|
|
Post by drreid on Nov 1, 2016 0:51:43 GMT -5
I just bought this flintlock for $50. The barrel appears much too thin to be safe to shoot. I don't have any flintlocks, so just want to verify this cannot be shot and is simply a wall hanger of sorts. Cannot locate any markings. Barrel is 27" in length. Thanks! Graham URL=http://s50.photobucket.com/user/drreid1/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsnisxdj2r.jpeg.html]  [/URL]    |
|
|
|
Post by drreid on Nov 1, 2016 0:53:37 GMT -5
View of barrel  |
|
|
|
Post by zimmerstutzen on Nov 1, 2016 5:30:46 GMT -5
Looks a lot like a cut down 1795 Springfield musket. The wood seems too nice and we'll preserved for the metal parts. Could be a mix of parts. Might be a recently aged Indian made gun. Guns made in India are required to be stamped with the makers information, usually under side of the barrel. Seems to be better made than Afghan kyber junk. If any parts are original US, they would be stamped with inspector marks. Sort of like proof marks, rather cryptic sometimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by zimmerstutzen on Nov 1, 2016 14:09:57 GMT -5
BTW, the barrel thickness at the muzzle is not unusual. The thickness back at the breech and whether there are deep pits or the breech threads are badly corroded is the safety concern.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackbruin on Nov 2, 2016 20:41:52 GMT -5
The tail of the lock has too much drop and should be even with rest of lock. Looks repro to me. Definatell the wood is too new for that era. Lock internals will tell more, I also can't see any marks on lock plate under the pan.
|
|
