Need help IDing this old pistol.

[tubs]

You have any idea what this might be? No visible marking or stampings that I can see. Would that kind of rifling help date it? Any help would be greatly appreciated appreciated. Thanks.

 

[johan_steele]

That is a gunsmith made… at best. That barrel is not original to the stock. To me, at first glance, I would say someone put that together from parts closer to 1970 than 1870.

 

[bayonet]

Like Mr. Steele said a parts gun to be used as a one shot pocket derringer for close up personal protection. I wouldn't spend $25 on that

 

[tubs]

That is a gunsmith made… at best. That barrel is not original to the stock. To me, at first glance, I would say someone put that together from parts closer to 1970 than 1870.

Thanks for the response. Could you be more specific on your conclusion? Why is it the wrong barrel? I would love to learn something here, so I know better next time. Also, anything else that's not right with it.

 

[tubs]

Like Mr. Steele said a parts gun to be used as a one shot pocket derringer for close up personal protection. I wouldn't spend $25 on that

Thanks for your response. Could you be more specific about your conclusion? Why is it the wrong barrel? I would love to learn something here for next time. Also, is there anything else that doesn't look right?

 

[bayonet]

Maybe supply more pics. Top, bottom, other side, any markings. That stock is cracked or chipped in several areas, not sure the hammer is correct to the lockplate, missing ramrod, etc. It does not really have any real historical significance (unless that's the derringer used to shoot Lincoln!). Thousands upon possibly thousands of them type derringers existed. Let me guess you purchased the sad looking item before you really knew what it was and now your wallet is lighter?

 

[tubs]

Maybe supply more pics. Top, bottom, other side, any markings. That stock is cracked or chipped in several areas, not sure the hammer is correct to the lockplate, missing ramrod, etc. It does not really have any real historical significance (unless that's the derringer used to shoot Lincoln!). Thousands upon possibly thousands of them type derringers existed. Let me guess you purchased the sad looking item before you really knew what it was and now your wallet is lighter?

I didn't buy it my brother did, and he was looking for help to identify it. He only spent $50. I bought a U.S. Model 1816 conversion musket awhile back and it turns out to be a Baker. So, I guess he was just trying out his luck. So, besides it just looking like a piece of **** there's nothing else that stands out that says it's a parts gun? Just try to get an education here on what to look for. The other guy said the barrel is not original to the stock, how can you tell that?

 

[R. Porter]

I think it looks pretty neat and probably would work better than flintlock pistols I bought at auction with no hole in the barrel for the spark in the pan to travel to the load in the barrel. (They cock and the trigger causes the hammer to fall but they will never fire so they were never meant to be real guns.)

The rifling in the barrel of yours reminds me of a rifle barrel. This is where we can get into a discussion about what kind of rifling a pistol needs since it is a very short range weapon. I don't have access to examples of percussion or flintlock pistols so I am not familiar with how they compare to rifles or what is expected for early handgun design. What would make an assembled pistol look assembled in the 20th century by an antiques dealer rather than assembled in the 19th century by a gunsmith?

 

[Old Soldier]

Gunsmith made - now there is a new term. One thing to remember is that most civilian weapons were made by gunsmiths - 'frontier' gunmaking. There was no 'mass production' for civilian weapons, certainly for the USA before the early 19th Century. Shop-bought weapons were often made in that shop or made specially for the shooter. They would have looked similar, but would have detail differences and parts would rarely be interchangeable. (No one of any importance would buy a gun that looked the same as the next man's!). The best gunsmiths signed the lock or barrel as it was a good selling point. Many did not.
Most 'gunsmiths' guns in the USA, before 1850, would use European METAL units, barrels, locks, etc were imported and used. Often, only the stock and fittings were locally made and the main part fitted where they touched. They also converted flintlock pieces to percussion by the easiest methods going as most of the barrels were only completed to touchole since there were many places where flintlock was preferred (no percussion caps available).

Rifling. Most small 2" - 4" barrels were for close defense and so were not seen to need rifling. The bigger pistols, typically 'dualling' (target) or officers' private purchase pistols needed to be accurate beyond 10 yards and so were rifled. Any rifling would do for most small gunsmiths, they were not terribly bothered - they could always blame the source or maker.
Note that most British civilian weapons were hand-made until about 1870 and still are for some expensive pieces. The ones most likely to be seen for this era are the Adams revolvers. The parts came from the same molds, but were individually assembled. Often the screws were locally made with the gunsmith's own hand-made taps and dies. (Whitworth were the first to standardise). The Deane and Adams partnerrship would send the rough castings, patented and serialled to gunmakers who would fit and assemble them. The *Belgian gunsmiths worked on a similar system and were VERY good at copying any design - but without the patent. They range from B-useless to excellent.

Mass production was 'the American System' and becan to be adopted by Enfield Royal Small Arms Factory in 1853, but did not become effective until around 1858 - hence the 'Tower' system existing - civilian contractors who provided similar weapons - in time for both sides to make use of them.
* The first P1853 batch to be mass produced were 10,000 Type 2s made by Robbins and Lawrence of Windsor, VT and marked 'Windsor'. It was a contract from Enfield who may well have been testing the 'American System' and certainly bought some of their machinery for the P53. The firm folded in 1856.

 

[johan_steele]

I didn't buy it my brother did, and he was looking for help to identify it. He only spent $50. I bought a U.S. Model 1816 conversion musket awhile back and it turns out to be a Baker. So, I guess he was just trying out his luck. So, besides it just looking like a piece of **** there's nothing else that stands out that says it's a parts gun? Just try to get an education here on what to look for. The other guy said the barrel is not original to the stock, how can you tell that?

For $50 no one was robbed. Gunsmith made at best referenced a smith taking disassociated parts and putting something together. As has been mentioned it was common for gunsmiths to buy a variety of parts and put together their own pieces to sell. In this case that rifled barrel has no sights making the rifling less than effective. The lock is not a pistol lock but off a musket ( larger size) and at a glance I would say it was repurposed from a flintlock. You can see how it really doesn't fit to the barrel. That stock is comparatively crude and the fit and finish is not representative of a skilled or dedicated smith.

So to me, at best, a gunsmith put that together on the fly for someone who wanted a pistol on the cheap. At worst a garage bubba fit parts together to make an old timey gun. All of that said for $50 your brother wasn't robbed.

 

[bayonet]

For $50 no one was robbed. Gunsmith made at best referenced a smith taking disassociated parts and putting something together. As has been mentioned it was common for gunsmiths to buy a variety of parts and put together their own pieces to sell. In this case that rifled barrel has no sights making the rifling less than effective. The lock is not a pistol lock but off a musket ( larger size) and at a glance I would say it was repurposed from a flintlock. You can see how it really doesn't fit to the barrel. That stock is comparatively crude and the fit and finish is not representative of a skilled or dedicated smith.

So to me, at best, a gunsmith put that together on the fly for someone who wanted a pistol on the cheap. At worst a garage bubba fit parts together to make an old timey gun. All of that said for $50 your brother wasn't robbed.

Well lets hope he does not fire it. The medical bills will be way more than $50 if it blows up in his hand!