Gazing at the walls lined with an eclectic array of #JCastaway firearms, I felt overwhelmed—where do I even begin? My knowledge of these weapons isn’t extensive, so I gravitated toward one that stood out, distinct from the familiar flintlock and percussion muzzleloaders. This one puzzled me instantly; it almost looks like it could have a rotating drum breech design, possibly for patch ball or Minié balls—my best guess before diving into research. If I’m right and it actually functioned, that would make it a much faster-firing system. This one’s going to be an exciting challenge!


This firearm is a mid-19th-century, patented breech-loading percussion-cap firearm, likely manufactured or inspected around 1852, featuring a single-chamber rotating drum breech mechanism chambered for .36 caliber.


The barrel, breech frame, drum, buttplate, and trigger are primarily made of iron or steel, as evidenced by the dark, grayish-brown hue, rust, pitting, and patina across all metal components. There is no indication of brass or bronze in these structural parts, though some reinforcing bands on the buttstock and screws may be brass, suggesting a mixed-material design for cost and durability.

Markings Summary
The firearm bears multiple stamped or engraved markings, including:

• “1852” (likely the patent or production year).

• “INDIAN C.” (indicating an “Indian Contract” for Native American use under U.S. government treaties or trade in the early 1850s).

• “ICS” (possibly “Indian Contract Sharps” or a related designation).

• “691” and “No. 109” (likely serial numbers or batch identifiers).

• “PATENT” and “APPLIED FOR” (indicating a patented design, possibly experimental or innovative).

• “W” or “M,” “+,” and a circular stamp (potential inspector’s marks or manufacturer’s symbols).

• “70” with a possible “Q” on the barrel-frame junction (serial number, batch, or inspection mark).

• A mark on the inside of the buttplate access panel, possibly “PS,” “RS,” “P+,” or a similar inspection/manufacturer’s logo, obscured by wear and corrosion.

These markings suggest the firearm was produced or inspected under a U.S. government contract (e.g., Indian Contract) around 1852, potentially by or for inventors like Christian Sharps or Edward Maynard, known for experimental breech-loaders in this period. The serial numbers, inspection marks, and patent references indicate a detailed manufacturing or quality control process.

The bottom view provides a critical perspective, particularly of the barrel and stock underside, confirming and expanding on earlier observations. The long, dark metal barrel runs the length of the firearm, with no visible ramrod or forestock present, consistent with an observation about missing ramrod hoops/supports and a short forestock. However, the flattened area under the barrel just behind the muzzle, is now clearly visible as a slightly depressed or modified section of the barrel. This flattened area, likely where a ramrod hoop or support was once attached, supports the hypothesis that the firearm originally included a ramrod, suggesting a muzzle-loading configuration.

The breech area at the rear shows the same cylindrical or plug-like mechanism observed in the side profiles, with visible screws, pivot points, and a lever, reinforcing the possibility of a rotating breech or drum design. The wooden stock extends along the barrel but ends well before the muzzle, with no forestock or barrel bands visible, indicating these components are missing. There are no markings, caliber indicators, or loading-specific features of this view.


The top view provides a clear overview of the firearm’s barrel, stock, and breech area, consistent with the previous images. The long, dark metal barrel extends from the muzzle to the breech, showing no visible markings, rifling, or caliber indicators. The wooden stock runs along the top of the barrel, ending just behind the breech, with no forestock or barrel bands visible, reinforcing the observation that these components are missing. The breech area features a prominent cylindrical or plug-like mechanism, with visible screws, pivot points, and a lever or handle, suggesting a rotating breech or drum design. This view shows the mechanism’s top surface, including a rectangular or square cutout and additional hardware, which may indicate how it locks or rotates to open for loading.

