I remember a discussion awhile back as to just which rifle was the ugliest (Hepburn, Sharps, Martini, etc.). I would like to submit for your consideration a sporting rifle marked Joseph Manton. It is a falling block of his design according to U.S. Patent #117,552. 
Regards,
Powderman

I agree it is too ugly for public display. Why not hide it in my House. Smile

It appears to be a near duplicate of my Peabody.     Ken

Hammer goes to full cock upon opening

The bore is very nice but it doesn't show too good in this photo.

Thanks for the close-up pictures.  I think the flu & my watering eyes must have thought I saw a lockplate but obviously not.   My mistake.   ken

I think the rifle is medium ugly.  I think there is much written about 
Manton.  Dont know where though.  Dueling pistols?   

                                                                        Joe.

                                                                 

That rifle looks like it was made to kill something. Dead !

                                                                  Joe.

I dunno. That Wickliffe looks to give it a run for the money. Just has no "lines" to it, to my eye.

Cheers
  Trev

From what I can find out, Joseph Manton was born in Birmingham, England on March 10, 1830. He moved to Montreal, Quebec sometime in 1859. He had a brother, William Shakespeare Manton, born December 17, 1816 who moved to Kingston, Ontario sometime before 1844. Both men made firearms in Canada, but I believe Joseph was the only one to hold a patent for firearms.

The rifle has JOSEPH MANTON MONTREAL engraved on the top of the barrel. The right side of the receiver has engraved(faint and does not show up well in the photos) JOSEPH MANTON PATENT. The barrel has stamped on the left side: Birmingham Provisional Proof Mark, Birmingham View Mark, 25, Birmingham Definitive Proof Mark. Stamped on the bottom of the barrel: 5,  C H or possibly G H inside an oval, stamped over part of the ( C H inside the oval ) is  A & T .2, there is also stamped E. P , and  1.  Stamped on the left side of the receiver is the Birmingham view mark.
   
I knew Austin Moorcroft and saw many of his fine British single shot rifles before he sold them. I foolishly bought none. Many of the rifles pictured in Kirton's book were from Austin's collection. Austin refused to buy a copy of Kirton's book as he felt a complimentary copy was in order for the large amount of material supplied to Mr. Kirten gratis. I am not aware if the rifle I have was at one time in his collection.

I cannot help but think this rifle was made for the Canadian market where some of the game animals are on the large size and in many places winter lasts 6 months or better and people wear gloves for comfort and not a fashion statement. Despite the appearance, the lever comes to hand naturally and the loop at the rear acts and feels like a pistol grip when the rifle is shouldered. The rifle as pictured (unloaded and no sling) weighs 8 lbs. 

Regards,
Powderman

Thanks for the info Powderman. The Proof Marks are typical of the time for BP rifles proved in Birmingham England, and as Canada was under 'British Law' at the time the rifle was made, and firearms couldn't be 'Proved' in Canada (they didn't have a Proof House then) any firearms would have had to be sent to England for the necessary testing.

I would agree the loop on the lever is designed with gloved hands in mind. At 8lbs weight it's light enough for carrying, and a hunter wouldn't be firing a lot of rounds out of it on any one day (unless he was a rotten shot)

I don't think you would find the recoil from a .577 Snider round at all heavy for such work, but 50 rounds off a bench rest may give you a slight headache.   The Snider was far from being a highly accurate round, but it certainly could take any 'Game Animal' found in Canada, provided you were within the 'working range' of the cartridge.

I really think your rifle deserves the courtesy of being allowed to belch forth the occasional cloud of BP smoke and to be able to send some lead downrange. Dammit, it it was mine, it would be sending lead and smoke down range frequently. 

Manton isn't exactly a common surname in England, so it could be that the two Joseph Mantons were distantly related, and of course Birmingham, England, was a large producer of firearms, and gunsmiths/Gunmakers. More research required here, I think. Congratulations on being the owner of what appears to be a quite rare single shot rifle.

Harry

Gunsmith, 

I'm working under the presumption that your post is in reply to my comment on the Wickliffe's looks.

I'd start out by saying that no parent ever thought that they had a homely child. But some of them do.

Hell-for-strong, or not, that gun's lines, to me are like a badly put together woman. Just not attractive.  It seems, to my eye, that the design took all the places where the Stevens 14 1/2 started to bulge away from having really nice lines, and expanded outwards on the worst bulges. It reminds me of the Spencer repeater in that respect. A little too much, in a couple of the wrong places, to make  the lines look "right".

Don't take it to heart. I feel the same way about British airplanes from after WW2, and an awful pile of British guns. And an awful pile of really expensive modern single shot rifles.

They just don't do it for me.

When the time comes that I spend a pocketful of bills on a gun, it is going to be on a firearm that is able to please my eye as well as please me at the range. I don't mind owning a homely gun, I just want it to be an affordable homely gun.
 
I wish you nothing but success in your venture. The world needs more fine shooting rifles. 

Me, I want a good shooting rifle, that looks and feels right, to me. So far the Win 1885 seems it. Rolling blocks are affordable, and a Favorite is a pretty nice little plinking gun, but neither of them feels quite right to me.

