“…UNTIL CHECKED BY A COMPETENT GUNSMITH”

[Don Kenna]

I feel rather like the Western "B" movie character raising his hat on a stick to see what happens.  In reality, I'm looking for ideas for an article I'd like to write.  So here goes—

The topic of whether or not to shoot an antique or early vintage firearm has arisen before in this forum.  I've really no interest in reopening that "yes or no" argument.  Most of us have strong and probably immutable opinions on that matter.

Among those of us who enjoy shooting old firearms, I think we are all agreed that we ought to so with some caution.  We first have to convince ourselves that the weapon is in sound condition.  While perusing the back pages of another forum, I happened upon a discussion of this matter.  One poster suggested the owner of the antique revolver in question have a gunsmith look the weapon over.  Another poster countered that bringing it to most so-called gunsmiths would only elicit "bluster and BS," or something to that effect, and gave some advice about what to check on an old percussion revolver before even contemplating shooting it.  I tried and failed to find the post again, but it certainly struck a chord for me.

As long as I can remember, modern writers on the subject of old firearms have always advised us that such guns shouldn't be fired "until they have been checked by a competent gunsmith."  Such entirely rational cautionary advice has led to countless exchanges that sounded like something out of a Marx Brothers comedy:  "With that old thing?  No, it ain't safe!  You'll blow your head off!"  Having been the recipient of such expert advice as a teenager in western New York state, after two or three episodes of the sort, even a dull and callow youth such as I came to the realization that the local gunsmiths whose advice I'd solicited had great expertise in replacing broken springs in abused pump shotguns and very little else.  Then or now, hand such a person a "Trapdoor" Springfield, Remington "Rolling Block," or 1st generation Colt Single Action Army, and about all they really know is that it's "old gun," of which fact they will inform you in no uncertain terms (as if you didn't know that better than they already).   Despite their ignorance, all too many are quick to pronounce it unsafe to shoot.

I do realize that occasionally someone shoots an antique firearm that has been damaged beyond repair, that should not be fired, and it blows up.  In nearly half a century of being around others shooting antique firearms, only once have I been present when one blew up.  I did not see it happen, but I was in the vicinity, and yes, the shooter was injured.  From all reports, the rifle in question was already damaged, and was being fired with improper ammunition as well.  A bad incident to be sure, but that was one incident among hundreds of people firing antique firearms.  Other than that, I've seen another very few instances where nothing happened at the time, but I envisioned an eventual ruined gun or mishap.  In the end, the vast majority of antique firearm shooting I've been around or actively involved in has proven entirely safe.

I find it amusing when one gun writer, for whom I have a great deal of respect, addresses the problem by frequently stating in bold capital letters in his numerous publications that "NO [ANTIQUE FIREARM] SHOULD EVER BE FIRED UNLESS IT IS FIRST EXAMINED BY A GUNSMITH KNOWLEDGEABLE IN ANTIQUE FIREARMS."  Good idea.  Now where are we to find this happy sage gunsmith?

My point here is that gunsmiths competent to judge the safety of antique firearms seem in rather short supply.   They do exist, but I think they are few.  Perhaps we, as shooters, must become sufficiently knowledgeable about whatever antique firearm we're contemplating shooting to be our own judges.

Your thoughts?

Don

[Bibbyman]

I own and shoot a lot of old guns.  My oldest is a 68 model Trapdoor Springfield but have many others of the black powder era.  I rely on my oun reserch, experience and testing to determine if the gun is safe to shoot and with what ammunition - typically the ammunition it was designed for. As you pointed out, finding a gunsmith with the right experience to pass judgment on an old gun is difficult.  Researching the Internet results in a hailstorm of options that end up in a riot. 

From a liability standpoint,  you're not likely to ever get a qualified professional gunsmith to pass an antique gun for shooting.   The one gun I recently took past a professional gunsmith told me flat out he could not recommended shooting the old double barrel shotgun I'd brought in.  He did hold the gun during the half-hour conversation where he told me a lot about the gun that I already knew and some things I didn't know. At the end he said, "As a professional gunsmith running a business,  I can't recommend shooting this gun."  Then he grinned and added, "But if it were my gun, I'd shoot it with light black powder loads and not be worried at all.".  He said he could test it, test fire it and still he'd have no control over how I would load and shoot it. 