All metal surfaces show significant wear, corrosion, and patina, consistent with historical use and exposure to environmental conditions over decades, reinforcing the firearm’s mid-19th-century origin. The frame and side plate (likely the breech frame and a trigger guard, side plate, or reinforcing cover) are made of non-ferrous metals, such as brass or bronze, with no significant iron or steel content. The golden patina suggests brass or bronze, and the non-magnetic nature confirms they are copper-based alloys, not iron/steel or mixed metals as initially thought.


The close-up image focuses on the breech mechanism, showing a detailed view of the cylindrical or plug-like component, screws, pivot points, and a percussion nipple. The percussion nipple, with a .17" outer diameter, is a critical new detail, confirming that this firearm is a percussion-cap firearm, typical of the mid-19th century. The nipple is located on the breech block, adjacent to a rectangular cutout and a screw or pivot point, suggesting it’s part of the firing mechanism. The metal shows significant wear and patina, consistent with a historical piece from the percussion era.

The cylindrical breech component, visible in this view, appears to rotate or pivot, as indicated by the screw and lever mechanisms, aligning with the rotating breech or drum hypothesis from previous images. However, the presence of the percussion nipple suggests the firearm uses percussion caps for ignition, which is common for both muzzle-loaders and early breech-loaders of the period. The rectangular cutout might serve as a loading port or locking mechanism, but its exact function isn’t fully clear without seeing it in operation.

The overall design, including the wear and craftsmanship, continues to suggest a mid-18th to mid-19th-century firearm, likely from the percussion era, as noted in the provided context.


The close-up image focuses on the percussion nipple and the area immediately behind it on the breech block. The nipple, previously identified with a .17" outer diameter, is visible, and the surrounding metal shows signs of wear, discoloration, and potential residue or pitting, which is noted as evidence of firing. The darkened, corroded appearance around the nipple and the faint marks or residue suggest that the firearm has been discharged at least once, likely multiple times, as percussion-cap firearms often accumulate such signs from repeated ignition of black powder charges. The metal’s patina and wear are consistent with the historical nature of the firearm, reinforcing its age as a mid-18th to mid-19th-century percussion-era piece.


The close-up image focuses on the breech mechanism, revealing a detailed view of the cylindrical or plug-like component, pivot points, and locking mechanism. The image shows a cylindrical breech block with a hole or chamber, likely for loading, and a pivot or hinge that allows it to rotate or swing open. The block is secured by a screw or pin, and there are additional holes and wear patterns consistent with the firearm’s historical use. The metal shows significant wear, patina, and corrosion, aligning with a mid-18th to mid-19th-century percussion-era piece. Notably, this view doesn’t show the percussion nipple directly, but the mechanism’s design is consistent with the earlier close-up where the .17" OD percussion nipple was identified.

The cylindrical breech block appears to rotate or pivot on a hinge, with a rectangular or square cutout and a locking pin or screw, suggesting it opens to allow loading from the rear. This reinforces the rotating breech or drum hypothesis. The wear and residue around the mechanism indicate it has been used, consistent with an observation of firing evidence behind the percussion nipple.


The close-up image focuses on the left side of the breech mechanism, showing the cylindrical or plug-like breech block, pivot points, screws, and a prominent "PATENT" marking stamped into the metal. The breech block’s cylindrical shape and pivot or hinge are consistent with the rotating or pivoting mechanism identified in previous images, reinforcing the breech-loading design. The "PATENT" marking suggests this firearm incorporates a patented design, likely related to the breech-loading mechanism, indicating an innovative or experimental firearm from the mid-19th century. The metal shows significant wear, patina, and corrosion, consistent with a historical percussion-era piece (mid-18th to mid-19th century). The cover plate is cracked and when removed it is broken in two pieces. The image also reveals additional holes and screws (missing screws), likely part of the locking or operational mechanism, but the percussion nipple isn’t visible in this view.

