Post by: Shawnee Mike on February 07, 2010, 02:59:39 PM
Im NOT talking about the "Hawken" rifle.
Does anyone know when "FLINTLOCK" rifles were made commonly available in a "HALF" stock configuration for the general population?
Post by: Shawnee Mike on February 07, 2010, 04:38:57 PM
OK That makes sense, Thank you.
I ask as I have a half stock flint rifle in 45 cal. it has a 38 inch barrel. I was wondering if it would fit any historical time frame.
Post by: Shawnee Mike on February 07, 2010, 05:23:37 PM
Its a new one. Well sort of. Had it since 82. was thinking it might fall into the early 1800s range What do you think?
Post by: Captchee on February 07, 2010, 06:59:47 PM
Erichson in Texsas was making half stock flintlocks as early as the late 1830's
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y242/captchee/documentation/GustavusErichsonflinlock1838.jpg)
Gustavus Erichson was a gun maker, gunsmith, and gun dealer in Houston from 1838 until 1872. Two of his sons, Otto and Alexander, continued the business until the 1890s.
An amazing rifle has just been discovered hidden away in the vault at the Sam Houston Memorial Museum in Huntsville, Texas. An original flintlock rifle that appears to have been stocked in Houston as early as 1840 and stamped G. ERICHSON HOUSTON. TEXAS. on the lock and the barrel. Mounted in iron with a pewter nosecap, stocked in walnut. This large rifle measures 61 inches overall and has a 43 5/8", .51 caliber, swamped barrel. The rifle is in fine shape and, at this time, is the only known Texas marked flintlock sporting rifle.
Post by: IronDawg on February 07, 2010, 10:59:17 PM
Post by: Captchee on February 08, 2010, 09:04:18 AM
i would think if a person contacted the Museum , they would be able to answer your questions
Post by: Pete_Sheeran on February 08, 2010, 12:25:48 PM
That is an interesting rifle. I have been trying to keep track of early 1/2 stocks in flintlock. There are at least 2 in Shumway's book on Jaeger Rifles from his Muzzle Blasts articles "Our Germanic Rifle Heritage". Those are both from the mid and late !700's.
The British seemed to start to go toward the 1/2 stock as a new style in the late 1780's.
Whisker's book on Virginia rifles has one 1/2 stock flintlock from about 1810. (The Americans came later to the 1/2 stock table.)
There is quite a strong debate on whether or not J & S Hawkens ever built any flintlock plains rifles and if they did, were they full stock or 1/2 stock. Some say the flint Hawken in the Smithsonian was not originally flint? Then there is supposed to be a flint Hawken in Nebraska that Ron Long copied (cast) for his flintlock in the 70's (business since sold to Tom Faux, and then to the Hawken Shop in WA.)
It is difficult to say when the first 1/2 stock flintlocks came about, but I think it was about the time of the double flint, side by side shotguns! SxS were not full stocked, but you can not really call them 1/2 stocks either since there is no wood wrapping up to the side of the barrel in the forearm to thr muzzle.
See Ya, Pete
Post by: Craig Tx on February 08, 2010, 06:34:36 PM
I would have loved to have seen it on display when I was goin' to Sam Houston State University (Early '80's), right across the road from the museum...
Craig
Post by: Mike R on February 09, 2010, 11:39:24 AM
Post by: Shawnee Mike on February 09, 2010, 08:10:00 PM
Yes Cap, Mine looks very simillar to that one. Not quite as long a barrel. I think mine is 38 inches. But overall, looks just like that.
Thanks for the thoughts guys.
Post by: Sean on February 10, 2010, 08:03:24 AM
Thoughts on barrel length... Long barreled halfstocks were quite common in the 1840's in the South and West. The 'Parkman' rifle has a 43" barrel IIRC, Tobin's rifle is almost 40", and there are a several surviving long barreled half stock southern guns (arguably possibly cut down from full stock). Just because its a half stock doesn't mean it has to be short.
Sean
Post by: Captchee on February 10, 2010, 08:56:53 AM
Most times however there is some mention of that in the museums information.
So far and granted I have not researched this rifle very far , past what you see here . There is no mention of a conversion. That however doesn’t mean much when you consider also the regularity of museums getting it wrong
Also The possibility of a conversion is a two way street .
While sometimes caplocks were converted to flint . Its far more probable to find a flint that’s converted to cap .