[Roosterman]

I'm thinking if you don't know wether or not your gun is safe to shoot or not you probably should shoot it.  Some people just shouldn't shoot old guns because they know so little about them. On the other hand there are many folks that own and shoot old guns because they are  smart enough to know what is safe and what isn't. I have some old guns I shoot. A S X S flint shotgun made in 1810 that is one helluva good shooting gun, used to have a 1826 India pattern bess I shot alot. Also have a S X S shot gun that started out as a pin fire then was converted to center fire that I used all the time for cowboy shooting.
All that being said I never tell somebody else if their gun is safe to shoot or not, I figure they ought to make that choice themselves.
If you're destined to die getting your head blown off by an old gun, God will surely lead you to that gun......
I had a cowboy shooter hand me his stoager coach gun one day so I could shoot it. I shouldered it and it popped open. He told me you kinda had to "hold it closed" while you shot it. ......I passed on shooting that one. Just goes to show you, a gun doesn't have to be old to be unsafe to shoot, and some people shouldn't be left responsible for determining safety of ANY gun.

[Coffinmaker]

Before I retired, I was not a lifetime "Gunsmith."  I learned the trade after completing a prior career.  But I do have some opinions about this "question."  First, a very important caveat.  There are no licensing requirements for gunsmithing.  None.  Nada.  Fred, who lives down the street from Arnold, who told Phil, hangs out a shingle and calls himself a "Gunsmith."  No school, no apprenticeship, no training, just learned to take a Mauser '98 apart and now calls himself "Gunsmith."  Think He's competent??  When you engage a Gunsmith to work on your firearm, or render an opinion, the person may not know the difference between rolled steel and rolled oats.  Most of the Gunsmiths who had personal knowledge of most of the Antique/Old guns, the truly old ones ...... are dead.  The new breed may have never seen what your are asking questions about.
I have often heard ..... "I had it proofed."  Means it survived a gross overload ...... once.  Does not guarantee the arm is serviceable into the future.  It may well catastrophically fail the nest time it's fired.  Especially true of Damascus Shotguns.  Then there is the "ring" test.  Hit it and see how it sounds.  Liberty bell was fine ..... till it wasn't.
If your bound a determined to shoot really old/antique firearms, try and remember, those "old" guns were never designed with the pressure curves, pressure levels or pressure spikes generated by smokeless powder.  Not even light loads.  Here, I speak primarily about shotguns.  The only acceptable test method is "Non-Destructive Inspection."  Magna flux, and that isn't fool proof.
Cartridge rifles and handguns are a hearse of a different color.  Hope you can find proof marks and an indication of the year is was manufactured.  If it's an original Colt, with an iron cylinder, smokeless is real dumb.  Many of the old Bolt Action and Lever Guns were
intended for BP and the steel is questionable.  Will they hold together??  Your guess is as good as mine.
What ever is it, shotgun, Rifle, Revolver, Pistol ....... get a schematic and take it apart.  Look for signs of wear in the locking surfaces, obvious cracks (a drop of light oil will show up cracks).  Check the head space.  If any of those things aren't right, put it on the wall. 
Also helps to remember that Damascus barrels may well have been quietly rusting in the weld (not really welded) seams for well over a hundred years.  Your hands.  Your call.
Personally, other than advising EXTREME caution with Damascus (have them tubed), I hesitate to render a go, no-go unless the wear, cracks, obvious run away signs are real obvious.  I don't have the sophisticated test equipment.
Not my Circus, Not my Monkeys.  If the little voices in the back of your head say ..... "uh maybe not a good idea", walk away.

Coffinmaker

[Bibbyman]

Well said Coffinmaker, 

I had an FFL for some 10 years and did general gunsmith work to the extent of my equipment and skill.   I did a lot of stock work, scope and sight mounting,  general repairs and customizing.  I even did a couple of rebarreling jobs with help of machinist.  I would have been happy to get professional training and had a well equipped shop but it just didn't happen.  The Carter administration turned the BATF into an organization bent on persecution of FFL holders.  Rather than fight keeping up with changing regulations, I gave up my license.  Would that make me a gunsmith?   By law I was practicing the gunsmith traid.

