I recently came across this, I wasn't sure if it was a replica but I got a,good deal on it but I really don't know where to go to have it appraised. I have had someone look at it tell me it was real. But I'm not sure how much stock I can put in their word. He said the carving of,the face was not original but he thought everything else was authentic. Any thoughts to age and where it may have came from?
Yes it does, lots of imperfections. I will say this the trigger works well. I would be willing to take to an appraiser or someone reputable if I could be steered in the right direction.
That is not an antique pistol in the strict description. It is a cut down imported "Fowler" of the late 19th Century. It's value in dollars is small. If it has some intrinsic value save it for your family's history.
It appears to be a North African pistol conversion of a musket. These were pretty common in places like Tanzania, Namibia, and even further east, and generally the bulbous area at the rear, where the stock was cut down, was carved.
You got this thing quite often when the stock was used to club something and broke. Since the owner didn't have the money for a new one, or the ability to repair it, they cut it down. You'll see the same sort of thing sold as a 'blanket gun' by the current muzzleloader sellers.
As far as age, I don't see anything in your pics that couldn't be an Indian made weapon of fairly recent manufacture (last fifty years) that someone cut down in the garage. I could be wrong, of course, not having the thing in front of me.
Thanks for the tips. I can see what you guys are talking about. So it was a rifle cut down. I only paid 25 bucks for it. I figured it was worth that. Any ideas on a possible value? I have a guy wanting to trade for it.
without a makers name of any sort..
you pretty much have some bits of wood and iron[albeit old pieces of wood and iron] probably worth more as Art than firearm.
100 bucks is a number I'd throw out, and negotiate from there.
or make a straight trade for a glock or a
hi-point.
Thanks again for the input. I think I have more than enough information to make my decision on the trade. Its to take over payments on a 6k sq ft shop he is behind on. (I have been renting the building from him making my payments to him and he wasnt paying the bank) that's why I was curious as to why he wanted that gun he told me he thought it was worth 4 thousand lol
I don't have it in front of me to check condition, bore, age, etc. As it sits now I suspect it's going to be a hard sell. I would say maybe $50, assuming it's functional and you can find someone interested in it. If someone wants it bad you may get more out of it.
But, I don't actually know what it is. On something like that I recommend taking it to a few local gunstores and asking them about it. Someone will have a better idea of what it is and if it's worth anything. Remember too, if they seem strangely anxious to purchase it after telling you it's garbage that it's probably not garbage...
It is interesting (and nice) that the ram rod was cut down, or one was found that fit it.
The ram rod is the only piece with a Phillips screw in the end. I didnt think it was original. The barrel looks like it could have been cut down. Would it have had two sights on it before it was cut down?
Hah, I missed the phillips screw end in the pictures originally.
It appears to have been cut down right after the rear sight. If you look at pictures of Traditions brand percussion rifles you'll see what I mean. I think it originally had a second sight, yes.
The muzzle on Black Powder rifles is usually the first to go. The use of the fiberglass rods acts like a file. These rods hold carbon residue hard carbon cuts steel. Worn muzzles cause accuracy problems.
I'm pretty sure this pistol is an original...something. I have changed my mind about it being cut down from a rifle, though.
Except for one Phillips head all the screws are hand slotted with hammered heads.
The gun has a straight trigger with a crude trigger guard.
The nose cone and barrel band are the very early 1853 Enfield pattern, before the band tensioners were added and long before the nose cone was switched over to brass. To my knowledge every replica made features some form of tensioner on the band.
Most telling is the lock. It started out life on a flintlock, you can still see the pin hole where the frizzen spring was attached. Moreover the hammer is straighter than most percussion guns and was cut off at some point with the hammer forge-welded onto the shank.
The hammer is designed to strike an early pattern square shanked nipple. Early pattern British percussion guns used a .440 long nipple, and that is the longest size, to my knowledge, available on the reproduction market. The nipple on this gun looks even longer. It doesn't seem likely that someone hammering something like this together in modern times would use a nipple type that has been nearly impossible to get since the 1870s. Until Track of the Wolf arrived on the scene the .440 nipples were practically unobtainable throughout the 20th and early 21st Century.
On top of that, the lock is left handed. Only the ultra rich could afford left handed rifles, but left handed pistol locks, and the locks from double barrel guns were fairly common. The fact that this gun has a left handed lock makes me think that it was meant as a handgun from the beginning rather than cut down from a long gun. I wish I could find an exact match for that lock plate in my materials. The closest thing to it I could find is from an 1820s French double barrel pistol.
If someone made this thing in modern times they used a lot of valuable antique parts. It was definitely something homemade using old parts, though.
I still think North Africa is likely, though on comparing the gun to some other straight gripped pistols and short muskets with carvings, the carving more resembles some of the ones from Polynesia and Burma.
Well, an original non-brass Enfield nose cone is worth $90, and an early pattern non-tensioner Enfield barrel band is worth $40. There is always a market for unusual antique conversion locks. If the carving can be traced to the style of a particular region that would help.
Maybe the OP's local museum has an expert on carvings, or knows who to contact? Jeremy might want to start by calling there if he is still reading this thread.
Primitive art and tribal weaponry has a pretty nice market once you get away from the stuff originating in the Middle East and the Balkans.
Vaguely similar pieces from East India, Western China, Burma, Polynesia, the Philippines, and north Africa generally start in the $500 range and can go astronomically high after that.
This one is such a strange duck, I think that carving would give more information than any part of the firearm itself could.
Did anyone else notice the hammer, where it makes contact with the cap, was unshrouded and flat, and that it hit at roughly 90 degrees of the bore axis?
The only pistol I've ever held in my hand with that geometry was Japanese. That, and the left hand plate, is what made me really start tracking down every piece of this thing. Each question I think I answered brought up more as to why this thing is such a hodge-podge of pre-1860s parts.
This crude arm has no issue military parts. No British Musket was ever produced with a small percussion lock. As for the crude forward band their is no bayonet lug. The British military arms have lugs. The percussion vent and hammer are from imported fowlers/shotguns. Black Powder arms of value show quality.
This crude arm has no issue military parts. No British Musket was ever produced with a small percussion lock. As for the crude forward band their is no bayonet lug. The British military arms have lugs. The percussion vent and hammer are from imported fowlers/shotguns. Black Powder arms of value show quality.
1. This gun has two military parts, both from an 1853 Type II Enfield. If you were to overlay those parts over a picture of the originals you would see they were identical. I have provided a photo so that you may do so at your leisure.
2. No one ever said the lock was military, just that it is a left hand lock of some sort and that that necessitated it being a handgun.
3. Early pattern Enfields did not have bayonet lugs. The bayonet seated on the front sight. The 1858 Enfield introduced the bayonet lug. The 1853 - you know, the one without spring tensioners and with the nose cone found on this gun - used the older standard pattern of bayonet.
4. If "quality" determined value there would be no collectors' market whatsoever for Kush, Viet, historic Chinese, or African firearms, or half the early American rifles.
The value is in the ability to form something workable out of nothing, in the story behind it, in it's rarity, or in its history.
This is the exact pattern rifle your parts came from. Please pay no attention to Mr. Bridger, at least on this particular matter.
I would prefer not to argue, but I would be happy to give the OP my full list of credentials so he could contact me directly. I mean, I only have a couple decades of experience in this exact field with the last eight years being a full-time business in this field.
Thanks for the research. That is really interesting information. And I have a friend that's a gun collector just havent had a chance to meet up with him yet. What's the best way to clean this gun and preserve it?
You don't have to be a smart-alec just because you can't recognize certain gun parts. You also don't need to give the guy false information because you do not know.
As I have stated, I do not know what it is, but there are some fairly valuable, very old, parts to this gun. That nose cone and that ring are from a fairly limited run of Enfields. On the next batch those were brass. No other military or gunmaker on earth is known to have used that design. You can clearly overlay the OP's picture with the one I've presented and see they are identical.
Every time I have argued with you I have shown evidence of my position, and each time you have failed to do so but continued to talk as an authority.
I have never tried to argue with you. You have stated a position as have I. Let us not as adults begin sophomoric name calling.
I respect your post on this subject. Thanks for including me in this research.
So I was finally able to take it to a local dealer. He told me it was an African bush gun. He said they carve the totem in the end just in case they die while in the bush they know what tribe they belonged to. He said that they use whatever parts they can to make them. However he said the gun was only worth 25-50, with no offer to buy it lol. Just want to say thanks to all those who gave input!
This is the most common mistake in placing a firearm's value. The tendency to over price anything that looks old.
This gun has been properly appraised at $25 dollars and few would pay that.
Place it in a frame for display it has great intrinsic value.
I have a collection of flint and percussion firearms. Like any collector I can not see value in these crude parts. There are those who see value in apparent aged parts.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Gun and Game Forum
2.6M posts
30.4K members
Since 2002
A forum community dedicated to hunters and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, trails, clubs, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more. The friendliest gun forum on the Internet!