Need help identifying an OLD rifle..

[Enslaved87]

A pic of the sight with backlight

[browningautorifle]

The rifle would have just used a round ball

Still, a round ball with spin imparted will fly better than one driven at speed.

[Eaglelord17]

That is a pretty darn big chunk of lead. Would you gents be willing to put a rough guess on a date? Down to a decade or two? ��

Unfortunately I don't know enough about these rifles to put that accurate a date, however based on my limited knowledge I do know that rifling was becoming popular (for the wealthy) in the mid-1700s, and percussion technology became popular around 1816 and later, so I guess that puts your rifle somewhere in the 1750s-1800s, unless someone more knowledgeable has a better guess (I am just doing a rough guess based on what little I know, my area of expertise is bolt action rifles).

Still, a round ball with spin imparted will fly better than one driven at speed.

100%. Also likely the reason it doesn't have a range elevation as your accuracy would be gone long before you needed to raise the elevation.

OP definitely a cool rifle, thanks for sharing. I really enjoy learning things about firearms that are outside my primary area of interest.

[CINDERS]

My summation of the round ball with spin imparted had me thinking of their casting methods back then & quality control and if the ball was not truely concentric then imparting a spin would exacerbate that imbalance but I guess the same would hold true for the minie ball having the same issue along its longitudinal axis. So I guess troops advancing in waves negated the inaccuracy problems as aiming at one soldier you hit the chap next to him but who cares you hit someone?
Thanks for sharing it is an awesome piece.

[browningautorifle]

accuracy would be gone long before you needed to raise the elevation.

Likely...

their casting methods back then & quality control and if the ball was not truely concentric then imparting a spin would exacerbate that imbalance

Absolutely. But what was the requirement for shooting the Bess? Wasn't it to stay on a 6'sq target? Like Cinders says, the man next to you. I would like to work this rifle out though and see...

[Patrick Chadwick]

Gents, we are drifting slightly off-target.

1) This is not a musket. It is a rifle. Intended to shoot a patched round ball. Caliber probably somewhere around 0.62". Approximately 20 bore, so round ball would weight 1/20 of a pound = 7000gns/20 = 350 grains. Noticeably less than a Minie of the same caliber.
2) Round balls can't tip. So forget Greenhill - they can be driven about as fast as the gun and your shoulder will stand. 100-yard velocities of over 1000 fps are attainable (see the Lyman Black Powder Manual).
3) The "bell tower" seems to have a vertical screw adjustment, so the elevation could be adjusted.
4) Usable range max. 200 meters/yards for target shooting. Forget the Brown Bess 6' target - a good shooter will still put most in a 16" black at 200. At 100 all will be within the 8" black, with most being within 4".
5) I have witnessed a competition muzzle-loader shooter score 100/100 offhand at 50 meters. That is every shot hitting the 2" ten ring.

A word to all nitro-shooters: do not underestimate what these old smokepoles can do!

However, the present object has obviously suffered a makeover at some time. The cutout for the decorative trigger-guard does not match well with the cutout for the mechanism. The shotgun-style button foresight is an anomaly for a target rifle and is optically inappropriate for the peephole backsight. The square-bottomed buttplate and butt suggests earlier 18th. C rather than later.

I would love to be able to take a really close look at this rifle. AFAICTWAHTOIMH the original would have been made 1760 +/- 30. That is not a forensic result, just a personal guess based on the optical impression.

[browningautorifle]

This is not a musket. It is a rifle. Intended to shoot a patched round ball.

That's right, that's about what I envisioned being used. I wonder if the original foresight was a German-silver blade?

[Eaglelord17]

You also have to remember that some of the earliest front sights on firearms was that simple bead.

[Enslaved87]

Gents, we are drifting slightly off-target.

1) This is not a musket. It is a rifle. Intended to shoot a patched round ball. Caliber probably somewhere around 0.62". Approximately 20 bore, so round ball would weight 1/20 of a pound = 7000gns/20 = 350 grains. Noticeably less than a Minie of the same caliber.
2) Round balls can't tip. So forget Greenhill - they can be driven about as fast as the gun and your shoulder will stand. 100-yard velocities of over 1000 fps are attainable (see the Lyman Black Powder Manual).
3) The "bell tower" seems to have a vertical screw adjustment, so the elevation could be adjusted.
4) Usable range max. 200 meters/yards for target shooting. Forget the Brown Bess 6' target - a good shooter will still put most in a 16" black at 200. At 100 all will be within the 8" black, with most being within 4".
5) I have witnessed a competition muzzle-loader shooter score 100/100 offhand at 50 meters. That is every shot hitting the 2" ten ring.

A word to all nitro-shooters: do not underestimate what these old smokepoles can do!

However, the present object has obviously suffered a makeover at some time. The cutout for the decorative trigger-guard does not match well with the cutout for the mechanism. The shotgun-style button foresight is an anomaly for a target rifle and is optically inappropriate for the peephole backsight. The square-bottomed buttplate and butt suggests earlier 18th. C rather than later.

I would love to be able to take a really close look at this rifle. AFAICTWAHTOIMH the original would have been made 1760 +/- 30. That is not a forensic result, just a personal guess based on the optical impression.

I looked at the 'bell tower' sight very closely and it does appear to have a vertical track for adjustment with that side screw. My initial thought was that it set the tension on the base, but after close examination it does seem to be adjustable for elevation as well! Very cool.


There is no doubt that it has seen better days, but given its age it seems pretty remarkable to me that it even exists, let alone here in the US. The guy I picked it up from is in his 90's. He's a ww2 veteran, last of China Marines In fact. He has a gun store near me that he opened when he got back from the war and is still open to this day--at 90+ years old. We talk guns for hours on end and he knew I was Into history. When he pulled this out of his back room he said this thing was In his store when he first opened and it's been sitting in the back of the safe since. He couldn't remember where he got it, but I had to give it a proper home. With that said, it's not perfect but it is a neat piece of history and I got it from someone who I can't say enough good things about.

I had guessed it was made in the 1850's but you blew my mind with the flintlock conversion, I hadn't ever considered that. I feel lucky to have something that old in my possession. I mean, the dates you guys are throwing around pre-dates the USA. Anyway, thanks to all for your input!

[Patrick Chadwick]

That's right, that's about what I envisioned being used. I wonder if the original foresight was a German-silver blade?

No chance. German-silver was invented in the 1820s.

---------- Post added at 11:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 PM ----------

"There is no doubt that it has seen better days, but given its age it seems pretty remarkable to me that it even exists, let alone here in the US."

I completely agree. I would have bought it for that backsight alone!

---------- Post added at 11:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 PM ----------

You also have to remember that some of the earliest front sights on firearms was that simple bead.

Except that it's not a bead. It's an odd flattened shape that looks rather like the profile of an airgun pellet. Look at the way the light plays about the top. It is not a sensible silhouette for aiming through a peephole.