That is not a re-stock, but rather the standard layered cheek treatment and checkering pattern given the Grade C Baltimore gun. The stock work and checkering work done to/on highest grade Baltimore Arms guns was superb; and especially so of the Grade D gun. As to the mechanical design of the gun itself, not being a great student of the Lefever gun I can't speak to how the Baltimore design might compare to a Dan Lefever design; but in my opinion, the Baltimore gun has more in common with Hollenbeck's earlier Syracuse gun design (those SAC models with George Horne's patented sliding cocking plate) that any other period gun I've seen. Both gun have the sears and hammer/cocking rod units mounted on pins in virtually the same locations on the frame, both have hammers powered by two large "V" springs held in place by a false bottom plate; and the cocking rods are controlled by a spring loaded sliding pin located in the barrel lug that activates/deactivates the moveable cocking plate whenever the fore iron is attached or removed from the gun as the case may be (1903 and later SAC guns have the sliding cocking plate, but for all I know, Horne got his idea for the SAC gun from Hollenbeck's Baltimore gun introduced in 1900). The biggest differences I see between these two designs is that the Baltimore features a standard 3/8" wide barrel lug, as opposed to SAC's 5/8" wide lug; and the top bolt bite. I've owned and/or handled, loved and studied every known grade and gauge of the SAC gun while I've owned only one example of the much rarer Baltimore gun (the Grade C referenced earlier). The Grade C Baltimore I own, in spite of it's chopped barrels, is a beautifully made and fitted gun; and certainly worthy of restoration (but I would surely love to own a Grade D Baltimore!).
Last edited by topgun; 03/10/15 09:37 PM.