While sometimes that conversion is noticeable by the lock plate on the converted rifle . A quality conversion , done by a gunsmith is not as noticeable / many times taking a hands on approach to even discern the conversion .
Then we run into the same old topic we have had many times before .
HOW PREVILANT WERE PRECUSSION RIFLES PRE 1840.
Comes back to the same things .
Yes there are large amounts of caps showing up on inventory lists . However when you get down to it those numbers are still small
We also can document cap lock pistols . Again relatively small numbers .
The number of accounted for rifles ????/
I think you see where im going with this .
So why don’t we see more original flint rifles ????
Well for now , we have to speculate .
Myself though I hold the opinion that very few of the original half stock cap locks that survive today , ever saw actual hard use by the trappers we so often attribute them to .
Those we can attribute and connect cap lock rifles two , Bridger , Medina , and the like , are recorded very near that 1840 line .
Then we come down to the Hawkens rifle and its holly grail flintlock half stock .
To assume that the Hawkens Bros. did not produce such a rifle .
The Hawkens produce relatively small numbers of rifles compared to many of the other gun companies out there . They also came from a family line of gunsmiths that date well back into the early 1700’s
So IMO we have to go on the question of why so many Hawkens half stock caplocks
1) eather the cap lock was very prevalent in the pre 1840 dates . In all environments. Of which that’s hard to prove with today records or they were producing rifles for a market where the ignition system was prevalent . Which we can document . IE urban areas
2) the rifles we see are later rifles . Which IMO is more then likely . They system by its very need , has to be re supplied . As times changed and more and more trading posts began to pop up . Those supplies were more readily available .
This also leads us to the 1840 date . What is the 1840 date ?
Simply put nothing more then the date of the last major fur company rendezvous in the rocky mountains.
Its not the end of the fur trade . In fact its not the end of the rendezvous.
What im getting at here is that today we have a tainted picture of what the western trappers actually looked like .
In so many words ist a man with a full beard . Wearing a big skin hat , holding a half stock percussion rifle . And sitting atop a fine horse .
that’s a picture painted by dime store novels and Hollywood .
As steve mentioned . The prevalence of half stock flintlock sporting rifles . In Europe is fairly prevalent . Not really so here . But the reason could simply be that do to their environment of use , far fewer survived in their original form
Post by: Pete_Sheeran on February 10, 2010, 09:03:04 AM
Thoughts on barrel length... Long barreled halfstocks were quite common in the 1840's in the South and West. The 'Parkman' rifle has a 43" barrel IIRC, Tobin's rifle is almost 40", and there are a several surviving long barreled half stock southern guns (arguably possibly cut down from full stock). Just because its a half stock doesn't mean it has to be short.
I don't know that any of those rifles had swamped barrels? That might suggest that the maker of the Texas 1/2 stock was actually restocking an older piece, complete with flintlock.
Pete
Post by: Mike R on February 10, 2010, 11:00:30 AM
Post by: Captchee on February 10, 2010, 01:30:28 PM
so any caps they must be accounting for a later date .
we also know that caps were highly prevalent quickly in urban areas very early .
There are also accounts of traders bring thousands to the voosss . However those numbers do not match the numbers of percussion rifles being brought to those vooo’s
So lets say a trader brought 100,000 caps to a vooo . That seems a lot .
But in actuality if they had 100 trappers with 100 percussion rifles . Each trapper stocking 1000 caps . ,,,, those numbers become very few
Same with the 2 million . When we consider the numbers of rifles being sold in a given area 2 million because a minuscule number .
My wife alone goes through over 1000 caps a year .
that’s not the caps of old either. And the caps are always protected . Either in the house or in the shoot box . Not being packed all over or stored in some cash .
she is also only shooting at events . not every day
There is no doubt that the percussions system was spreading by the mid to late 1830-1840 . But what was available in St Lewis or HB supplies , relates little to what was actually being requested in the rocky mountains .
Untell such time as we can find large numbers of percussion rifles being requested or being haled to where the trappers were . Its going to simply be very hard to say that the percussion system was more prevalent no mater how many caps may have been available
Kinda like proclaiming the flintlock the standard and most common firearm ignition system in this country during the same time , base soul on the total number of available gun flints being marketed
the only thing it means is that there was a supply . doesnt mean its a needed supply
Post by: cb on February 12, 2010, 04:09:33 AM
In 1843 Captain Philip St. George Cooke, in command of a dragoon detachment patrolling an area along the north bank of the Arkansas River, encountered a band of Texas "irregulars/freeboters" who were threatening a Santa Fe caravan. Anticipating trouble from the captain and his frontier-toughened troops, the Texans hastily concealed a number of their best weapons (including some Colt repeating rifles), but Cooke nevertheless relieved them of various other guns, including muskets, shotguns, pistols, and rifles.
