Repro Barrel Markings Question

[jonniereb]

Can someone please tell me who made this barrel based on the markings on the underside and on the face of the breech?

On the bottom, there is a WP and what looks like two ?C?s overlapped with one of them reversed, and then a random ?I? kind of floating on its own.

On the face of the breech there is a TP stamped on the left side around the edge.

In general, is there a list of makers marks/proofs for repro barrel makers that one can reference?

Photos attached.

[Bruce Cobb 1723V]

Picture of what's on the top left flat? How many lands and grooves. Bolster pics too.

[jonniereb]

Picture of what's on the top left flat? How many lands and grooves. Bolster pics too.

Three lands/grooves. Additional photos attached as requested (side flat and bolster from side and front.

Thanks!!

Jon





Attachment 10954

[Bruce Cobb 1723V]

You may have an original barrel that has been overly cleaned. The breech plug looks like a modern replacement though.

[jonniereb]

You may have an original barrel that has been overly cleaned. The breech plug looks like a modern replacement though.

I would be amazed if this was original. The bore is mint, and I mean mint. Like it looks like it's never been fired. I see no telltale signs of a sleeve so I don't think that's what's going on . So I just assumed it was repro. I'm dying to shoot it. Now I don't know if I will. I'll post a full picture of it later. The lock (including the Maynard tape primer) and stock are definitely original. But it's so clean and shiny I just figured some of the other furniture was repro as well. And I definitely thought the barrel was.

[Hal]

That sure is a lot of pitting in the cap area for a new barrel. I'm no expert, but I could believe it is a cleaned original.

[John Bly]

Perhaps it is a "stretched" barrel with an original breech section. Look for a change in the outside appearance somewhere along the length of the barrel, especially under one of the bands. That would explain the mint bore.

[Bruce Cobb 1723V]

How about the rear sight, front sight, barrel bands too?

[jonniereb]

Sorry for the delay. No signs of a stretched or relined barrel. Here are the additional photos that were requested.

The stock appears to be original but someone glass bedded it along the way.

The rear sight appears to be repro as the bluing on it is still dark and the numbers stamped in the ladder are still deep.

All other furniture appears to be original.

Still skeptical about the barrel and would love info on that maker?s mark in the original set of photos.

(Difficult to get a good pic of the bore. Trust me when I say it looks mint.)

[williamslaybaugh]

It looks like it's been stretched right after the flats of the barrel. If I were to make a guess from the photos. It?s most likely a 61 that someone has changed over to a 55. The brass nose cap doesn't look right and the swivels have both been replaced. It's hard to tell from the pictures if the middle band is a reproduction. If you remove the lock and look at the wood mortise you should be able to tell if stock was originally for a 55.