dueling pistols and backup?

greentick · July 24, 2019, 09:10 PM

A non-gun friend from church asked me to help her out. These were purchased "as an investment" by a family member. My gun knowledge starts a loooonnnnggg time after these. What does she have here? I have more pics.

Jim Watson · July 24, 2019, 10:20 PM

Looks like a pair of flintlocks and an unrelated, considerably later and unembellished percussion.

T. O'Heir · July 25, 2019, 12:31 PM

Being a pair of flintlocks doesn't make 'em dueling pistols. Those came in boxes and were literally matched sets.
Nor does 'old' equal 'collector piece'. Copies of flintlock and percussion lock pistols are everywhere. It's entirely possible the percussion "pocket" pistol is more valuable.
Who made 'em and where, matters. (Can't make out the name from your picture.) Isn't really possible to put a value on anything from a picture. She needs an expert.

Jim Watson · July 25, 2019, 01:49 PM

I have to agree with TO for a change. A pair of muzzleloaders is not necessarily a set of duelers, even duelers that have become separated from their case and accessories.

I couldn't read the name, either, but there is hope that they are from a recognized maker.

greentick · July 25, 2019, 06:40 PM

No box. They are both engraved "No. 64" on the trigger guard.

"Johann Adam Mahr" is engraved on the barrel of the "dueling pistols" and "London" on the other pistol.

I couldn't find any other identifying marking otherwise but sometimes it helps to know where to look. Several years ago y'all pointed me in the right direction regarding an old Army pistol in my wife's family, greatly helped.

Thanks for answering guys!

Pahoo · July 25, 2019, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Being a pair of flintlocks doesn't male 'em dueling pistols. Those came in boxes and were literally matched sets.

We can't arbitrarily assume that they are not dueling pistols. I see properties that do point to them being a set of dueling pistols. Yes, dueling pistols did come in a box with accessories but for one reason or another, they got separated. At any rate there is more information that is needed. I would date these somewhere in the mid to late 1700's. …..

Look in the bore and tell me if you see any rifling. Also the presents or absents of sights. Send us more pictures. …..

Be Safe !!!

mapsjanhere · July 25, 2019, 08:11 PM

Stoeckel has a Johann Adam Marr in Dresden 1710 - 1720, would fit the style. Is there no monogram on the thumb shield?

T. O'Heir · July 26, 2019, 12:38 PM

"...them being a set..." Doesn't make 'em duelers either. No assumptions involved. Flinters often came in pairs without being duelers. Gave a guy 2 quick shots.
The flintlock duelers I've seen(almost bought a set of for no apparent reason other than being newly commissioned years ago.) had front and rear sights too.
"...where to look..." Under the stock for proof marks.
I wonder if Herr Mahr is the same guy as Mr. Marr but working in London. Anglicizing spelling of names is a fairly common thing.

greentick · July 28, 2019, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Look in the bore and tell me if you see any rifling. Also the presents or absents of sights. Send us more pictures

Quote:

Stoeckel has a Johann Adam Marr in Dresden 1710 - 1720, would fit the style. Is there no monogram on the thumb shield?

No sights on the duelers. There are sights on the "percussion."

Working this Sunday so won't be able to get new specific pics. I do have other pics but I just grabbed a few, not knowing what to look for. I'll try to get some others up. Thanks for the pointers...well out of my zone of knowledge.

greentick · July 28, 2019, 09:29 AM

Some more pics of the "percussion"

greentick · July 28, 2019, 09:30 AM

Some more pics of the "dueling pistols"

Pahoo · July 28, 2019, 08:09 PM

Quote:

No sights on the duelers.

Duelers generally did not have sights or rifling. Just didn't need that, !!!

That pair is gorgeous. Would have loved to seen the accessory case. I have a theory on these and going to wait got more replies before I share it with you. If you are looking for value on these, look into some of the on-line auction houses. ……

Be Safe !!!

Jim Watson · July 29, 2019, 10:22 AM

Real duelers seldom had all the brightwork of this pair; browned or blacked iron furniture, not shiny brass that might glint in your eye in the dawn light.
I think we are seeing a travel set of coach defense pistols.

Target sights were deprecated, you were not supposed to take murderous aim at your opponent.
Rifling was disallowed by the Clonmel Code, but there are pistols out there with "invisible rifling" that does not carry all the way to the muzzle.
Likewise "hair triggers" (single set) were also considered unsporting.
And the maximum caliber was .50; give the loser a chance of recovery.
The famous Hamilton-Burr Wodgdon pair broke most of these conventions, nice crisp sights for the aim, foreend weight for steadiness, set trigger to break the shot, .54 caliber to blow out your liver. I can't find if they were rifled.

**44 AMP** · July 29, 2019, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Duelers generally did not have sights or rifling. Just didn't need that, !!!

Right, no need for accuracy at 20 paces, it was a matter of honor!!

except, when it wasn't!

It's been many years (and pre-internet) so I can't cite the source, but I remember reading an article where the author, somehow, got permission to do shooting tests with an actual, verified pair of Jeffersonian era dueling pistols.

As I recall, they were neither overly fancy nor "tactical" muted, just a set of regular period pieces in the usual style case with the accessories.

