3 long-guns and a pistol part 2

My coworker's husband has inherited these 4 originals as family heirlooms. They're not shooters or gun people at all, so I offered to do a little research for them on what these are. Selfishly, it's just an excuse to spend a little quality time with some original arms that I likely won't ever be in a position to buy. So, I'd just like to check for any additional knowledge I can pass along. Can anyone add to or correct my impressions below so that I can provide my friend an accurate description of what she has?

Springfield Armory 1852(?) Smoothbore musket. .72 cal bore the muzzle. Maybe it's a coned barrel, since I think this was supposed to be a .69 cal musket? No marks on lock. The stamp on the butt seems to indicate 1852 manufacture(?), but I don't know what the initials mean.

This gun was converted from flint lock. The last model that the US made as a flint lock is the 1840 musket. The 1852 stamp is probably a inspectors mark from when it was converted. This is not a 1840 model but I haven’t got a chance to look it up.

I believe that your musket is French, possibly Belgian, it is certainly not American. I'll try to get the time to do a little research to confirm.

Great example of a dished out stock, so someone could aim instead of pointing in the general direction!
Nit Wit

Va.Manuf.06 said:

I believe that your musket is French, possibly Belgian, it is certainly not American. I'll try to get the time to do a little research to confirm.

Click to expand...

If it were American the bayonet lug would be on top of the barrel and not the bottom as the French were. There would also be an inspector's mark on the stock behind the side plate and not on the butt.

military arm converted to perc. and made into a foragers shot gun

OK, the dished stock and the two finger ridges in the trigger guard, make this either a later French Version OR a U.S. Musket that was based on the French M1777 Musket. For some of the features mentioned, this article goes into them. http://jaegerkorps.org/NRA/The Revolutionary Charleville.htm


Well....some U.S. and some American Contract made copies of the French Model 1777 did have the bayonet lug on the bottom of the barrel. It was not "usual," but there were examples.

Since the priming pan on this musket was cut off, we can't be terribly sure if it had the Brass Pan of the French Model 1777 or the Iron Pan of the U.S. Model 1812. It looks like it was an Iron pan and that at least strongly suggests the Model 1812, but I am not sure if later French M1777 muskets or the next model French Musket went back to an Iron Pan?

Now, at least one of the three main variations of the U.S. Model 1812 Muskets had the finger ridges on the trigger guard tang as does the OP's musket. I think it was the first variation "Type I", but am not entirely sure. I know I have personally seen M1812 Muskets with the two finger ridges.

Here is an original M1812 Type II that does not have the finger ridges on the trigger guard tang, nor the bayonet lug on the bottom of the barrel, but does have the "dished out stock" and Iron Pan that were common on M1812 Muskets.
http://www.antiquearmsinc.com/1812-springfield-model-1812.htm

So, while I am not absolutely certain, I think the OP's Musket is either the French Musket right after the M1777 or an Early U.S. Model 1812 musket or possibly an American Contractor version of the M1812.

Gus

Artificer, I agree with most of your thinking, however the dead giveaway on this one is the acceptance mark on the butt stock - the AR over 1852 - is European, either French or Belgian. There are no American muskets that I am aware of with this type of cartouche.

Ah, good point on the cartouche. Then perhaps most likely it started as a French Musket and then surplus sold and converted to percussion and sold again from Belgium?

Since Caleb Huse beat the Northern Arms Procurement Agents to many of the best contracts, it seems possible this one was purchased by Northern Agents during the War?

Gus

Artificer said:

Ah, good point on the cartouche. Then perhaps most likely it started as a French Musket and then surplus sold and converted to percussion and sold again from Belgium?

Since Caleb Huse beat the Northern Arms Procurement Agents to many of the best contracts, it seems possible this one was purchased by Northern Agents during the War?

Gus

Click to expand...

Very possible, Northern purchasers certainly did more business with both France and Belgium than their Southern contemporaries.

Thanks to all y'all, especially Artificer with those links. Yes, the dish makes it quite comfortable to shoulder and aim, though for my own preferences I wish it was further forward. Not that I'm going to fire it. I know my friend will appreciate the extra info about it's likely history.

You are most welcome.

I like the keep the "Revolutionary War Charleville" article handy because it helps me remember which Model of French Flintlocks the U.S. copied for our muskets from the M1795 through M1840 Flintlock Muskets.

Gus

A lot of it was done so they ( Northern purchase agents ) could buy up available guns before the Confederate agents got their hands on them.
A lot of these guns were bought by the North with no intention of them ever being issued. They only wanted to deny them to the South.

smoothshooter said:

A lot of it was done so they ( Northern purchase agents ) could buy up available guns before the Confederate agents got their hands on them.
A lot of these guns were bought by the North with no intention of them ever being issued. They only wanted to deny them to the South.

Click to expand...

Partially true, yes. But the Northern agents were beaten to the punch by Confederate government and Southern state and even some Northern state agents to the British market. Early on in the period, the British government was buying large numbers of arms as well so it left the Union wanting for quality arms there.

The Federal buyers moved on to other sellers and found excellent quality arms available in France, Belgium and the German states (as well as Austria) so they bought there. The big problem with these arms was caliber, not quality, and special ammunition had to be manufactured to get them into actual front line service but they could be and were issued for training. While the Federal agents claimed that the purchase of these arms was to keep weapons out of the hands of the Confederacy, it is far more likely that it was simply because the arms were needed for their forces and there was nothing else available - it didn't hurt the South.

At any rate, the Federal purchases filled the gap until superior northern manufacturing capability got up and running and allowed first rate, standardized arms to be in the hands of the new Union armies to be equipped with overall superior weapons.

(as well as Austria) so they bought there. The big problem with these arms was caliber, not quality, and special ammunition had to be manufactured to get them into actual front line service

Click to expand...

Interesting comment. I once had (wish I had kept ) an original CW rifled musket I purchased from a CW artifacts dealer in Gettysburg. It had no identifying marks at all. It was a .72 cal. with 12 round lands and grooves. The breech was a Nock type that required 120 gr. of bp to fill so the gun could be fired safely. Bore was good. I had 'Ole Perfesser' Wilford Shaw of Friendship, Indiana check it out before I shot it. Was a good shooter but killer on the shoulder. He, Turner Kirkland, and some others, believed it to be Austrian made.

I wonder if it's possible to tell an American or English made gun from a French/Belgian/Austrian by examining the screws to see if they're metric.