The image shows the bottom of the firearm’s stock, specifically the buttplate, which is made of metal (likely brass or iron, given the patina and wear) and secured with screws. The buttplate is not magnetic, indicating it is likely made of a non-ferrous metal, such as brass, bronze, or a non-magnetic alloy. The non-magnetic buttplate supports an American origin, as brass buttplates were often used by U.S. manufacturers like Sharps or Remington for Indian Contract firearms, balancing durability and cost.

The buttplate features a hinged access panel, which as noted is empty—there’s nothing behind it. The wooden stock shows wear, scratches, and discoloration, consistent with the historical age and use of a mid-18th to mid-19th-century percussion-era firearm. The metal buttplate matches the wear and patina seen on other metal components, reinforcing the firearm’s age and historical context. The hinged panel, though empty, suggests a design feature intended for storage or access, but its current emptiness indicates any original contents (e.g., tools, patches, or cleaning rods) are missing or were never present.


The image shows a close-up view of the inside of the buttplate access panel (the hinged or removable panel on the buttplate), with the following key features:

Buttplate Access Panel:

• The panel is made of metal (likely iron or steel, based on the dark, rusty patina and wear matching other components), with a circular or rounded shape and a hinge or latch mechanism visible on the left side. The panel shows significant wear, corrosion, and patina, consistent with the firearm’s mid-19th-century age and use.

The wood of the buttstock is visible behind the panel, showing wear, discoloration, and a hollow or recessed area, indicating the storage compartment for percussion caps, tools, or cleaning supplies, as previously identified.

Mark on the Inside of the Panel:

• There is a stamped or engraved mark on the inner surface of the buttplate access panel, near the center or slightly offset. The mark appears to be a symbol or letters, but it’s partially obscured by wear, corrosion, and patina, making it challenging to interpret definitively.

Mark analysis: The blue color enhancement significantly improves visibility of the mark, making “RF1” and “155” more discernible than in the original image. By selecting the deepest parts of the marks and replacing them with blue, we've highlighted the stamped/engraved lines against the corroded background, clarifying the structure of the characters. This helps narrow down the interpretation, though some ambiguity remains due to wear and corrosion.

Possible Meanings of “RF1 155”:

• Inspector’s Mark: “RF” could be an inspector’s initials (e.g., “R. Foster” or “R. Franklin”), with “1” indicating a specific inspector or batch, and “155” as a serial or inspection number. This aligns with mid-19th-century U.S. government practices for Indian Contract firearms, where inspectors like those at Springfield Armory or Harpers Ferry used initials and numbers.

• Manufacturer’s Code: “RF” might stand for a manufacturer or contractor (e.g., “Rifle Factory,” “Remington Firearms,” or a lesser-known maker like “Richards & Fox”), with “1” as a model or prototype number, and “155” as a serial or batch identifier. This fits the American origin hypothesis (Sharps, Maynard, or similar).

• Proof or Quality Mark: “RF” could indicate “Rifled” or “Tested,” with “1” as a quality rating and “155” as a batch or year code (e.g., 1855 or related to 1852).

• Serial/Batch Number: “RF1-155” might be a complete identifier, such as “Rifle Prototype 1, Serial 155,” consistent with the “691,” “No. 109,” and “70” marks elsewhere on the firearm.

• Consistency with Other Markings: The mark aligns with the “1852,” “INDIAN C.,” “ICS,” “691,” “No. 109,” “PATENT,” “APPLIED FOR,” “W” or “M,” “70” with “Q,” “+,” and circular stamp markings, suggesting a U.S. government or contractor inspection/marking system for the 1852 Indian Contract. The non-magnetic buttplate, frame, and side plate (brass or bronze) and magnetic barrel (iron/steel) further support an American mid-19th-century design, likely by Sharps, Maynard, or a related maker.

The image shows the interior surface of the buttplate, specifically the area surrounding the access panel or trapdoor mechanism.

• The access panel, previously identified as a hinged or removable section, is not fully visible in this image but is implied by the surrounding structure. The panel’s hinge or pivot (likely on the right side, as seen in prior images) and screw holes are partially visible, matching the disassembled buttplate components (e.g., larger piece with circular hole, smaller cover/latch, locking piece).