I don't remember if they had sights, I think there might have been a tiny "bump" to use as a front sight, nothing for a rear, but can't swear to it.

Now, here's the ..um...interesting thing...

They fired both pistols several times. They both proved to be very accurate, repeated putting all the balls in a group about the size of the palm of one's hand at the double 10 paces distance.

All shots from BOTH pistols went to the same place. Almost precisely ONE FOOT TO THE LEFT of the point of aim!!!

One would assume the owner would know this, but his opponent would not.

A matter of HONOR, indeed!!

greentick · July 29, 2019, 12:05 PM

Excellent History lessons gentlemen!

greentick · July 29, 2019, 12:15 PM

Jim,

You actually helped me out with another several years ago.

Jim Watson · July 29, 2019, 12:47 PM

I hope these turn out to be as interesting as the Family American.
Did you get any more information about that one?

greentick · July 29, 2019, 01:46 PM

No more than posted in the thread over at S&W forums. It's not been fired since and my F-I-L hasn't found the video of the last time it was.

July 25, 2019, 12:31 PM	#3
T. O'Heir Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 12,453	Being a pair of flintlocks doesn't make 'em dueling pistols. Those came in boxes and were literally matched sets. Nor does 'old' equal 'collector piece'. Copies of flintlock and percussion lock pistols are everywhere. It's entirely possible the percussion "pocket" pistol is more valuable. Who made 'em and where, matters. (Can't make out the name from your picture.) Isn't really possible to put a value on anything from a picture. She needs an expert. __________________ Spelling and grammar count! Last edited by T. O'Heir; July 26, 2019 at 12:28 PM.

July 25, 2019, 06:40 PM	#5
greentick Senior Member Join Date: January 15, 2011 Location: Deep South Posts: 261	No box. They are both engraved "No. 64" on the trigger guard. "Johann Adam Mahr" is engraved on the barrel of the "dueling pistols" and "London" on the other pistol. I couldn't find any other identifying marking otherwise but sometimes it helps to know where to look. Several years ago y'all pointed me in the right direction regarding an old Army pistol in my wife's family, greatly helped. Thanks for answering guys! __________________ nous défions

July 25, 2019, 08:11 PM	#7
mapsjanhere Senior Member Join Date: August 6, 2009 Location: Albuquerque Posts: 2,832	Stoeckel has a Johann Adam Marr in Dresden 1710 - 1720, would fit the style. Is there no monogram on the thumb shield? __________________ I used to love being able to hit hard at 1000 yards. As I get older I find hitting a mini ram at 200 yards with the 22 oddly more satisfying.

July 26, 2019, 12:38 PM	#8
T. O'Heir Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 12,453	"...them being a set..." Doesn't make 'em duelers either. No assumptions involved. Flinters often came in pairs without being duelers. Gave a guy 2 quick shots. The flintlock duelers I've seen(almost bought a set of for no apparent reason other than being newly commissioned years ago.) had front and rear sights too. "...where to look..." Under the stock for proof marks. I wonder if Herr Mahr is the same guy as Mr. Marr but working in London. Anglicizing spelling of names is a fairly common thing. __________________ Spelling and grammar count!

July 29, 2019, 12:05 PM	#15
greentick Senior Member Join Date: January 15, 2011 Location: Deep South Posts: 261	Excellent History lessons gentlemen! __________________ nous défions

July 24, 2019, 10:20 PM	#2
Jim Watson Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 18,541	Looks like a pair of flintlocks and an unrelated, considerably later and unembellished percussion.

July 25, 2019, 01:49 PM	#4
Jim Watson Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 18,541	I have to agree with TO for a change. A pair of muzzleloaders is not necessarily a set of duelers, even duelers that have become separated from their case and accessories. I couldn't read the name, either, but there is hope that they are from a recognized maker.

July 29, 2019, 10:22 AM	#13
Jim Watson Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 18,541	Real duelers seldom had all the brightwork of this pair; browned or blacked iron furniture, not shiny brass that might glint in your eye in the dawn light. I think we are seeing a travel set of coach defense pistols. Target sights were deprecated, you were not supposed to take murderous aim at your opponent. Rifling was disallowed by the Clonmel Code, but there are pistols out there with "invisible rifling" that does not carry all the way to the muzzle. Likewise "hair triggers" (single set) were also considered unsporting. And the maximum caliber was .50; give the loser a chance of recovery. The famous Hamilton-Burr Wodgdon pair broke most of these conventions, nice crisp sights for the aim, foreend weight for steadiness, set trigger to break the shot, .54 caliber to blow out your liver. I can't find if they were rifled.

July 29, 2019, 12:15 PM	#16
greentick Senior Member Join Date: January 15, 2011 Location: Deep South Posts: 261	Jim, You actually helped me out with another several years ago. __________________ nous défions

July 29, 2019, 12:47 PM	#17
Jim Watson Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 18,541	I hope these turn out to be as interesting as the Family American. Did you get any more information about that one?

July 29, 2019, 01:46 PM	#18
greentick Senior Member Join Date: January 15, 2011 Location: Deep South Posts: 261	No more than posted in the thread over at S&W forums. It's not been fired since and my F-I-L hasn't found the video of the last time it was. __________________ nous défions Last edited by greentick; July 29, 2019 at 04:11 PM.