1803 FKOY ??

[troutabout]

I've been a very bad boy. Supposed to be pinching pennies to buy new smoothbore kit and I found this old smoke pole at the antique mall for $165. Appears to be 12 gauge - 43 1/2 inch barrel. Stamped on the butt plate is 1803 and clearly stamped on trigger is FKOY. There is a stamp under the barrel that looks like an FP turned sideways and some O or D perpendicular to that.
Is anyone familiar with this name or this lock ?

[/img]

[/img]

[/img]

[/img]

[/img]

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

From what I can see (and I hate to say it but that's not much) your heavily modified buttplate, trigger guard , trigger plate and trigger and the barrel are from an "1803" dated US Charleville Pattern Musket, commonly called a US M1795, First Type. The lock and stock date to the 1845 - 1870 period, more likely the later part of that period. An example of someone making use of old parts and a hardware store lock to make something more "modern".

If you could add some pictures of the entire gun assembled someone might be able to add more.

 

[troutabout]

When I get the lock fixed and all put back together I'll post a long shot. I was afraid it was some kind of composite from multiple guns because of the general fit of everything.

 

[troutabout]

Repairs are moving along smoothly. I'm almost ready to reassemble and test. Here are some pics of the pieces just placed together for the long photo . . .

[/URL][/img]

[/URL][/img]

[/URL][/img]

 

This will save us having to click and it looks cleaner... :wink: click on "quote" to see the code.

 

[troutabout]

Cool - Thanks ! I went to a Charleville website http://www.jaegerkorps.org/NRA/The Revolutionary Charleville.htm
and my trigger guard matches the 1728 model but that's probably the only Charleville part on the gun.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

French 1728? Maybe, but I doubt it very seriously. If you get a picture of the guard I will almost guarantee it is a US M1795 guard that came from the same gun as the barrel, the buttplate and the trigger/trigger plate.

 

[Mike Brooks]

I don't believe the 1728 triggerguard had the swivel boss like that. Wasn't that the M1777?

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

I don't believe the 1728 triggerguard had the swivel boss like that. Wasn't that the M1777?

Mike you are correct. The French musket's triggerguard evolved over time staying similar in shape to the so-called M1728 up through the 1766. But, the later models (M1746 through 1766) were of heavier more durable construction. The sling swivel lug was added in the 2nd quarter of the 18th Century so it was seen on the M1746 and on up through the percussion period. The M1766 (the musket the US copied as their "Charleville Pattern Musket" or US M1795) definitely had the lug and the US trigger guard used on this shotgun should and does have uit as well.

The guard, trigger and trigger plate on this would be great to have for someone restoring a US M1795 but the buttplate was ruined for restoration work unfortunately. Never the less, it is an interesting shotgun from the 1850 - 1870 period that recycled early US Musket parts.

 

[troutabout]

Thanks for the great info. I'm hoping to have it back together this afternoon and maybe get to the range to try it out tomorrow.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Sounds like fun. Have you carefully examined the barrel to be certain that it is safe to fire?

I'm not necessarily saying that it isn't and I have certainly fired more than my share of early US (and other) military muskets but I almost always unbreached them to get a good look at the bore's condition and most especially to check the threading of the breachplug and the threads in the barrel for the plug. The early US muskets were expertly ground by experienced men and they did great work but the bore was not always parallel to the barrel and thin spots occasionally show up. Add to that pitting and wear to the old soft iron that they used and you could get a surprise.

The above being said, keep your charges low.

 

[troutabout]

No - I haven't unbreached it. The exterior looks to be in better shape than my Howell from around 1830-50 with less pitting on the exterior. Someone was using it with shot in the last 50 years or so until they wore out the trigger notches.
Tonight I'm making a ramrod for it from automotive steel brake tubing and I'll give it a thorough cleaning and oiling tonight. Tomorrow at the range I'll start it off with about 20 grains of FF and just a patch. Then I'll work toward 40 gn and 7 1/2 shot - maybe a PB or two.
Later I'll order a couple thimbles for the rod and solder them to the barrel. That's busy work for next week and helps me keep my mind off of ordering a new barn gun kit !

 

[troutabout]

Oh heck. Ran a brush down the barrel and was going to pop a cap indoors to blow out the fine rust dust and # 11 caps are too small for the nipple. What's a larger size than #11's ?

 

[Zonie]

Well, back in the dim dark past there were a few caps that were larger than a #11.

According to the 1987 Dixie Gunworks catalog (p 516) the #11 cap had an inside diameter of .170" for No 1075 German (RWS), No 11 Remington, and No.1055 German.
A #11 Winchester at that time was .175" inside diameter.

Then there was a #12 Alcan or Remington that had an inside diameter of .178".

Although there are still some differences in size between the various brands like Remington, CCI, Winchester.... they are all pretty close.

I suppose it is possible that the nipple in your gun is for Musket Caps but those are considerably larger in all dimensions.

Perhaps your best solution would be to remove the existing nipple and determine what the thread size and pitch is.
There are a number of newly made nipples with many different thread sizes available and they all work with the standard #11 caps we can buy today.

 

[troutabout]

I have the nipple soaking with penetrating oil. I'll let it sit and try to unscrew it in the morning. Failing that - I'll try heating it and the drum it's screwed into.
I got a few #11 caps to fire by slitting opposite sides with scissors and pressing the cap down but it's hit or miss. The nipple is at least .180 diameter and thin walled. I don't think I can successfully file or grind it to a smaller OD without grinding through the wall of the nipple - which is thin to start with.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

I got a few #11 caps to fire by slitting opposite sides with scissors and pressing the cap down but it's hit or miss. The nipple is at least .180 diameter and thin walled. I don't think I can successfully file or grind it to a smaller OD without grinding through the wall of the nipple - which is thin to start with.

DON'T TRY IT!

You need a new nipple anyway if you are going to shoot it. My guess is that you have a musket nipple and you will need musket caps, the common #10 and #11 caps are not going to work.

Remove the old nipple and replace it with a proper fitting new one before you even think about shooting it.

 

[troutabout]

Removing the old nipple isn't progressing smoothly. It and the barrel and the powder charge- being inanimate objects- aren't going to know where the flash came from. The altered 11's fired without danger. Another alternative would be removing the lead and powder from .22 shorts and using that brass and primer charge. Crude but effective. But that may be the way this gun was used the last 50 years.

 

[troutabout]

The .22 caps work great. I have 31 of them made so far - enough for a powder test at the range later. I'm waiting on a day when a friend can come with me for safety's sake. Here are pics of some of the caps....

[/URL][/img]

[/URL][/img]

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Yes, you have a musket nipple, you need musket caps. They are commonly available and are certainly safer to use than cut off .22 shells.

Out of curiosity, what kind of powder are you using?

Sounds like a good idea taking a partner with you "for safety's sake"....

 

[troutabout]

I've looked at the usual suppliers and haven't seen musket nipples offered. Where can I find them ? I'm using Goex FF powder - same as in my 16 ga. stuffer.