Would like some Historical Help: 1824 Harper's Ferry Flintlock

I have a gun that was passed down to me. It is an 1824 Harper's Ferry Flintlock. Firstly, let me say that I don't know much at all about these guns. I was hoping that I might be able to tap this forum for some information about what, exactly, it is that I have. (I have already done some google searching and I haven't been able to turn up much of anything specifically about this firearm.) Folks ask me about the gun from time to time, but I really don't know anything more about it than what any layman could surmise from its markings. Any additional information folks could provide would be great. (Please excuse my ignorance on the names of parts, and please let me know what I SHOULD be calling things!)

As I said, the gun is marked as an 1824 Harper's Ferry. It is a smoothbore.




You may notice that it is missing the last clip that holds the barrel onto the stock. It appears as though the wood was broken a very long time ago, but I was wondering what the original length of the gun was as to determine if it was intentionally shortened. Would someone have intentionally shortened the barrel? Perhaps to make it lighter?

On the top of the gun, you can clearly see a large "VP" stamped into the side of the barrel, and a "V" with a "71" stamped in the center of the barrel. What can not be seen from the picture below, is a very faint "1824" etched into the the piece of metal on the right side of the image. What do the "VP" and the "V71" signify?



All of the metal hardware on this gun is stamped with the number "8". Every screw, bolt, whatever...they are all stamped with "8". What does the "8" mean?



Finally, here is a picture of the actual flintlock mechanism. I just wanted to include this in the event it told someone something else about the gun.



Aside from any historical information, how should I help to preserve and care for the gun? I know it's not museum-quality show-piece, but it is my little piece of history. I want to make sure I take care of it.

The gun is missing its ram-rod. Would it be possible to get an original to keep with the gun for display or is there a source of reproduction ones I should check out?

Any and all help is greatly appreciated!

- Farrier

Well, first of all, I believe that the gun is actually a model 1803 Harpers Ferry. The 1824 date on the lockplate is a date of manufacture.

Here is a link to a mint-condition model for your reference.[url] http://www.19thcenturyweapons.com/pre505a/pix/0403HFlockmks.jpg[/url]

Relics like this are worth infinitely more in their original condition, regardless of what that may be. Replacement ramrods can be obtained from a variety of sources, as 1803 repops are very common. Ditto for the missing bands. My research says that they were originally made in .54 caliber, with .525 issue round balls. Original barrel length was 33 inches. The fact that yours is smooth probably indicates that it was surplused off and somebody needing a fowling piece had it reamed out to smoothbore.

If you google 1803 Harpers Ferry Rifle you will turn up a ton of info on this gun.

That's not a M1803 rifle, looks more like a M1816 musket. Restoration parts are available. What ever you do, leave it alone and don't "clean it up". Get it to someone that restores this kind of stuff for a living. :thumbsup:

Well, first of all, the 1824 date on the lockplate is a date of manufacture, not a model. It being smoothbore is more than likely a model of 1816. 69 caliber, 44 inch barrel. Brass flashpan is also a giveaway. Outside chance that it is the very similar M 1795.

The markings on the barrel are government proof marks.


Relics like this are worth infinitely more in their original condition, regardless of what that may be. Replacement ramrods can be obtained from a variety of sources, as repops are very common. Ditto for the missing bands.
If you google Harpers Ferry Armory you will turn up a ton of info on this gun and you will be better able to determine its exact make.

I measured the barrel at 40". I assume that may help determine what gun it is, exactly. The caliber is .68? (11/16" inside diameter of the barrel.)

Ok...so i won't "clean it up"! I am not terribly interested in buying replica parts for it. I like it just how it is, but thought an original ramrod would be nice. Should this gun be restored or just left to hang on my wall? What are the pros/cons to restoration?

Mike's right here. It looks like a model 1816 which was manufactured until 1844 and is one of the most common of the pre Civil War flintlock smoothbore muskets.As Mike points out restoration parts are available but you might have a problem if the stock and barrel have been cut back in which case restoration would be expensive.Leave the gun AS IS for the time being until you decide what to[url] do.In[/url] the meantime you have a nice wall hanger.

Another thing, don't expect this gun's value to send a child to college. It has some respectful value but a Walker Colt it isn't.
Tom Patton

Doing some more googling, I found[url] http://www.possibleshop.com/flint-musket.htm[/url] that shows an “1816 Springfield Harpers Ferry Musket". This does look like my gun. (Though a bit newer looking!) It states a barrel length of 42". That means that this is missing 2" of barrel somewhere. I looked really close, but it doesn't look cut off.

Searching is turning up much more now that I have a better idea what to search for (as opposed to an 1824 gun.)

No, I am not really concerned with its monetary value. It is important to me only because it is something historical that has been handed down. I have no interest in selling it. I would just like to know more about it since I have it.