Among the rifles Cooke confiscated and later turned in at Fort Leavenworth were:
30 flint lock rifles, valued at eighteen dollars each, including the barrel of one which has no stock, which appears to have been lost in transportation.
12 percussion rifles, valued at twenty two dollars and fifty cents, including the barrel of one which has no stock. . . .
3 half stock Middletown rifles, percussion lock, valued at eighteen dollars each.
1 full stock percussion lock [Middletown rifle], valued at eighteen dollars.
1 halfstock flint lock Middletown rifle, valued at eighteen dollars.
The "Middletown rifles" were probably altered U.S. Model 1817 contract arms made by Simeon North
Totals: 31 flinters and 16 percussion
Besides the forty-seven rifles and two "American dragoon carbines" (Hall's maybe - could be either flint or caplock) the Texans were carrying twenty-eight smoothbores of various types:
15 English flint lock shot guns.
3 Tower pieces (most likely India pattern Brown Bess flinters)
1 Large American flint lock shot gun.
2 Double barrelled flint lock, stub and twist, shot guns.
4 Percussion lock, double barreled, stub and twist, shot guns.
1 American musket.
2 Texas muskets (most likely the flintlock M1822 type muskets supplied to Texas by Tryon of Philadelphia in 1840 and marked Texas with a star on the lockplates) - a total of 860 were purchased out of the 1,500 ordered.
Totals: 23 flinters and 4 caplock - the American musket could be of either ignition so was not included in the totals.
The Texas "freebooters" were also rather well equipped with pistols - Cooke confiscated:
4 pairs of flint lock holster pistols, valued at twenty dollars a pair.
2 pairs percussion lock pistols, valued at forty dollars a pair.
8 flint lock holster pistols, odd, valued at ten dollars apiece.
7 percussion lock belt pistols, valued at fifteen dollars apiece.
1 percussion lock duelling pistol, valued at forty dollars.
Totals: 16 flinters and 13 caplock - just about half and half
Along with the above we also know that in 1834 and later rifles were converted to percussion in the field or at the various posts such as Ft Hall. Another piece of info is the gunshop at the Waiilatpu Mission which ended business in 1847, was excavated and the majority of parts found were percussion.
Regarding half-stocks, Hnery first built them in 1831 and was selling them to the western market by 1836. While this is within the early percussion period, flintlocks were still widely used and available so they may have also been offered in flint, but further research is needed.
Quote
However those numbers do not match the numbers of percussion rifles being brought to those vooo’sThe "problem" wit that is the trade lists don't specify whether rifles were cap or flinter and two the number of rifles on the trade lists is far less than the number purchased by the fur companies - one reason being that the companies supplied many of there men with said rifles and were this not trading them (this is documented).
Post by: Sean on February 12, 2010, 06:52:49 AM
Quote from: "Pete_Sheeran"
Sean,
I don't now that any of those rifles had swamped barrels? That might suggest that the maker was actually restocking an older piece, complete with flintlock.
Pete
Pete,
I've seen swamped barrel guns that appeared to have dated to the 1850's, so I don't neccessarily think that alone is a good characteristic for dating a gun. That gun does not look like a restock to me, it just looks later than the 1830's. Again, you can't say a lot from that picture, so its all speculation.
Sean
Post by: Captchee on February 12, 2010, 08:53:08 AM
Adding up your listed , unless I missed something . as im sicker then a dog right now .
You list 69 flintlocks and 32 cape locks . that’s a pretty small %
Even if we dumped everything but the early 1840 list that you provided . The numbers of flintlocks within that one account is still 2 X the numbers of cap locks in 1840 .
Myself by that time , I would have expected the split to be the other way around
Do we know how many caps those rifles were supplied with ?
1000x per year ? 2000 maybe more ?
that’s what im getting at here .
. When you have gun companies pouring latterly 1000’s of rifles into the market . Suddenly a 50 thousand to 2 million caps being marketed is very little .
Especially when you consider, if it was anything like today . Cap production far ,FAR exceeds the numbers of rifles produced
If we trully want to get to the hart of this . The answer lies in the use of those caps .