The gunsmith I mentioned above was professionally trained and worked in a large gunshop until striking out on his own.  He displays considerable knowledge when it comes to old guns.  His business includes some rental sales of guns and ammo.  He has a number of old hammer double barrel shotguns in his for sale racks and displayed on the wall. 

We talked about proof testing and the theory that  proof testing to new industry standards may actually introduced a flaw that may later fail.

[rifle]

I look at it this way......life is a gamble and if yer going to gamble do it the right way and play Russian Rolette.

Metal has fatique after so many years. Can't see it or even Magna Flux it to find it.

You have to know about the gun and whether it was made fer the black or the smokeless and even if made fer smokeless maybe black is better fer it.

Safe guards can be used. Have a modern steel cylinder fitted fer an old Colt revolver. Tubes fer an old shotgun ect.ect. New barrel antiqued mounted to an old muzzleloader rifle. Stuff like that. Safe guards. Yoiu only have one head and one set of eyes and one life and only so many fingers and arms. It's not worth the gamble to fire an old gun that may blow.

Tighten the bite to an old double shotgun and make sure the action closes snug. Never load and fire (blackpowder only) an old Damascus barreled shotgun if there are any pits or rings in the barrels. Only "prime" lookin barrels and after they have been tested with loads a little hotter than normal. NOT great overloads. Slightly hotter than normal and a good number of them. A safe test like the shotgun tied to an old tire and fired with a string from behind something safe. Fired a lot of times. Checking it as the test goes along. I tested some guns I tightened up but had bad barrels full of bad rust pits and ...never blew. Went on to be wall hagers though. Wall hangers that can shoot are betrter then the ones that can't shoot even if no one will ever shoot them. They can say...it shoots!


I have three antique doubles I shoot some. I know it's a gamble but I've tested them with normal loads in a safe test. They are inspected and are tight and have prime barrels. Never rusted in or out anywhere. One a Remington double and the other an Ithaca double with the "cannon breech" as they called it fer being thick at the breech. One of the very first they made fer cartridge.

One an old but not as old double made with FN parts in Russia. Made in the smokeless area. I use black powder loads in it even if it is a smokeless powder gun. Made after WW1 when FN made the whole shotguns after they had always just made and sold parts to smaller makers of double shotguns.

Anyway using safe guards like new made parts where the "blow up" will occur is the only way to go and feel relatively safe with an old rrifle or shotgun or revolver.  New cylinder fer the cap&ball or smokeless revolver,new barrels or tubes fer the old shotgun and new barrel to an old rifle but....the old reciever of the rifle may not be a good gamble.

"A lot depends on how old the old gun is" and how much wear or shootin was done with it and what kind of maintainance it shows it had. An 1886 Winchester or Marlin lever gun made as strong as they were are alright to shoot if not all worn loose and head space like a truck can drive around in. An old Colt cap&baller revolver in prime shape may not be shootable because of the age and the metal fatique thing. Put a new made cylinder in it considering the way the cylinders take all the force because of not bored thru is a safe gamble.

So....a competent gunsmith may know when to restore or not because of the design of the gun. Like an old double shotgun with new barrels may be a good bet since the reciever is so strong to begin with and if magna fluxed and all.....the competent gunsmith may restore.

I say a competent gunsmith would know not to check or inspect for safety and confirm alright to shoot because of liability but may restore for safety if....the customer signs a waver to release the smith from liability and signed in front of a Notary .

Logically speaking it's not worth the gamble to fire a gun that is really old. Old but not really old is a better gamble once the gun is tested and inspected all. They say....safety first when it comes to guns. Old guns are not really safe so.....you decide. Modern made replicas are safe.

People shoot old guns all the time and get away unscathed. Some get injured.The injuries aren't noted as often as the "successes" are.

I've worked old muzzleloaders fer friends/people that become friends. They wanted some old rifle they been shootin already checked out. How often did I take the time to work an old breech plug out of an old muzzleloader barrel only to find that before the loosening of the breech plug the only thing holding the breech plug in was the corrosion. A new barrel and breech plug antiqued to look old was needed.

