|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
3 members (jlb, Tim in PA, 1 invisible),
457
guests, and
4
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics39,488
Posts561,967
Members14,584
| |
Most Online9,918
Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,457 Likes: 335
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,457 Likes: 335 |
Sneider was a gunsmith, having several Patents here and in England. An examination of the locks on his hammerless guns will reveal multiple design styles, some with coil springs. All workmanship was first class. At the moment I cannot say what Clark's contribution to the firm was. He was gone in 1883.
To correct my previous post, I now notice the Sneider Patent crossbar in the receiver . It would be my guess that , if this gun is a conversion, the grip safety has been reused in the conversion. Usually on these conversions, they used as much of the original gun as possible including buttplates, triggerguards, hammers etc.
Last edited by Daryl Hallquist; 04/23/11 10:29 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,945 Likes: 144
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,945 Likes: 144 |
Yes. In addition to conversions Clark & Sneider and later Sneider made wonderful hammer and hammerless doubles of their own very unique designs. They claimed to be the original American hammerless double. Beat out Uncle Dan. They also won the prize at the 1876 Centennial Exposition.
Last edited by Researcher; 04/23/11 10:18 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 68
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 68 |
I agree Daryl...the 6517 number is on the grip safety and the barrel flats..and if you look at that Pat. date on the flats...it is Jan 24, 65...so could it be 1865...with the 17 being a gun model or number or something of that combination? Or was the grip safety just part of the original muzzleloader if that is the case...I see your comment above with regards to the g.safety. It is an early gun...or conversion for C&S...I believe. Just trying to make some sense of this gun. I posted a few more photos. Appreciate the comments. Jeff
Last edited by BALTDBL; 04/23/11 11:12 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 68
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 68 |
Mike, here is my hammerless 10....SN 496 [img:left]http://  [/img] [img:left]http://  [/img] [img:left]http://  [/img] [img:left]http://  [/img] [img:left]http://  [/img] [img:left]http://  [/img] [img:left]http://  [/img]
Last edited by BALTDBL; 04/23/11 11:01 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,457 Likes: 335
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,457 Likes: 335 |
Mike, take a look at Patent 46054, which is the patent marked Jan 24, 1865, on the underside of the barrels. This patent is for an improved method for making muzzleloaders into breechloaders. The patent drawings [Sneider's patent] are extremely similar to what we see in the pictures where a British proofed muzzleloading gun was converted to a breechloader.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 68
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 68 |
Interesting...thanks Daryl...can you post a photo of that drawing? Jeff
Last edited by BALTDBL; 04/23/11 11:19 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,457 Likes: 335
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,457 Likes: 335 |
Jeff, just go to google Patents and type in the number for the search. It'll pop up and you can copy it. Daryl
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 68
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 68 |
Thanks Daryl....that is great...I appreciate all your help and input. Neat stuff. Jeff
Last edited by BALTDBL; 04/23/11 12:09 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 68
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 68 |
[img:left]http://  [/img] [img:left]http://  [/img] [img:left]http://  [/img] [img:left]http://  [/img] [img:left]http://  [/img] [img:left]http://  [/img]
Last edited by BALTDBL; 04/23/11 10:31 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 580
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 580 |
If this is indeed a conversion from a muzzle loader why did the muzzle loader have barrel flats?
I have a Barber and Lefever conversion that looks very similar with English proof marks on the barrel flats. It was recently restored by Buck Hamlin. He explained to me that it was not likely to have been a conversion from a muzzle loader, because muzzle loaders don't have flats. He tought that it was a redone breech loader. That could have been due to a loose or broken frame on the original. Buck claims thats not all that unusual in that the very early breech loaders were not all built as well as the Sneider or Lefever conversions.
|
|
|
|
|
