On the subject of 1860's construction differences between pin-fires and Central-Fire guns, this observation from the Reilly line might be apt here. The working assumption was that certain gun types indicated pin-fire altered to C-F - narrow fences, etc. But not so:

Chapter VIII. 1860 – 1867: 58. 1863-1873: Pin-Fire vs Center Fire
The chapter has been edited to include observations on two styles of center-break, Central Fire rifles and shotguns being offered in the 1865-1869 time period,
-- Thin fence, noseless hammer guns which copied pin-fire type actions, which was widely used 1865-1870
-- Broader and deeper fences with a back splash guard and normal hammer, which became ubiquitous from 1870 - 1930
. . . . . .based on the following line:
https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=645601#Post645601

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

Attempt at understanding the relationship between "Central Fire" guns from 1865 and their pin-fire precedents began with this misunderstanding. I looked at the Dickson and immediately said, "converted pin-fire." The Dickson records say otherwise. It stuck in the mind and this germinated into the above understanding:

https://doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=635255
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

This gun, 14983 owned by 12boreman, is the first gun with 2 rue Scribe on the rib (February-March 1868). It is clearly a converted pin-fire (even though those are some pretty robust fences), which has raised some questions about the dating chart. The first four or five extant Reilly guns with rue scribe on the ribs are all converted pin-fires. Would Reilly have re-engraved the ribs when he converted them? Reviewing the continuity of the script engraving and the cost involved, probably unlikely but something to be kept in mind:
[Linked Image from jpgbox.com]

Last edited by Argo44; 10/23/24 08:41 PM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch