I get the impression this piece is not ment to be fired.
Is there a flash hole?
If you compare the cock and lock to other known period pieces you will see this has the shape but not the beef (thickness) of a firearm built to stand service in the 1700's.
The screwheads (unworn) would have had been taken out at least 4 to 5 times since the 1700's.
Is that electro plaiting on the lock flaking off?
All that work & detail went into the wood and inlays and yet we have ambiguous lock and barrel work?
I think this was ment as a theater prop.
If any real gunsmith had assembled this they would have stamped it proudly with proofs to identify this as a legitimate product.
Gunmakers stamp their product to let the world see this, 'Example of their craft and Safe to fire',
I dont see that on this.
I see a barrel thats missing vital proof stamps that were worn off? vs. wood and screw and inlet work that does not exhibit the same level of degradation.
Is iron softer than brass?
Not the sharp detail of the softer brass metal.
View attachment 183823
View attachment 183824
How is it possible to wear off the barrels etching right next to the frizzen and cock that should have shielded that area from wear, how did the cock screw that sticks out farther than the barrels etching exhibit less lear than the barrel?
Even if the wood was replaced, remains of stampings should be eveident.
I think someone tried to clean up the rust and made a hash out of the steel. Brass is less prone to oxidation, and wouldn't need to be worked on as much.
It isn't uncommon to see even dug up brass with all its detail.
For example, in my "box-o-parts" - were I keep random usable parts for antique guns - I have(had) a trigger guard, butt plate and patch box plate in good condition that I salvaged from a hunk of rotten stock I found with some junk I bought. There was a lock attached to some of the rotten wood with a horseshoe nail. The lock internals were so rotten they turned to dust. The plate and hammer was salvageable, but illegible, but the plate was so thin it was unusable.
The patch box has been sold, and one of my regulars bought the rusty lock plate and hammer and plans to use the plate as a template. I still have the butt plate and the trigger guard, and the trigger guard has most of the original engraving except where the hand would have naturally rested.
Good observation on the thickness of the lock, but that isn't uncommon, especially with ornate pieces that were less "made for battle" and more "made for the man of means." Even if it were an officer's gun, that would still hold true - even into the 20th Century. (There was a joke that even through the Weimar era, you could tell how high an officer ranked by the uselessness of his sidearm. I published the joke somehere on this forum when I found it. It wasn't funny, but it was a German joke).
If you look at the "hammer", it shows signs of forge welding and shaping - something only the Afghanis got right with clones. Even good Iberian and Belgian clones tended to use cast or machined hammers.
If you look, the brass flash pan, the spring, the frizzen and the lock all look to have been taken to with a wire wheel on a Dremmel. The frizzen looks like a later addition, but those were often replaced.
Finally, if this were an American piece, or indeed a Germanic piece made before 1891, there would not necessarily have been proof marks. Prior to unification, and then the 1891 proof laws, only Suhl, Baden, Bavaria, Wurttemberg, Saxony, Zella-Melhiss and Westphalia required proofs. Prussia - as an entity - didn't start requiring it until 1868, and never required their member states to adopt proofs, except for arms purchased by the state which were proofed by the military. Officers were required to provide their own weapons, and weren't restricted.
America didn't require proofs at all during this period.
Here is an article about German proof laws that touches on some of this :
Gun Indentification – German Hunting Guns
