|
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
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,527
Posts545,844
Members14,420
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,273 Likes: 205
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,273 Likes: 205 |
Montana, I guess the proofs could be 1855-75, so not alot of help there. The locks, if original, are later than 1865 or so.
Given the Birmingham address on the rib, I assume the gun was not marketed in the U S with only the Henry Buckley name being the U S part. I have looked at a few Mullins since your post and don't see any John or Patrick Mullin guns, muzzle or breechloaders, that are "carved" in this style. I would love to have Bill McPhail chime in.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,156
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,156 |
Correct. After seeing your later photo with the barrel, none that I find are as ornate. That circle in the bridle (that large a circle in the bridle I should say) has got to be unique. All we've done I think is date the gun as you suggest.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,156
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,156 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,156
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,156 |
Well, it seems that Samuel Buckley & Co. were made by I. Hollis and Son from 1862 to 1900. Source says these where sold by J. Palmer O'Neill & Co. and by H&D Folsom Arms Co. in the 1880's. This from someone named Donald Buckley in 2002 through Ron Gabel's site, GabelGuns.com
Hmmm, interesting, in that if Buckley was in BSA, so were Hollis and so was Charles Playfair. I'll have to see where my Playfair rebounding hammer gun is and take a look at the lines of the gun. I don't think that is what the Buckley gun reminds me of but at least it's a place to start. Hollis at least did market guns in the US around this period and did make guns for the trade right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,417
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,417 |
I believe that it is an early conversion from percussion.
George Lander
To see my guns go to www.mylandco.com Select "SPORTING GUNS " My E-Mail palmettotreasure@aol.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 973
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 973 |
Daryl,
Wow! What a beauty. The skeleton and hammers are exquisite.
Ross
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,273 Likes: 205
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,273 Likes: 205 |
George L., what is it that you see that makes you think the gun is a conversion ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,156
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,156 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 158
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 158 |
Am really enjoying this thread 'cause I have a Buckley Cape gun I've wanted to learn more about.
Mine's a back action rebounding hammer gun with Jones underlever, marked "Sam'l Buckley & Co. - Birmingham" on locks and top ribs. Has two sets of Damascus barrels, one 14b/14b, the other 14b/.45-70. The latter set has a standing sight and five folding leaves for 100/200/300/400/500 yards.
It doesn't appear to be as high grade a gun as Daryl's, but is obviously well made, and quite accurate. Since one barrel is marked "Not for Ball" it dates 1875-1887. I'm especially interested that it's chambered for .45-70; an English gun of that date with that chambering must have been made for the American market, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
R - is it originally stamped "45-70?" Or, is that what it measures?
|
|
|
|
|