How many did an experience person , who had only the ability to re supply once a year , carry with him ?
1000, ??? 10,000. Maybe cash 90% ????
But untell we know that information . Lists like you have just posted prove the point im trying to make . Even as late as the early 1840 . Percussion systems were still a small %.
If that were not the case , why lug along so many out dated rifles , that no one wanted . That were considered out dated un reliable ?
The only reason IMO to show more of one type of ignition over another , is that the ignition with the greatest Numbers was still considered to me the weapon with the greatest prospect of use or trade
Kinda like a car salesman who has a hand full of those new electric cars .
I can by one of his fords do 15,000 or one of those electric jobbers for 45,000.
Ill take the ford thank you .
Myself . I think that same mind set held for a very large % of folks , well into the later 1840’s before the cappers became rather common ..
anyway , back to bed ,,,,,,
Post by: cmdrted on February 12, 2010, 09:54:18 AM
Post by: Shawnee Mike on February 12, 2010, 11:34:09 AM
Thanks so much for all your thoughts and info.
Post by: Captchee on February 12, 2010, 04:24:46 PM
Quote
Also with respect to you and your wife Captchee, a typical hunter doesn't expend hundreds of rounds in a year. Most of the older deer hunters in central pa have a box of 30-30 that has lasted them a few years. They resight in and reverify their sight picture and save the rounds for the hunt. Maybe more rounds for meat and furs and of course self defense.
you are correct we dont today . however how much did the average trapper carry or use in a year
lead could be re constituted . but not counted on to be reclaimed .
caps on the other hand are a one shot deal .
the caps of 150 years ago also are not the caps of today
so now magnify all the issues with todays caps .
place then in an environment of constant change . Myself I don’t thing even 2000 caps per hunter would be sufficient
now add in that you could not re supply if accidents came about .
lets say you may not get back to Rendezvous for 2 years ???
How many caps are you really going to need .
If we go back and read some of the accounts of Ashley and even hennery . We find that they were shooting furs , just as much as trapping furs .
Lets go farther back to the hide hunters of the east . .
How many hides did Boone Loose after a full years hunting ?
not just once mind you . but a couple times .
Now put a cap lock in boones hands . There is at least 1 cap for every hide .
I would suspect that back then , they would have only shot when they needed to . Yet always had a loaded gun . So now we have to add in the % of caps that simply had to be replaced because the fell off while the rifle leaned against a tree , or while being slung across the saddle horn or just from fumble fingers .
As to the 1911 . I owned several as well as had several issued to me through the years .
The reason that it stayed in service , while many others went to the 9mm was because of .,,,, how should I put this , ,,, a mind set .. The side arm is a close quarters piece . Myself if things got so bad I needed to pull my side arm , then I wanted something that would hit hard enough to put the issue to rest and keep it there . not pussy foot around the subject .
thats why the 1911 stays on . but its a constant battle between those who feel a need only to make a point vs those who feel an need to to not only make a point but not have to make it a secound time
Post by: Gordon H.Kemp on February 12, 2010, 06:13:57 PM
Post by: swampman on June 08, 2010, 08:34:02 AM
I think it's best not to try and find documentation to support our desires, but rather to accept it for what it is.
Post by: Captchee on June 08, 2010, 09:33:32 AM
Quote from: "swampman"
IMO and based on period quotes the cap lock was prevalent in the pre 1840s furtrade and flintlocks fell into disuse quickly. That's not a popular opinion for sure. I believe that 1/2 stock flintlock "Mountain Man" era rifles were very rare if any existed at all.
I think it's best not to try and find documentation to support our desires, but rather to accept it for what it is.
Exactly my point .
But documentation must be complete . Not speculated .
Large # of caps do not = large numbers of rifles .
Peoples want today of half stock percussion rifles doesn’t exactly fit the records either, when it comes to pre 1840 . Which had become the accepted date of the end of the fur trade rendezvous. Which in fact also isn’t true .
Taken as a whole IMO , no mater how much we want to believe it . I just don’t see how we can make a statement that by the 1840 date percussion systems had became the prevalent ignition system .
For that mater found in every persons hands .
Not only can such a statement NOT be supported by sound and complete records , it goes completely against human nature .
Very much like stating that once the rifle came about , all smoothbores became obsolete .
We know that’s not the case .
