Persian percussion gun repair.

rickystl · 16th September 2017, 05:18 PM

Hi Estcrh.

Yes, I see what you mean. That was a real break in the stock. Philip did a great job.

For comparison, here is a very similar stock break in my Caucasian rifle. I had hoped the repair would have turned out a bit better on mine. But that's just the way it had to be in this case.

Rick

Richard G · 16th September 2017, 06:02 PM

I'm not sure these are 'breaks' as such, but rather a form of scarf joint that has come apart.
Regards
Richard

Philip · 17th September 2017, 11:41 PM

I agree, Richard. The stocks were made in two pieces, the original glue joints just happened to separate at some time in the past. This sort of joint, somewhere along the forestock, is common on many types of Eastern guns. You see it on Indian toreadors on occasion. Persian and Caucasian gunmakers liked to use fiddleback-grain woods. and apparently had trouble finding single pieces long enough for a one-piece stock. I once had a very fine Caucasian smothbore gun, this was a class act with really good damascus barrel and a Persian-made miquelet rivalling European locks in fit and finish. But the maker had to make the stock out of 3 pieces, he was obviously cherry-picking to maximize the grain contrast from end to end. Unfortunately I sold the piece years ago and didn't save any images. What's nice is that Caucasian long guns tend to have wide silver sleeves as barrel-bands, and proper positioning of these can really give the impression that you're looking at a single piece of wood unless you examine closely and see a bit of the joint, or the unavoidable slight mismatch in grain.

estcrh · 19th September 2017, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickystl

Hi Estcrh.

Yes, I see what you mean. That was a real break in the stock. Philip did a great job.

For comparison, here is a very similar stock break in my Caucasian rifle. I had hoped the repair would have turned out a bit better on mine. But that's just the way it had to be in this case.

Rick

Rick its not bad really, I have seen much worse, in my case there was an inlay that had to be worked around.

rickystl · 23rd September 2017, 03:13 PM

Hi Estcrh

I'm sure Richard and Philip are correct. They do indeed look more like a splice that came unglued. Glue does age.
In my case, a novice had attempted to glue the two pieces back together (using white Elmers glue or some such). Not only did it look horrible, they glued it together WITH THE ORIGINAL WOOD RAMROD STILL IN PLACE !!

Took the gunsmith a whole day to get it apart. @#$%^&*

In your case, it is rather curious that the original maker installed an inlay so close to the spliced area. Also, is that a barrel wedge in both those slots ? Usually these would be left open to tie a leather sling through. The barrel bands holding the barrel in place.

Rick

Philip · 23rd September 2017, 06:33 PM

These are not barrel wedges, just pieces of brass stuck in there probably by the guy who first tried to reglue the stock. The barrel is not fitted with tenons that would retain any wedged. The only attachment are the tang screw and the bands.

ariel · 23rd September 2017, 10:43 PM

I know nothing about firearms and do not even search for them. I am into swords.
From what I see here, there might be different criteria for desireability between bladed and firearms.

This gun is not in usable condition at all , with firing mechanism broken, barrel not securely attached, gunstock unlikely to withstand repeat recoils etc, and still it is considered collectible and worthy of cosmetic repair.

A somewhat similar situation with a sword would be rusted through blade, broken handle and mangled guard. Few of us would invest money, time and effort to bring it up to a condition suitable only for wall hanging and devoid of any fighting potential. Such situation might be appropriate for a extremely rare excavated 1,000 - 2,000 years-old sword, but this is not a case with this gun.

Can you explain to me whether there is a difference of "collectability" criteria and tolerance margins between bladed and fire arms?

estcrh · 24th September 2017, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

I know nothing about firearms and do not even search for them. I am into swords.
From what I see here, there might be different criteria for desireability between bladed and firearms.

This gun is not in usable condition at all , with firing mechanism broken, barrel not securely attached, gunstock unlikely to withstand repeat recoils etc, and still it is considered collectible and worthy of cosmetic repair.

A somewhat similar situation with a sword would be rusted through blade, broken handle and mangled guard. Few of us would invest money, time and effort to bring it up to a condition suitable only for wall hanging and devoid of any fighting potential. Such situation might be appropriate for a extremely rare excavated 1,000 - 2,000 years-old sword, but this is not a case with this gun.

Can you explain to me whether there is a difference of "collectability" criteria and tolerance margins between bladed and fire arms?

Ariel, people spend plenty of money restoring Japanese, Persian, Ottoman, Indian, Chinese swords etc but Philip might be able to inform us more about this.