I guess the only good gamble is to not shoot a really old gun and the next best thing is to shoot an old gun that has been restored by a "Competent Gunsmith". A competent gunsmith can make a cylinder fer a revolver. Magna flux a frame or set a new barrel to an old rifle or shotgun.

One thing that has always bothered me.....people shooting old Trapdoors that were made to shoot the black powder but people use smokeless in them.  Breaks a cardinal rule. Even find smokeless loads for them in loading manuals. Freaky. 

Anywhooo....there is no set rule about shooting old guns except if it is..."never shoot a really old gun unless restored and inspected by a competent gunsmith" is it.

If I inspect an old gun fer safety to shoot I don't go beyond my own capabilities or knowledge but I can have enough sense to know where my capabilities end and more knowledge and experience is needed from somewhere.

[Blair]

I look at it this way.

The item is yours. The responsibility for shooting it is also yours and yours alone!
If you don't know if it is safe to shoot, then the responsibility to find out through research and individual evaluation is also yours and yours alone.
If you can not evaluate this for yourself... then don't buy it! and/or don't shoot it!
My best,
Blair

[Bibbyman]

Then there are guns made after 1900 that are made for smokeless loads but not for modern smokeless loads.  A lot of early shotguns could have chambers for shorter shells that were roll crimped.  They will chamber and fire modern star crimped loads but the star opens up in the short forcing cone.  Then people compound the danger by firing heavy modern loads.  Chamber length are not always marked on these early guns. Sometimes even the gauge is not marked.

Then there are the typically military surplus bolt action rifles.  Almost,  if not all, had a run that is of lower quality and strength than the rest.  As the war effort became desperate,  most countries produced inferior quality guns often with imprisoned labor.  They were probably unsafe with the military loads of the day but definitely unsafe to fire ammunition loaded to modern bolt action levels. 

Also, even modern guns of good quality have blown up.  A barrel obstruction,  double charge,  wrong powder,  mechanical failure, not age is the cause.  A guy once asked me to fix the trigger and hammer on his RG 22.  They were damaged by fanning the gun.  But the front of cylinder (aluminum with steel inserts) was deeply eroded from gas from cylinder gap.  Some of the inserts were cracked and the cylinder pin had been replaced by a wooden stick!  Old? No.  Unsafe to shoot? Yes.

[Roosterman]

Ok, I'm scared now. Anybody want a bunch of old guns cheap?

[wildman1]

I'll takem.  wM1

[Don Kenna]

Thanks to all of those who replied.  You've given me quite a few ideas to address.  Some of you spent more time in answering than I did in formulating my rambling request.  While I was certainly previously aware of it, you've convinced me that the issue of gunsmith liability ought to receive more attention on my part.

I do have several antique Remington "Rolling Block" rifles, both military and original #1 sporting types.  I also have both Model 1868 .50/70 and Model 1873 .45/70 Springfield "Trapdoor" rifles, a Sharps Model 1868 conversion carbine, and a "Damascus"-barreled  Remington Model 1889 shotgun.  I shoot all of them with black powder loads, mostly just for fun.  When involved in serious black powder cartridge rifle competition, I primarily shoot high-end reproduction Sharps Model 1874 rifles.  The only weapon approaching antique status that I use in any sort of competition is a 1905-vintage Winchester Model 1894 rifle in .38/55, fired in side matches with very moderate smokeless powder loads. (I may switch to black powder in that one as well.)

I've owned all of the above for some time now, and have never had a hint of a problem with firing any of them.  I suppose my philosophy concerning such arms is that, given their age and value, is that they be granted honored semi-retirement and only relatively lightly used.  Assuming the use of proper ammunition and appropriate care, I don't believe firing them occasionally does any harm, nor is it likely to present any danger to the shooter.  But at the end of the day, as several of you emphasized, it's ultimately the owner's responsibility to determine such old weapons' safety.

It is amusing, though, that with some frequency on local ranges, people who don't know me provide unsolicited warnings about the foolhardiness of shooting such old firearms.  (I think age must have made me at least look senile.)  Such warnings, after going unheeded by me, are often followed by expressions of disgust at my production of black powder smoke.  I think that has been addressed in another thread, hasn't it?

Don