armories until the 1860s with the exception of Enfield Small Arms and the London Armoury Company which both produced fully interchangeable arms using the American System for the British government and only a few shipments from the latter came to North America during our Civil War, none from Enfield. However, the non-interchangeable P53 Rifle Muskets that came from the London and Birmingham Trade producers often did have these slash marks and many did make it to both US and Confederate buyers from the Trade.

 

[TP]

I said more than likely it could be Confederate, What proof do you have that it was cut down Post Military, "about as much as I have at it being a Confederate Carbine. It is just speculation.

Speculation? Okay, if you like, but a weapon cut this short was useless to a mounted military user. The longarm issued to cavalry - even Confederate cavalry - was for use when dismounted acting in a screen role, it was rarely, if ever, used when mounted. When we have yet to confirm the source of this European military weapon and whether it was even imported to these shores for use in "The Great Debate of 1861 - 1865" it is worse than "speculation" that it was used by Southern forces.

It could also be a cut down Buffalo hunters Rifle. It appears to be a big smoothbore gun and the early Buffalo hunters used Big caliber smoothbores cut down to hunt Buffalo's from horse back. Because they were easier to reload on the gallop. But it is a nice cut down muzzleloader that has some history, If it could only talk.

Would that not be "post military service"? And what proof is there that all firearms used to hunt buffalo were this short when there is plenty of documentation that the Trade Guns the Native Americans preferred had in the neighborhood of 36 inch + barrels, even as late as the late 19th Century. Shortened guns were usually if not always caused by shortening damaged guns.

But talk like this is completely off topic and has nothing to do with Trenchwarfare's original question so let's leave it for a different topic, shall we.

 

[Viclav]

Trenchwarfare & Gentlemen,

I believe this is the original version of the gun in question:

http://www.abl1914.be/infangew1815-1841-53/infangew1815-1841-53.htm

Victor

"Always carry a firearm east of Aldgate, Watson."

 

[TP]

BINGO! Thanks Viclav. Why I didn't look there is beyond me, good job. So it is Dutch. Holland was one of the countries that had Belgian-made weapons for their military. French inspired.