Flintlock Double

[Steve McCarty]

My flinter is not nearly as nice as yours. It is a single barrel, of course, marked Tirebuck on the lock. Was made in London. It still sparks up a storm and because of its pitted condition it wouldn't hurt to shoot it, but I don't trust the barrel. Bore is fine, tho. Has the water proof pan and roller on the frizzon, so it is a pretty advanced design.



It looks like a ten bore. It is quite light and comes up nice. After my life insurance is paid up, I may shoot it. It has what looks like the original ramrod. Someone loved it because it was shot, and the bore is fine, then it was dumped in a basement someplace...for about a century and a half.

It is not so nice from this angle.



Anyone recognize this proof mark?

[KCordell]

I would say in my opinion that is quite nice. Shootable period flintlocks have been tough to find...well atleast for me. That again is one neat looking fowler and think of the history behind it.

What gauge is it?

[Steve McCarty]

Checker on my Tirebuck. I am kind of embarrassed placing this old gun with the other one on this thread that is so fine. I have done it for contrast. Is that okay?

[Steve McCarty]

Originally Posted by KCordell

I would say in my opinion that is quite nice. Shootable period flintlocks have been tough to find...well atleast for me. That again is one neat looking fowler and think of the history behind it.

What gauge is it?

I can't find my gauge, but I think it's a 10 gauge. My thumb fits in the muzzle past my nail. Is that scientific enough? Don't think so.

Here's the mark on the lock:





It is far from pristine:

[Steve McCarty]

It is still pretty nice though:

[Steve McCarty]

Here is the top as compared to the bottom of the barrel underneath the forearm.



Here she is in the bright sunlight that shows her warts and all. In hand she looks much better.

[KCordell]

Wow... thanks for posting. Again, what a neat gun.

[OH Osthaus]

Originally Posted by Steve McCarty

Anyone recognize this proof mark?

the mark is worn - but it looks like the old British mark called cross sceptres & crown

http://www.birminghamgunmuseum.com/m...ptres_Mark.pdf

[KCordell]

Based on the text from the Birmingham museum and a book I have on gun marks, there would have had to have been two identical stamps if it were a private proof from the Tower...but I guess a single is possible. The little information I found on Tirebuck as being listed as a gunmaker at 60 Haymarket, London, 1813-16. Only in business for 3 years.

[Steve McCarty]

Originally Posted by KCordell

Based on the text from the Birmingham museum and a book I have on gun marks, there would have had to have been two identical stamps if it were a private proof from the Tower...but I guess a single is possible. The little information I found on Tirebuck as being listed as a gunmaker at 60 Haymarket, London, 1813-16. Only in business for 3 years.

Someone on the British muzzle loading site told me the maker was John Tirebuck who was in biz with his son and indeed for only three years. He said that it might be the only example of their work extant. Since then I have seen another pictured Tirebuck in Double Gun Mag. So, I guess there are at least two. This would also date to the last year or so of the British Proof House using the crossed swords and the crown proof mark. It works to date the gun to ca. 1813, which I think is about right.

I paid $195 for it in 1972 at Martin Rettings, in Culver City, CA.

Might be that the second mark was obscured by corrosion. I wonder if a restorer would work on it. Reline the bore, and secure the wood, etc. It'd probably cost me $2 grand tho. When I finally got it back my wife would hit me over the head with it.

It is fun to own this rather brittle little gun. I haven't had the lock off for years, but as I recall it was quality work inside.

Once, again; if these old guns could talk!