Build this..............
[hmm] The rifle or the display case??? I'm guessing the case.
back in the late 80`s i came across a rifle like the one in the case . thing was beautiful . almost bought it , but something told me to check it over real good . the rifling only went down the barrel a couple of inches , and when I removed the nipple there was no hole connecting it with the interior of the barrel . the main spring in the lock was like that on the toy rifles they sell to tourists for their kids up at gettysburg . wish it had been real, the price was $600 , told the dealer he was nuts ! lol he was selling it for the owner , and apparently neither knew it was a non firing copy . so I assume you mean the case . , if you mean the rifle , post pics if you ever do it ! lots of pics ! would love to see a real one done ! those cases are`nt difficult , and they do look good ! we`ll want photos on that too thmbsup
I'm not a knowledgable Crocket person--but I find it sort a hard to believe he had a capper....In a museum in Tennesse somewhere theres a Crocket rifle not been out state since 1806 I believe....1836 kind a early for a perc. gun to be in Texas ? Come in Davy people ??????....Tom
" OLD BETSY" .40 caliber flintlock Lawrence County, Tennessee [conf]
When Crockett left for Texas he left that rifle and two others with his oldest son john. That rifle is a copy of the rifle given him in 1822 in Tenn. from the local wigs. It was at that time a full stock .32 cal flintlock. Thru the years it went thru some changes. The real one had been on display at the Alamo for years. The one in the case is a copy of it. I spent many hours sketching the details of the inlays. The size and basic shape are what traditions built their Crockett rifle but the went with a wedge key rather than pins. The inlays could be done on the traditions rifle but would look odd with the wedge
If I build it, it will definitely go BANG!!! Lol
The inlays are a bit odd as they are a mix match of brass and silver. The patch box has been dot I graced with the likeness of David himself which was added much later in the rifles history
Its the one on the bottom.
that would be one cool project for sure thmbsup . did a little research , the "rifle" i saw was made by the franklin mint . basically an overpriced toy . but danged good looking overpriced toy ! ;D
Here is the original. on the otherside of the rifle is a silver fish inlay on the cheek, a silver star again in the wrist. The brass plate is engraved with the date and name and the two silver moons match the lock side of the rifle.
The franklin mint copy is as close as anyone has actually copied it, traditions only went so far in their efforts, its still a fine rifle built for the masses. If I could get a stock maker that could duplicate the traditions stock with out inletting the wedge channel that would be a perfect start to it all.
Although since they claim its a J. Dickert, I could start with that?
that`s an idea . the only gunsmith I know right off hand who has a stock replicator is a local guy . ken myers . have dealt with him off and on for about 30 years . lives outside of new oxford pa .
Local to you? Hmm,,,,,, I'm getting some ideas here, does he do good work sir?
Check with Track of the Wolf. They have full size plans for several different rifle styles at a real reasonable price. I am sure that some of the other major muzzleloader parts companies also have plans.
Any of the stock suppliers should be able to come up with a pre-carve that has no wedge hole. Look around at Track wolf, Pecatonica & others.
he does beautiful work , but he`s pricy . lol I`d do what gunmaker and hotfoxr suggest first , and if you cant find what you`re looking for , I`ll give you his phone number . pretty sure he still has the replicator .
Quote from: Micanopy on January 18, 2015
Although since they claim its a J. Dickert, I could start with that?
What you will find in the way of "Dickert" precarved stocks are representative of Jacob Dickert's earlier work. He built guns in Lancaster County from the 1760's till his death in 1822. I've seen a couple of signed Dickert guns of his later production that have "roman nose" combs of somewhat the same shape as on this rifle being discussed, but by and large Dickert stuck to the classic Lancaster pattern of a sturdy, straight-combed butt, and it is possible (not proven but very possible) that signed guns of his with the curved comb are later-period restocks, since the barrels are what are signed and restocking is a very old and practical way of re-using good parts off an otherwise broken or worn-out gun. For something more similar to what you have in mind, a stock with the roman-nose profile would be the thing. It wouldn't have to be a specific "Lancaster" pattern since the rifle we're discussing really doesn't follow Lancaster styling as was most common prior to the 1820's or even 1830's.
BTW, the mixture of brass and silver inlays was quite common, particularly on guns with a fair number of inlays.
Cappers were in common usage in the eastern United States by the 1820's, and a gift gun presented by a group to a celebrity (which was what Crockett in many ways was) might very well have been ordered with what was then the state-of-the-art ignition system. Though Crockett was a frontiersman, particularly in his younger years, by this point in his life he would seldom have been so far out on the fringe of things that cap supply would have seemed much of a potential problem. He might have personally preferred flinters just on the basis of familiarity, but on a gift gun I doubt he would have turned his nose up at one of the newfangled capguns. It might never have been his primary rifle of choice but he would certainly have appreciated it both as a gift and as a cool new toy to try out.
I read somewhere that the good folks that got the gun for Crocket paid the princely sum of 250.00 for said rifle. That would have been some serious moolah back then.
Thanks Mong, great information. I think we should go for it.
I like this stock for starters;
http://www.trackofthewolf.com/Categories/PartDetail.aspx/900/1/STK-JVI
Indeed mongrel, Crockett was a "Screamer" in his time. Kinda of like a rock star is now. Facinating individual, even if couldnt catch a canon ball, or spell... so we have a lot in common...
Digging thru some old boxes I found a complete CVA lock for a kentucky or something along those lines. Now I need a stock and barrel to get started on.......
walnut 1/2 stock cut for 15/16 bbl. and nothing else on ebay right now.. If you want to make your own from a block this guy has 30,000 yes 30,000 blanks in stock--I've been in his warehouse--but didn't count 'em, walnut starts at 30 bucks 1/2 stock and goes to 4-5 thousand. Cecil has wood....www.gunstockslasvegas.com Tom
aint got no where near that kinda talent.... lol! I'll leave that to you guys!
Found this in a box in the work shop, its close enough.........
I have found in my research about this rifle that is really interesting. I found a copy of a letter written in 1910 from a man that owned the rifle to a relative of Crocketts. In the letter he explains what the original configuration of the rifle was and how in 1887 it came to be what it is today. He explains that the rifle was so badly rusted that he cut off both ends of the barrel, replaced the breach with a patten percussion breach and lock, restocked it with American walnut, used all the original fixtures, etc., I'll be posting a copy of the letter in the historical documents section. It did start out as a very long rifle built by a Jas M. Graham, which I'll have to research some more on.
I found him, James M. Graham,,
http://contemporarymakers.blogspot.com/2013/05/james-m-graham-gunsmith.html, now the mystry remains, was it restocked or did he maintain the original wood chopped to a half stock? [hmm]
As I read the article and particularly the quote from W.H. Barnett (or Barnet or Barrett, his name is given all three ways in just two paragraphs), he was the owner of the rifle who in 1886 "renovated" it to halfstock configuration. In the second paragraph of the article it is stated that the original gun was fullstocked in walnut, with extensive silver inlays and the patchbox seen on the halfstock. In his description of the work he did to salvage the gun, Mr. Barnett indicates he modified the original stock to its present configuration, and the same is stated in no uncertain terms by the writer of the article.
IF this was originally a Dickert rifle, built by Jacob himself, it was one of the very last pieces he ever did, since the article states that the rifle was commissioned in 1822 and presented to Crockett in May of that year. Jacob Dickert died on February 27, 1822. Even if he was in perfect working health up to the moment he passed, that is a very small window of time in which one of the most famous gunsmiths in the United States could have not only accepted a commission for a very fancy, time-consuming rifle to build, but to have completed it before his death.
This time frame isn't necessarily the "kiss of death" it might seem, to the idea that this is a Dickert gun. Jacob Dickert even before 1800 had broken from the mold of the master gunsmith working alone in his tiny shop, assisted only by a handful of fortunate apprentices and perhaps a journeyman or two. Records indicate that Dickert, instead, employed a number of skilled gunsmiths (journeymen) and general shop laborers, fulfilling among other things a number of contracts with the United States Government, and that many "Dickert" rifles and smoothbores were in fact only marked by him -- products of his establishment and meeting his standards of quality and style, but not actually built by his hand. Since the output of smoothbores in particular, from his shop, was in the hundreds, it wouldn't have been humanly possible for the master himself to have single-handedly created each and every firearm that was sold bearing his name. Therefore it's perfectly reasonable to guess that the Crockett rifle was a high-end commission given the Dickert establishment in very early 1822, and that it was completed and presented on-schedule by May of that year, despite Jacob Dickert's death three months earlier. Additionally, since there are at least a couple of surviving Dickert-signed rifles with roman-nose butts, and at the tail-end of his career Jacob Dickert was making a small fortune accommodating customers ranging from individual buyers to the United States Government, it's entirely possible that the Philadelphia-commissioned Crockett rifle was ordered and delivered with a stock of that configuration.
So do you re-create the original rifle as best you can, in fullstock, or the halfstock that originally caught your eye and is the reason for this entire discussion? My guess is you'll want to go with the halfstock, since it's what you like and it's what you have to go by so far as duplicating the rifle. Doing it as a fullstock would involve a lot of guesswork and "maybes" and leave you with a rifle that would always only be what it MIGHT have looked like, originally.
Good read Mongrel, thanks. I would more than likely build it as a copy, or based upon the current status of the rifle. It more than likely wont be an exact copy of the rifle in its current situation as there would still be a lot of guess work however I dont see why it couldnt be built as to near as possible from the photographs and the measurements on the lay out paper. The bright work would be easy enough to copy and set close enough to the original locations on the build. The dimentions might be off a small amount with the items I have or will obtain, but close enough.
As we can see by the photographs and the discription from WHB we know that it has a snail type patent "Britch". Now, I have in possession a .45 cal CVA kentucky barrel that is 33 1/2 inches in length. The measurements in one of the photos, in the historical documents section, give a measurement of 30 1/4 from the muzzle to the breach. Question is, did they measure from the muzzle to the joint, or from the muzzle to the tang? I am thinking its to the breach joint.
So instead of having it a .41 cal, I could rebreach the barrel with a 7/8 snail to have the proper length. fill in the tennon plate dovetails, re dovetail the tennons, and it would work, save it being .45 cal instead of 41.
As you said, it won't be an exact copy----so 1" more or less on bbl. shouldn't be a problem. Breech it with L&R's 7/8" snail and get whittling....Tom
Thanks Tom! I have been looking and looking for a snail type 7/8 breach, never even dawned on my to look at L and R. As I see it they offer 15/16 with various thread sizes. Do you go with a 15/16 and file it down to match the barrel?
A couple of points now that I've re-read past posts and looked again at the pictures of the original.
A CVA lock off a Kentucky model won't work; it won't have a fly in the tumbler, necessary for use with double-set triggers. If you want to use a CVA lock then acquire one off one of the models with double-set triggers. I myself would find one of their "Hawken" model locks, which has a much larger lockplate than the smaller locks off guns like the Kentucky, Bobcat, pistols, etc, and I'd re-shape the plate (plenty of metal to work with) to closer to the shape of the lock on the original rifle. The only quibble I have with the CVA Hawken locks is the size and shape of the hammer -- "awkward" is an understatement.
Since CVA Hawken locks, when available, tend to run at least $50, I'd invest another $40-$45 or so in one of L&R's correctly-styled percussion locks, or the Siler/Chambers Mountain Lock.
In the last picture of the original you posted, I very distinctly see a round drum fitting into a half-round cut-out on the lockplate -- not a larger snail. If the 1880's owner/renovator of the original rifle installed a patent breech, I think it was a flint-style with a drum threaded or cast into the lock-side flat. If you want a hooked breech, Numrich sells a simple hook (part #528480) and a T/C-style hook tang (part #1127210C) that can be re-worked to a shape and length more like the tang on the original gun, which with shipping included will set you back less than $30. Thread a drum directly into the side barrel flat and there you are. Or, as Gunmaker suggested, choose L&R's solid-tang 7/8" snail plug.
If you go with any form of snail you will find the drum cut-out on locks like the CVA's and the Siler/Chambers to be too deep for the snail to fill, not to mention that opening the drum cut-out to accept a snail will, at least on the Siler/Chambers models, compromise the metal of the bolster where it's needed to support the anchoring tab of the lock mainspring. For reasons of expense, ease of assembly, allowing the use of a greater range of available locks, and sticking to what the picture of the original rifle seems to show, I'd go with the Numrich hook and tang, and a screw-in drum, and be done with it.
In response to the question actually directed to Gunmaker, the 7/8" snail plug has a solid tang. If you want a hooked breech with a snail, you'll need to work down a 15/16" model.
Ok, I see what you are saying.
Also Mongrel, I have on hand a second Traditions Crockett Rifle lock, it needs a main spring but otherwise is intact, would that work? It as the hammer twist is in the breach pictured above, which is done on the traditions rifle. But in order to do it right I would be willing to scrimp and save in order to get the right lock to do it. As it is it may take a bit of time before I can obtain everything in proper order.