• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades

"1810 musket"

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

hhughh

40 Cal.
Joined
Mar 5, 2006
Messages
181
Reaction score
0
I don't have a good pic or further information on this gun yet, but would like any information.

There is an exhibit in Baton Rouge right now regarding the West Florida Rebellion of 1810. An article in the local paper lists, as part of the exhibit, a "musket" of one of the participants, who died in 1812.
But the article included a photo of some of the items, and part of the gun is visible. It clearly has a beaver-tail cheekpiece, but I thought that those came along later.
Can anyone enlighten me, please?

Thanks,
Hugh
 
Perhaps you titled this topic 1810 Musket by mistake?
According to Flayderman's Guide, the official Military arm with that date is a pistol and even this pistol isn't really a 1810. There was a Model 1808 Navy and a Model 1811 Transition Flintlock Pistol.

Anyway, back to the musket.

Unfortunatly, my only source of information about Military firearms of this era is Flayderman's Guide and it doesn't have photos of both sides of the arms.
Possible Muskets envolved in a conflict in 1810 includes the Model 1795 Springfield, the Model 1795 Harpers Ferry, the U.S. 1798 Contract Musket and the Model 1808 Contract Musket.
Flayderman makes no mention of cheek pieces on any of these Muskets.

The 1792-1809 Contract Rifles were made by many different builders and their stocks varied some.
They all had definite Pennsylvania Rifle features including patchboxes and small cheekpieces.
The 1803 U.S. Flintlock Rifle has a "small cheekrest".

I don't believe that any of these cheekpieces or cheekrests would have been of the beavertail shape.
 
Is it possible that you were looking at a French M1777 musket which has a cheek depression in the comb of the stock? If the photo was of poor quality, it may appear that there is a cheekpiece.
:hmm:
 
I apologize for the confusion. Maybe I should have titled this Ca. 1810 "musket".....

There are several features about this gun--from the pic--that suggest rifle and not musket.(Flat-bottomed buttstock, nosecap, griprail of some type on the trigger guard, etc.) But I chalk that up to the writer of the article being less familiar with the term. But it is presented as being an 1810-era firearm, and I questioned the cheekpiece.
This is a link to the picture that was in the paper. Maybe this will explain it better. I hope to have more pics of my own after I visit the exhibit.
http://media.2theadvocate.com/images/artifacts+011910.jpg

Thanks for the replies,
Hugh
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It looks interesting(the people looking it over appear to be perplexed), but not a military firearm. More detailed photos would be nice.
 
I downloaded the picture and lightened and sharpened it a bit. Still not a good photo, but easy to see the cheekpiece (small beavertail) and civilian trigger guard. And from what I can tell, it is a percussion rifle. It may have been originally a flintlock, but that appears to be a percussion hammer and not a flint cock. The barrel looks like it is an octagon to round. The nose cap and triggerguard look to be a heavily patinaed brass. Definitely a civilian piece though, not a musket. To the average Joe and Jane Blow, all muzzleloading longarms are muskets, so I guess we have to overlook that sometimes, though it's hard. It would be nice if we could find another view of this gun.
 
Went and saw the exhibit today. The gun is displayed showing the "lock side", and I took some pics with a disposable camera, so will get them and try to figure out how to post on here. I'm not all that hopeful, though, frankly, as it's behind glass, of course, and the camera insisted on flashing for each pic, so I'm sure I'll end up losing something in the glare.

From looking at it, this is what I could tell.

It is percussion, though the lock is "popped out" of the front of the mortise. It has three barrel wedges--NOT pins--and it may be four, because it's displayed with some historical papers over a portion of the forearm.

I couldn't tell enough about the shape of the barrel, but I could see from the end, and it looks to be approx. .50 cal. (That's just eyeballing it as I have a .50 cal that I built.) It is heavily carved, with a large, three-piece patchbox that is multi-pierced. The toeplate ends in a curl, wave-type pattern with several "back and forths" to it. The triggerguard is engraved with a diamond style pattern that has a diamond with points on the front and back of the bow. (Meaning that is just one large, elongated diamand.) All of the fittings appear to be brass. There is a carved pad underneath the tang, but the way it's displayed, I couldn't see the carving or the shape of the tang itself.

That's what I'm remembering right now, but it just seems to be a much "more modern" piece than 1810-vintage.
One other thing, there is a two-line engraving on the lockplate in front of the hammer, but I couldn't read it. I'm hoping I can crop and enlarge my pictures and get a reading.

Hope this helps,
Hugh
 
UPDATE

Just got out Kauffman's "The Penn-Kentucky Rifle" to look. I see no toeplates that are similar, but the patchboxes on the Allison rifle in Plate 74 and the Kettering rifle in Plate 220 are extremely similar to this rifle--if not the same. I'll have to look at my picture to see how close.

Hugh
 
I've got the same book. Allison and Kettering both did fine work. I look forward to seeing your pictures!
 
Back
Top