There are additional marks on the inside of the buttplate.


The image shows the end of the wooden buttstock, where it meets the metal buttplate. The wood is dark, likely walnut or a similar hardwood, showing significant wear, scratches, discoloration, and patina, consistent with a mid-18th to mid-19th-century percussion-era firearm. The top-most area nearest the buttplate appears to have been replaced or there was something mounted at some point. The buttplate’s edge shows wear and corrosion, matching the aging seen on other metal components. There is a potential mark on the top of the buttplate suggests there may be an inscription, stamp, or engraving not fully visible in this image or previous ones, such as a maker’s mark, proof mark, or patent identifier. The wood has a curved or shaped profile where it meets the buttplate, typical of rifle or musket designs from the period, and there are no visible markings on the wood in this view.


The image shows a close-up view of the top of the buttplate, where it meets the wooden buttstock. The buttplate is metal (likely brass or bronze, as it’s non-magnetic, per inspection updates), with a golden patina, wear, corrosion, and patina consistent with mid-19th-century use.

Although we thought it could possibly include a "7" but the “1” in “RF1” and the first “1” in “104” are narrow and uniform, suggesting no “7” is present but this image confirms “104” as the most accurate reading.

The mark is stamped or engraved into the metal, located centrally on the top surface of the buttplate, near the junction with the buttstock. The metal shows rust, pitting, and patina. The mark appears to read “RF1” followed by “104,” with:

• “RF1” on the left, matching the format of the “RF1” from the buttplate access panel mark:

• “R” as a curved or angular uppercase letter.

• “F” as a vertical letter with a horizontal crossbar.

• “1” as a numeral, possibly upright or slightly slanted.

• “104” on the right, with:
  • “1” as the first numeral, potentially wider or narrower based on wear or stamping depth, making it ambiguous.
  • “0” as a clear, circular numeral.
  • “4” as a numeral with a closed loop or open top, clear and distinct.

Interpretation of “RF1 104”:
“RF1”:

• This matches the “RF1” from the buttplate access panel mark (“RF1 155”), suggesting consistency in identification. It likely represents:

• An inspector’s initials (e.g., “R.F.” for Robert Foster, Richard Franklin) followed by a batch or prototype number (“1”).

• A manufacturer’s code (e.g., “RF” for “Rifle Factory,” “Remington Firearms,” or “Richards & Fox”) with a model or sequence number (“1”).

• A proof or quality mark (e.g., “RF” for “Rifled” or “Tested,” with “1” indicating a specific test or batch).
  The consistency with “RF1 155” on the access panel indicates a unified marking system, likely by the same American manufacturer or inspector under the 1852 Indian Contract.

“104”:

• This represents a serial number, batch number, or inspection code, fitting the pattern of other numeric markings (e.g., “691,” “No. 109,” “70”). It could indicate:

• Serial number 104 in a production run or batch under the “RF1” designation.

• A batch or inspection number related to the 1852 Indian Contract, possibly part of “No. 109” or a separate sequence.

• A year or measurement code (e.g., 1854 or a dimension), though less likely given the context.

• The “104” aligns with the narrower “1,” confirming it’s not “704” (where a wider “7” was misinterpreted due to wear or lighting in earlier images).

Historical Context:

• “RF1 104” supports the firearm’s experimental or niche status under the 1852 Indian Contract, potentially linking to an American maker like Sharps (e.g., “R” for Sharps, “F” for Factory) or an inspector/contractor. The mark’s presence on the non-magnetic brass/bronze buttplate reinforces the mixed-material design (iron/steel for structural parts, brass/bronze for visible parts).

