Punt gun part III
I don't believe it is a punt gun. These were essentiallly oversized shotgun. They ranged from 2 to 8 gauge. The bore diameter of this weapon is about 8 gauge, but the rear sight and the thickness of the barrel indicates is was intend for ball or bullet rather than shot. Heavy, poor quality guns like these were sold to native hunters in Africa.
0
-
quote:Originally posted by joel_black
I don't believe it is a punt gun. These were essentiallly oversized shotgun. They ranged from 2 to 8 gauge. The bore diameter of this weapon is about 8 gauge, but the rear sight and the thickness of the barrel indicates is was intend for ball or bullet rather than shot. Heavy, poor quality guns like these were sold to native hunters in Africa.
All I can say about the above, is that the "Native Hunter" who toted this piece around was one big guy, I sure wouldn't want to mess with him.
0 -
I have been quietly watching with much interest. I too wonder if this is really of 'punt gun' heritage. Joel_black's comment pushed me over the edge for a comment.
Talking with my grandfather, before he died 30 years ago, he spoke about how they used a punt gun attached on the front of his pirogue (coon-ass short canoe). They would quietly paddle or push pole through the swamp, slowly for hours (he said), into groups of ducks well before daylight. When sunrise approached they would bang on the boat, flush the ducks, and touch off the punt gun that was stuffed full or anything metal they could find. From his stories, you had to get in very close to pull it off, because it did not have the range of a 'modern shotgun'. And, if possible, you worked in concert with someone else who was similarly equiped. If you can believe the stories, they usually got their 'limit'.
From a deteriorated one I saw as a teenager, it was of a larger bore and shorter length, and had no stock. The bore also got larger near the end, which I always thought was to help with loading all the metal debris.
Well, whatever the case, It seems likely that nobody carried that piece to shoulder it un-assisted, but it is surely an interesting piece.0 -
In working w/ Craig to post his pictures I got to examine each closely in the original "2400" format and at the end of the whole process I was still confused.
There are contradictions:
1.) The barrel is not rifled ... Rampart or Wall guns were intended for distance shooting and even before the mid-1800's they were rifled.
2.) The stockade pieces that I've seen pictured and described were basically updates to the blunderbus. Large, smooth bore, relatively short in length, and intended to shoot anyting you could stuff in 'em with a miximum dispersion angle.
3.) Guns used for fortification type service had a means of mounting them, be they yoke attachment, spike or ???
4.) Of the "Punt" guns I've seen pictured and described they were long, many just plain huge, smooth bore and many crudly made, but they were not full stocked, and the butt stock generally was truncated on the bottom (probably to better fit the boat????)
5.) Also never seen pictured/described a "Punt" gun with rifle type sights ... no real purpose for 'em
6.) From research, by about 1860 along the North and Eastern Shores, the "Punt" gun had already been outlawed, and this was well before the peak of the "market" hunting in the early 1880's.
Yet what we have is a massive, 7 foot 4 inch overall length, full stocked, smooth bore, with rifle style sights and what appears to be a strap/sling swivel. Essentially a little bit "Rampart" and a little but "Punt", and there are no markings of any kind.
And what about the barrel treatment? Part octagon, part round, and finished in a scalloped pattern which is kinda Spanish or Portugese in style. None of which is all that elegantly executed, but obviously took someone a good bit of time to do. And there is the "grainey" texture to the metal. It looks a little to uniform to be simple pitting ... could this barrel have been cast?
Then there is the matter of the stock apparently being laminated? I don't think this was a common practice in that era, of course this is one big piece so maybe it was necessary to stock it ...
Lastly, there has been the suggestion that it is a display piece intended to identify the makers shop and draw people. But if so, why the attempt at padding the butt end, and why the break in the stock at a point where stocks do sometimes fail under heavy recoil. One of the noted "problems" with backlocks is stock weakness.
Hopefully Craig will follow up with some museums and ultimately unravel the mystery, and I've asked him to please let me know what he finds out. So you can bet if I get more info. either he or I or both will post it.
Any suggestions as to people or institutions that could and would be willing to help with the identification would be much appreciated.
If you only have time to do two things so-so, or one thing well ... do the one thing!0 -
There is always the option of submitting it to American Rifleman.They still have the Question and Answer column, and deal with identifying arms.Don't know the details, just a thought.The contradictions also bother me.In over 40 years of collecting, never seen one quite like this.
Love them Pre-64's!!!!-Bob
For those just reading this...heres the post in question
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1267980 -
Dear folks
I have watched this post with interest and if anyone replied as to the LOP on this weapon, I missed it. I am not abandoning the idea that a gunsmith or gun seller or some other type of businessman could have possibily built or had the gun built for promotional or display purposes. Of course it could have been somewhat functional, like making noise at a festivity. Maybe it was something a town commissioned for celebration purposes? Occasional celebratory use could account for the crack.
It's not every day a post gets all you well qualified experts scratching your heads. I once built a black powder cannon that used golf balls as a projectile. If someone digs it up in 200 years they will probably be scratching their head also!
Worry is the interest humans pay on the debt of miscalculation.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
5 comments