As for the particular gun...Persian firearms in any condition are extremely rare. For me it is a thing of beauty, I am sure not everyone will agree.

ariel · 24th September 2017, 02:40 AM

Eric,
That was not my question. I do not doubt the rarity of this gun and do not question your decision to buy it.
I just wanted to learn and understand the criteria by which firearms are judged and why those are so different from bladed weapons. If you maintain that the conditions do not matter, this is a partial answer to my question.

rickystl · 24th September 2017, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philip

These are not barrel wedges, just pieces of brass stuck in there probably by the guy who first tried to reglue the stock. The barrel is not fitted with tenons that would retain any wedged. The only attachment are the tang screw and the bands.

Hi Philip

OK. So someone just installed those brass wedge pieces not knowing the purpose of the slots. That's what I was guessing, and you just confirmed it. Thanks.

Rick

ariel · 24th September 2017, 05:23 PM

Not knowing diddly-squat about guns, I am asking about the tenons: any evidence that this gun was originally made for service? How good ( or bad) was the original repair? Is it serviceable now?

I know I sound stupid, but please bear with me.

estcrh · 24th September 2017, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

any evidence that this gun was originally made for service?

Ariel, do you mean military service?

16th September 2017, 05:18 PM	#1
rickystl Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: St. Louis, MO area. Posts: 1,632	Hi Estcrh. Yes, I see what you mean. That was a real break in the stock. Philip did a great job. For comparison, here is a very similar stock break in my Caucasian rifle. I had hoped the repair would have turned out a bit better on mine. But that's just the way it had to be in this case. Rick Attached Images

16th September 2017, 06:02 PM	#2
Richard G Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 411	I'm not sure these are 'breaks' as such, but rather a form of scarf joint that has come apart. Regards Richard

17th September 2017, 11:41 PM	#3
Philip Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: California Posts: 1,036	I agree, Richard. The stocks were made in two pieces, the original glue joints just happened to separate at some time in the past. This sort of joint, somewhere along the forestock, is common on many types of Eastern guns. You see it on Indian toreadors on occasion. Persian and Caucasian gunmakers liked to use fiddleback-grain woods. and apparently had trouble finding single pieces long enough for a one-piece stock. I once had a very fine Caucasian smothbore gun, this was a class act with really good damascus barrel and a Persian-made miquelet rivalling European locks in fit and finish. But the maker had to make the stock out of 3 pieces, he was obviously cherry-picking to maximize the grain contrast from end to end. Unfortunately I sold the piece years ago and didn't save any images. What's nice is that Caucasian long guns tend to have wide silver sleeves as barrel-bands, and proper positioning of these can really give the impression that you're looking at a single piece of wood unless you examine closely and see a bit of the joint, or the unavoidable slight mismatch in grain.

23rd September 2017, 03:13 PM	#5
rickystl Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: St. Louis, MO area. Posts: 1,632	Hi Estcrh I'm sure Richard and Philip are correct. They do indeed look more like a splice that came unglued. Glue does age. In my case, a novice had attempted to glue the two pieces back together (using white Elmers glue or some such). Not only did it look horrible, they glued it together WITH THE ORIGINAL WOOD RAMROD STILL IN PLACE !! Took the gunsmith a whole day to get it apart. @#$%^&* In your case, it is rather curious that the original maker installed an inlay so close to the spliced area. Also, is that a barrel wedge in both those slots ? Usually these would be left open to tie a leather sling through. The barrel bands holding the barrel in place. Rick

23rd September 2017, 06:33 PM	#6
Philip Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: California Posts: 1,036	These are not barrel wedges, just pieces of brass stuck in there probably by the guy who first tried to reglue the stock. The barrel is not fitted with tenons that would retain any wedged. The only attachment are the tang screw and the bands.

23rd September 2017, 10:43 PM	#7
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I know nothing about firearms and do not even search for them. I am into swords. From what I see here, there might be different criteria for desireability between bladed and firearms. This gun is not in usable condition at all , with firing mechanism broken, barrel not securely attached, gunstock unlikely to withstand repeat recoils etc, and still it is considered collectible and worthy of cosmetic repair. A somewhat similar situation with a sword would be rusted through blade, broken handle and mangled guard. Few of us would invest money, time and effort to bring it up to a condition suitable only for wall hanging and devoid of any fighting potential. Such situation might be appropriate for a extremely rare excavated 1,000 - 2,000 years-old sword, but this is not a case with this gun. Can you explain to me whether there is a difference of "collectability" criteria and tolerance margins between bladed and fire arms?

24th September 2017, 02:40 AM	#9
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Eric, That was not my question. I do not doubt the rarity of this gun and do not question your decision to buy it. I just wanted to learn and understand the criteria by which firearms are judged and why those are so different from bladed weapons. If you maintain that the conditions do not matter, this is a partial answer to my question.

24th September 2017, 05:23 PM	#11
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Not knowing diddly-squat about guns, I am asking about the tenons: any evidence that this gun was originally made for service? How good ( or bad) was the original repair? Is it serviceable now? I know I sound stupid, but please bear with me.