Again this isnt about percussion existing or not . that’s un disputed even in the early 19th century . But can we definitively place that prominence of that system to a greater number pre the fictitious 1840 date using gun companies orders as well as production # .
I don’t believe we can.
I would also say that prevalent is a mater of location .
Take the Hawkens rifles . Where were the highest numbers of those rifles distend for ?
From what I have read the largest % were going to the santa fa trail and the south west .
Not to say there wasn’t also orders for the rocky mountain fur trade . Nope not saying that at all .
But by todays opinion , one could easily conclude that the hawken rifle was what everyone carried .
However that opinion cannot be supported by documentation . Even base production documentation when compared to the numbers of rifles produced by the likes of Hennery , Lehman, Derringer, .
As such my take is that if we are to try to support such statements then we must look at the total picture .IE
* numbers of actual rifle orders
* numbers of actual parts needed for the system . IE we have the caps . But where are the numbers of nipples for those caps . Or are we to believe that these men went into the mountains with only one nipple for their rifles
* what was the reliability of the components themselves
* we need to see actual numbers of items felt to be needed for a given time period
All this needs to then be factored into with the region of use factored in
I think there is a lot more to substantiating the word “prevalence” then just taking a account out of context and claiming it as proof
Post by: flintlock62 on June 12, 2010, 10:43:41 PM
Post by: cb on June 13, 2010, 02:19:43 PM
Quote
They did not water proof caps at the timeSorry - not true. Water proof caps were made very early on - circa 1827 is the earliest date I have documented for them.
Quote
Flints could be found in any creek bedAlso not true - while one can at times find a usable rock it's not as easy as one supposes to find a rock that will spark well as well as one that will spark consistently. Secondly if flints were so widely available in the wild why were they being imported and sold in the thousands?
Also there are several primary docs that mention the fact that many of the flinters were not always of the best quality, there are other period citations for men being without flints and needing to be supplied, and in one year, 1827, Robert Campbell mentioned that ALL of the powder that year was of such poor quality that their guns would often not fire at all.
If one chooses to use the logic that it's better to carry a flinter than a caplock due to the ability to pick up a rock, than the same logic would apply to using guns at all - a bow and arrows can be made on the spot from available materials, where as a gun needs not only a flint or cap, but also powder (which could be of either poor quality or ruined from repeated immersions, etc.) and lead to work - lose any of the three and you've got a poorly designed club left.......
............
Quote
I just don’t see how we can make a statement that by the 1840 date percussion systems had became the prevalent ignition system .It's not just the date that matters, but where as well. Records do show that in the more settled areas east of the Mississippi, that the percussion did become very prominent by the late 1820's/early 1830's, and even half-stocks of various types were being built in larger numbers here in the US by the mid-1830's.
I truly love my flinters and have for nigh onto fifty years, but making more of them than what was (including our own modern experiences with modern made guns) is close to re-writing history.
When looking at trade lists one also must remember that these were only the items used for trade, they mostly do not include the items taken west to supply the company men, either the engages or the skin hunters - aka one of the two types of "free trappers" who contracted with a certain company for supplies - i.e got a grub stake which would be paid back first.
While the trade lists are a valuable resource, they are just one part of the overall picture. For instance when you look at all of the published trade lists you in fact find very few rifles overall of any make, yet the companies bought them by the thousands, but not just for trade..
Post by: flintlock62 on June 13, 2010, 08:54:13 PM
Quote from: "cb"
QuoteThey did not water proof caps at the timeSorry - not true. Water proof caps were made very early on - circa 1827 is the earliest date I have documented for them.QuoteFlints could be found in any creek bedAlso not true - while one can at times find a usable rock it's not as easy as one supposes to find a rock that will spark well as well as one that will spark consistently. Secondly if flints were so widely available in the wild why were they being imported and sold in the thousands?
Also there are several primary docs that mention the fact that many of the flinters were not always of the best quality, there are other period citations for men being without flints and needing to be supplied, and in one year, 1827, Robert Campbell mentioned that ALL of the powder that year was of such poor quality that their guns would often not fire at all.
If one chooses to use the logic that it's better to carry a flinter than a caplock due to the ability to pick up a rock, than the same logic would apply to using guns at all - a bow and arrows can be made on the spot from available materials, where as a gun needs not only a flint or cap, but also powder (which could be of either poor quality or ruined from repeated immersions, etc.) and lead to work - lose any of the three and you've got a poorly designed club left.......