The image shows the rear sight of the firearm, mounted on the barrel near the breech. The sight appears to be a simple, fixed design, likely a V-notch or similar configuration, typical of mid-18th to mid-19th-century firearms. The sight is made of metal (likely iron or steel, given the dark patina and corrosion), matching the wear and aging seen on other metal components of the firearm. The barrel itself shows significant wear, scratches, and patina, consistent with a historical percussion-era piece. The sight is secured with a dovetail or screw mechanism, and there are no visible adjustments (e.g., elevation or windage), suggesting it’s a basic, non-adjustable design suited for short to medium ranges, common for muskets or rifles of the period.

The sight’s position near the breech aligns with the firearm’s overall design, including the rotating or pivoting breech block and percussion nipple, reinforcing its status as a breech-loading percussion firearm.


The image shows the front sight of the firearm, mounted on the barrel near the muzzle. The sight appears to be a simple, fixed blade or post design, typical of mid-18th to mid-19th-century firearms. The sight is made of metal (likely iron or steel, given the dark patina, corrosion, and yellowish residue), matching the wear and aging seen on other metal components of the firearm, such as the barrel, breech, and rear sight. The barrel itself is octagonal or partially octagonal, showing significant wear, scratches, and patina, consistent with a historical percussion-era piece. The sight is secured directly to the barrel, possibly with a dovetail or soldered attachment, and there are no visible adjustments (e.g., elevation or windage), indicating a basic, non-adjustable design suited for short to medium ranges, common for muskets or rifles of the period.

The sight’s position near the muzzle aligns with the firearm’s overall design, including the rotating or pivoting breech block and percussion nipple, reinforcing its status as a breech-loading percussion firearm.

The image shows a close-up view of the junction where the barrel meets the breech frame, with the following key features:

Barrel and Frame Junction:
The barrel, appearing as a dark, metallic tube, extends into the breech frame, which houses the rotating drum mechanism. The barrel’s surface shows wear, patina, and slight corrosion, consistent with historical use.

The breech frame, surrounding the barrel, has a darker, metallic appearance with visible wear, rust, and patina. The frame includes a screw hole or pin hole at the top of the barrel, and a slight curvature or reinforcement where the barrel and frame meet.

Material Appearance:
Potential Markings (“70” Marks):
On the breech frame, just below the barrel, there are clearly visible stamped or engraved marks that read “70” or “70” with additional characters.

• Specifically, the marks appear as:
  • “7” followed by “0,” with possibly additional faint or worn characters (e.g., “70” or “700”).
  • Above or near the “70,” there’s a smaller, less distinct mark that could be a “Q” or an inspection symbol (e.g., “7 Q” or “Q 70”).
  • These marks are stamped into the metal, consistent with other markings on the firearm (e.g., “1852,” “INDIAN C.,” “ICS,” “691,” “No. 109,” “PATENT,” “APPLIED FOR,” “W” or “M,” “+,” circular stamp).

The image shows a close-up view looking down the inside of the barrel, with the following key features:
Barrel Interior:

• The interior surface of the barrel appears rough, with visible corrosion, rust, pitting, and patina, consistent with the firearm’s mid-19th-century age and historical use. The surface has a brownish-gray hue, with small white or light-colored spots (possibly mineral deposits or corrosion products).

• The barrel’s bore tapers slightly toward the breech (or muzzle, depending on the orientation), with a dark central area indicating the deeper part of the bore.

Potential Rifling Marks:

• There appear to be rifling marks, which are subtle, irregular lines or grooves visible along the interior surface of the barrel. These marks are not uniform or sharply defined, likely due to wear, corrosion, and the rough condition of the bore.
  The rifling, if present, appears as faint, spiraling or longitudinal lines, but they are obscured by rust, pitting, and patina, making them difficult to distinguish clearly.

Overall Condition:

• The barrel interior shows significant wear, corrosion, and degradation, consistent with prolonged use and exposure to environmental conditions. The rough texture suggests years of firing, cleaning (or lack thereof), and rust accumulation, typical for a percussion-era firearm from the 1850s.