As stated, you have a M1816 Harpers Ferry smoothbore musket, the workhorse of the American military (National and State) from its earliest manufacture in 1817 - 1818 through the early days of the Civil War. Caliber is .69 using the U.S. standard .64 diameter round ball. The barrel was originally 42 inches in length. The stock has also been shortened and the front, double-throated band has been removed, all of this was done post military service. Condition is rough but that is not necessarily a bad thing. The number "8" stamped on all parts is its assembly number. The M1816 was never, from beginning of production to the end in 1844, an interchangeable firearm. And at this early date, it was especially so. An armorer was given sets of parts in batches and they were hand assembled. This one was number 8 of a particular batch and it is a nice plus to see that this one is largly intact as made. The assembly number helped to keep the parts that fit together when the gun and others were taken apart for cleaning or repair by armorers, the only ones actually allowed to disassemble guns in the military of the time.

The biggest plus is that it is still in original flint - few are. If you plan to keep it for the family history, simply wipe the dust off ocasionally and lightly oil the metal to stop any future rust, that really is all that is needed to preserve it. Frankly, if I were facing the same circumstances that you are, that is all that I would do - preserve it in its current state.

If you decide in the future to do a restoration, then go Mike's route and see a qualified restoration expert - with references! Using original parts is nice but will give unsatisfactory results if you do a partial job. Your barrel is shortened so an original M1816 ramrod can not be used without cutting it - this at current rates is about a $150 - $200 item and you will not want to shorten it, it will destroy the value. A satisfactory reproduction could be purchased for about $35 - $50, but will not give satisfaction, it will be bright and shiney and will stick out like a sore thumb. The front band and band spring will require inletting and reshaping of the original stock - irreperable damage when it comes to doing a proper restoration in the future. Plus an original M1816 frront band will run at least $100 to $125, the bandspring about $10.

The band, spring and ramrod could be purchased at current prices (they will be more in the future - much more) and you can consider them an investment to keep with the gun.

To do a proper restoration you will need the barrel stretched - there are several restorationists that can do this work and do it well but their work is not cheap. The stock will need a spliced-on section to bring it to the proper length and all other cracks and small pieces of missing wood and cracks replaced and the finish matched to hide the repairs but, again, this is expensive work but will be worth it in the future. In other words, you could spend around $1000 on this piece to get it into museum grade condition and you would be money ahead, but there is something to be said for leaving it as it is - it is an inheritance and if you know the real, unvarnished truth about its history, then it makes it priceless. We won't discuss the value in its current state since you aren't interested in selling, but you would be quite surprised. In spades if properly restored.

Wow! That's a lot of info. You probably saved me a month's time surfing around the internet trying to find out what it is I have! I especially appreciate the advice on how to care for it. To me, the gun is worth more in original condition than if it were restored...but I guess that's emotional value.

Again...all of this information is greatly appreciated!

Just out of curiosity: What would be the motivation for taking 2" cleanly off the end of the barrel?

the front of the barrel may have been bent/crushed, like a wagon wheel rolled over it, remove 2" cleans it up. Ramrod and front band in repro form available from S & S firearms, do a search. Keep it as it is..

Mike Brooks and Tom Patton above, have the best advice. Its a actually a M1822 musket although there is no difference between the M1816 and the M1822 except that virtually all of the parts of the M22 were interchangeable between the various manufacturers where only a few of the parts of the 1816 muskets were. Full interchangeability still hadn't been achieved but so much progress was made by '22 that the official designation was changed. Its odd, but these were always referred to as 1822s right up to the end of the 19th century but at some point in the 20th century, as collecting took root, the designation was forgotten.
In any case...DO NOT "shine it up", sand the stock or coat it with modern stock finish. Generally a careful wipe down with mineral spirits and several coats of high qualtiy paste wax are the current recommended treatments. You don't want to do anything that isn't "reversible".

If its important to you, the barrel and stock could be restored, by a competent person but...if the job is well done it will be largely "revenue neutral" in that it probably won't increase its value as much as a really good job costs. If the job is done badly, or the gun's current finish disturbed it will almost certainly be significantly devalued. A surface that is clean and stopping active rust should be the goal.
If you're interested you could look up "331 Tips & Tricks for the Gun Collector" by Stuart Mowbray...he covers this stuff pretty completely.

Virtually all of the M1822s were converted to percussion before the Civil War with the exception of those that had already been issued to troops...the un-converted muskets were actually those condemmed as not being in new enough condition to justify the expense.

Joe Puleo

Here as some interesting photos/info on the 1816 to look at:
[url] http://www.angelfire.com/vt/milsurp/spring16.html[/url]
[url] http://www.mormonbattalion.com/history/halford/3-muskets.htm[/url]
[url] http://members.tripod.com/~vet5/musket.html[/url]

If this information is accurate, yours may be an M1816 Type II...