............QuoteI just don’t see how we can make a statement that by the 1840 date percussion systems had became the prevalent ignition system .It's not just the date that matters, but where as well. Records do show that in the more settled areas east of the Mississippi, that the percussion did become very prominent by the late 1820's/early 1830's, and even half-stocks of various types were being built in larger numbers here in the US by the mid-1830's.
I truly love my flinters and have for nigh onto fifty years, but making more of them than what was (including our own modern experiences with modern made guns) is close to re-writing history.
When looking at trade lists one also must remember that these were only the items used for trade, they mostly do not include the items taken west to supply the company men, either the engages or the skin hunters - aka one of the two types of "free trappers" who contracted with a certain company for supplies - i.e got a grub stake which would be paid back first.
While the trade lists are a valuable resource, they are just one part of the overall picture. For instance when you look at all of the published trade lists you in fact find very few rifles overall of any make, yet the companies bought them by the thousands, but not just for trade..
Maybe I should clarify that locally, I can find enough chert to drown an elephant. Chert that will make great sparks, not just medircore ones. My flinter is not of poor quality, and I said my choice would be the flinter TODAY, not back then.
As far as bows and arrows go, if one does not know what one is doing, they are not much use either. It is not just bending a green tree branch of any type wood and a vine for a string. Improperly made, a bow is just a bent stick and totally worthless.
Post by: Captchee on June 13, 2010, 10:51:24 PM
as to finding a rock that will spark . i tell ya one must be pretty had pressed not to find one .
why import flints ? simple they last longer becouse of better quality of flint over chert .
but churt will work very will in a pinch .
what will one use in a pinch for a cap ?
past that where are the inventory lists for the brigades supporting cap locks in numbers .
again remember its about specific areas . just because something may or may not be found in an eastern township . it doesnt mean that item was found on the frontier or in the rocky mountain.
The Hall rifle was produced in far greater numbers then the hawkens ever was . Yet where are those rifles .
Same with half stocks . They were nothing new . Their found all over Europe, much , much earlier then here
Trade lists are important because they list not only items for trade but needed items for re supply. Lets also remember that items of trade are items of want . So it would stand to point that if caplocks were so quickly being taken over then they would be an item of great want . Yet they seem to suspiciously missing ,,, why ?
As to the rest there also is sound documentation of folks making their own powder . Boone did it , so did many of the other frontier out posts .
As to lead . Sorry also wrong .
One can read the notes of Ashley and find where he made projectiles out of salvaged items after their wreck in the Owyhee river in Oregon ..
Asotin also I believe mentions the use of improvised projectiles
Myself I started long , long ago with a cap rifle . Nothing wrong with them . But if I had to have only one rifle here in the rockies . A rifle that I needed to be relied upon for a year or two for self protection and food supply . It would not be a cap lock .
I find them far to troublesome
Where their capers here ? .sure I have no doubt about that .
But I do not believe that they were in the numbers suggested by many.
The documentation is just to scarce to support them with anything but an opinion
As such one must document numbers . Numbers that should show up not just on trade lists but in gun maker orders . Orders that show a line of destination
Without that . Its all speculation
Post by: Mustang on June 18, 2010, 05:33:54 PM
Post by: Mustang on June 19, 2010, 11:10:25 AM
Post by: Mustang on June 19, 2010, 12:54:30 PM
Post by: Mustang on June 19, 2010, 02:07:49 PM
Post by: butterchurn on June 20, 2010, 03:02:13 PM
Post by: Captchee on June 20, 2010, 04:01:41 PM
Post by: Mustang on June 20, 2010, 05:39:06 PM
first one
(http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx50/ebiggs1/IMG_2064.jpg)
Second one
(http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx50/ebiggs1/IMG_2130.jpg)
third one ?
Post by: Roaddog on June 21, 2010, 06:57:21 AM
Post by: Mustang on June 21, 2010, 09:07:03 AM
(http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx50/ebiggs1/IMG_2134.jpg)
I sold the stock TC sight and installed this L&R buckhorn.
(http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx50/ebiggs1/IMG_2136.jpg)
The front sight ran into my grinder and file!
(http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx50/ebiggs1/IMG_2135.jpg)
Post by: Uncle Russ on June 21, 2010, 10:11:24 AM
You seem to be right handy with such things, they turned out fine.
Uncle Russ...
Post by: Mustang on July 05, 2010, 05:00:28 PM
Post by: butterchurn on July 05, 2010, 06:48:17 PM