If you make accurate rifles, it won't matter if they look like they were hogged off a block with a torch, you'll sell all you can make! But they will have to prove themselves on the range, rather than on the ad copy!

Good thing we don't all have the same tastes. It'd be a rough go for all the guys that "didn't" get the one perfect .....

Cheers
  Trev
 

trev, I have to agree with you about post WW2 aircraft. I did a search.

It wasnt perty.   


                                                                            Joe.

Quote:


Best-looking? What Trev said.

Most accurate? Show me the match records and the record-making groups and I might start believing.

Way back when I wuz just a chap, My Daddy showed me by his example (and whupped it into me) that any person who is worth hearing will never brag or make claims before the actual accomplishment.
But I wish you luck anyway, Joe

wow

trev
Because of your posting, we are looking into redesigning the action into something more sevelt.
We are going to go more toward the lines of a Ruger no.1, with an exposed hammer. 
The tang will be extended for a tang sight, and the block resessed to align perfectly with the top of the action. The curves in the action will be eliminated, giving a smoother line into the stock from the barrel.
This will be our 2nd model, on custom order only.
Thank you for your honest input.
Gunsmith

Ken shot the eye out of a albino bug at 100  yrds  and i got the other eye with a bbgun Ken did his with a 270win early Wickliffe rifle i have lusted over the rifle and he hides it when we visit ------oh the bug was on a cotton ball. regards to all ben

Mr Gunsmith,

My point about the 'wallet group' was that, sooner or later if shot enough, most any rifle can shoot one tight group. I don't doubt for one second that one of your rifles shot the pictured group, that's not the issue here. One group, no matter how small, means very little except that the rifle will fire five times.

The issue is your claim that your action is one of the most accurate, and in my mind that statement is extremely questionable without fairly extensive records of record-setting performance. IMO unless the action can produce, on demand, and keep on producing, again on demand, VERY superior and match-winning accuracy, then.......well, then, if it hasn't already done that then IMO it's just another action until it piles up some actual match wins.

I greatly admired Elmer and have some of his books signed to me on the flyleaves, from back when he was still kicking and able to correspond. I believe almost all the stuff he ever wrote, especially about  handguns, but I don't recall him winning any rifle accuracy matches since about 1937 or so. Ken Hurst is a personal friend and he wouldn't lie (at least not about something serious, VBG!), but again I don't recall that Ken shoots in any accuracy matches.

So what we seem to have here is several personal opinions, no more.

Your proposed appearance changes should make the action much more appealing, especially with the new tang and smoother lines. For some more inspiration in the aesthetics area, I suggest a look into Steve Hughes' fine book Custom Rifles in Black and White. Steve's work is quite superior but IMO Ed Webber's is even better, please look closely at his Hagn and '77 Sharps sporters. My own copy is extensively annotated with my comments on the good and bad points of each rifle shown, and the notes have proven to be very useful when working up any new rifle.

BTW I don't like the Dakota 10 either, I agree with almost all of Trev's comments concerning shape and beauty. Unfortunately my mental imagery far exceeds my ability to duplicate it in actual wood and steel but I'm still trying...
Regards, Joe

I'd suggest that working out the bugs, and sorting out the target market, should be the two things you get done first. 

If you are going to brag accuracy, you are playing to a really tough crowd. Guys that measure the also-ran's scores with the same micrometer that the winners circle scores were measured with.

Bragging "most" accurate is a toughie. Accurate enough, is a pretty good goal, once you determine who you wish to be selling these rifles to. For some shooting sports, 1/4 moa is nearly required, for others, 1 moa is going to be accurate enough that the triggerman determines the win, rather than the hardware. 
You could do worse things than consider the dilemma Colt's Firearms found themselves in, when they put the Sharp's to the wrong market, at the time they did. IIRC the quote was something along the lines of "the shooters that wanted that style rifle, did not like the calibers offered, and the shooters that wanted the calibers offered, did not want that style of rifle". 

I would suggest that chasing your tail trying to please all people, is a poor way to get in shape. The business plan that seems to have worked for the CPA bunch, seems to hinge on making what the customer would like, to order, rather than hoping that if you make it, they will come. They might, or not.

Given that your market volume is already incredibly small, you could likely make a living for some time, selling guns solely to those that desire to own "one of each" for their collections. I would expect that there would be a segment of the bunch that shoot either Scheutzen or BPCRS that would be interested in one of those arms, , although the end result would look very different, if two consecutive pieces were to travel in those directions. That said, I am interested in seeing what a more "classic" iteration of the action would look like, if you are sticking to the same basic design.
Whole new action design?

  Cheers
  Trev

Gunsmith, you talk a good talk.  I hope you're able to produce a good rifle for the market.  But, you're website and talk have a huge smell of hype and salesmanship.  I'd be a lot more comfortable believing them, if there were some specific examples and significant number of examples to back them up.  One rifle that shoots a group does not make the "most accurate rifle" out of an action.

How many rifles did you report on your ATF Form 4483-A last year?  Or, if you want to increase the number, in the last 5 years?

dave