Don't pay too much attention to the first set of pictures...the lock is Harper's Ferry but the barrel definately does not go with it. The PM mark over the date and the initials of Luke Harrington are Massachusetts proofs under the proof law of 1805 (I think thats the date) They continued in use until 1842 and are completely incorrect for a Harpers Ferry musket. Harrington held a commission as a "Prover of Firearms" and lived in Millbury, Mass - the location of Asa Waters who had the first barrel rolling mill in America and produced thousands of barrels for both his own guns and for sale to other gun makers. I suspect Harrington was a Waters relative, he was the only person authorized to prove gun barrels in Millbury...Most likely the Harpers Ferry lock is a replacement for a Waters marked lock.

Boy...at the risk of starting something here I have to ask where some of these internet sources get their information.
1. The "1822" designaton was the one used by the Springfield Armory...I've done considerable work in the archives there and have seen it used in original documents. If that dosen't make it an official designation I have no idea what does.
2. They were made by Springfield, Harpers Ferry and a number of contractors. They were converted by the government while in storage. In fact, there were so many in storage that rather than send them back to the Armorys, a team of artificers, equipped with the proper machines, traveled around the country doing the work in the Arsenals where they were stored.
3. They were definately not made until[url] 1860...in[/url] fact there is at least one more flintlock pattern musket, and the M1842 percussion musket - the last official smoothbore, not to mention the M1855 rifles.
I realize many of us here already know this stuff but some of the wierd ideas that are put into circulation via the internet amaze me...
Best source on the subject in print is Pete Schmidts 2 volume "United States Military Flintlocks and their Bayonets" (Its late so I'm not absolutely certain I've got that title correct) Volume I is out and Volume II will probably be out in two months or so.

Joe Puleo

Actually the so-called M1822 musket is the M1816 musket. On September 3, 1821 it was directed that 30 model muskets of the established standard pattern (M1816) be made at both Springfield and Harper's Ferry. Whichever group of muskets was the most uniform was to be selected for distribution to private armories and contractors as the standard pattern to be followed. The only difference between this musket and the existing M1816 was that the lower sling swivel was riveted to the trigger bow instead of to the separate stud in front of the bow. Also, on August 27, 1821 it was directed that the barrels and furniture except for locks, ramrods, triggers and screws be browned. In an earlier contract in 1818 with Asa Waters, it was directed that the barrels and bayonets be browned. In 1831 the order to brown these arms was recinded and the bright finished was resumed. Also the front of the trigger guard bow where the sling swivel was riveted was beefed up a little.

And although the M1816 was vastly superior to anything the armories had produced before, it was in no way interchangeable. Even with improved patterns and some primitive gauging, it was still a handmade product, especially at Harper's Ferry. Full interchangeablity wasn't attained until the production of the M1842 percussion musket starting in 1844 at Springfield and 1845 at Harper's Ferry.

I have found this discussion to be most interesting and am impressed by the knowledge exhibited about Harpers Ferry guns, which leads to my question:

Has anyone found good sources of info on the Harpers Ferry Model 1795 ?? I have one in resonably good condition that appears to be what Flayderman termed "Type III", but I have found little info on this model.

I did find "The Guns of Harpers Ferry" by Stuart Brown, but the pictures are very poor.

Thanks
Paul

Far and away the best thing on the subject is the new book by Pete Schmidt mentioned above...its so exaustive that it had to be published in two volumes. You can find it on the web at[url] manatarmsbooks.com[/url] or on Amazon under the author's name.
(In the interest of full disclosure, I am a long time associate of the publisher)

I agree the the M1816 and 1822 are the same gun. In fact, I'd never even used the "22" designation before a few months ago when I came across it used in SA internal documents of the time...at that point I'm not sure what makes it an "official" designation. My feeling is that if the Ordnance officers in the Armory were using the term it must have meant something to them. They often didn't make fine distinctions in terminology, using "old model" and "new model" or "pattern I sent you" etc...it can be very confusing.
The term certainly pre-dates modern collecting because Schuyler, Hartley & Graham consistently used it in describing them in the 1870s when they were being sold as cheap shotguns for farmers...
In any case, we all know what model we're talking about so it may not be all that important what we call it.

Joe Puleo

Joe, I have enjoyed this thread very much and can offer one comment; It really makes me highly appreciative of 17th and 18th century guns made and or used in America.Not having unlimited funds,I am trying to assemble a small collection of guns described by my friend Earl Lanning as "Guns that were here from the beginning" This incudes woodsrunner guns,composite muskets,and Indian guns.My favorite is a Liegeoise fusil fin {1710-1730} that was probably sent over in the early 18th century to Canada and was probably owned by an Indian possibly a chief.The barrel has been blown out twice and the last one,a small hole about halfway out,was left unrepaired with the gun relegated to the barn so to speak, retaining the old percussion plate.As Wes White once said about a fine old rifle,"When you close your eyes,you can smell the Indian campfires".I realize that this is outside the scope of this thread but I thought it fitted in considering the post military use to which many of these guns were put.I once had an old Pomeroy contract musket converted to percussion and really enjoyed shooting it with toilet paper,BB's, and occasionally round balls when I could find some which reasonably fit the muzzle.
C'est la Vie
Tom Patton

Just for safty sake you might want to check to see if the barrel has an old load still in it. :thumbsup: