An 1816 Remington Maynard musket

[Celticstoneman]

Hiya, I fully realize that my question is going to raise the hackles of some of you fine folks but I have no one else to talk to about my musket and I appreciate above all else an honest opinion.
Now within the last few weeks I bought a collection of guns from a person who does not care about them and hasn't maintained them for over fifty years. Among them is the above mentioned musket. Remingtons on the side plate ,no logo of any kind elsewhere. When the new breech was fitted the rear sight was turned 90 degrees to the right leaving no rear sight at all,,,,, I am asking why that was done?
My second, and biggest question, is about the condition of the musket. I say musket because it is not rifled. I am almost positive that it was browned but a half a century in a basement has left rust and pitting. So here goes. Should I refurbish this weapon? I did it 40 years ago on an 1863 Trapdoor that was really badly damaged and it came out really nice. With the history of this complete long gun i am afraid of screwing the pooch.
So do I make it pretty or preserve it as is? What say you guys?

 

[Zonie]

Hi Celticstoneman. Welcome to the forum.
A few thoughts.

The Maynard tape system for priming the percussion guns was first used on conversions of the US Model 1840 flintlock musket when they were altered to the percussion system. The Maynard tape design was used on most of the Model 1855 rifled-muskets.

From 1856 to 1859, Frankford Arsneal, Philadelphia, Pa converted 20,000 conversions of earlier 1816 muskets using Maynard primer locks and percussion bolsters. Remington supplied these parts to Frankford.
The locks should be marked "REMINGTON'S / ILION, N.Y./date" . Dates range from 1856 to 1858 with a very few using a 1855 date.

Because this is talking about a real, antique, I am moving the thread to the Firearms Identification area of the forum. That is where we talk about non-reproduction originals.

As for cleaning up your gun I strongly suggest that you do no more than to remove any loose rust and accumulated dirt. Do not try to "refurbish" the gun more than that. Protect the cleaned wood with linseed oil and the metal parts with a good gun oil.

 

[Celticstoneman]

Thank you. Any thoughts on how or why this is not a rifled gun?
John.

 

[hawkeye2]

Your 1816 Springfield musket would not have had a rear sight to turn 90 deg. to the right. We would like to see photos of this. The only sight was a front sight on the rear of the front band.

"The US arsenals had previously experimented with the rifling of percussion altered M1816/22/28 muskets during 1856 and 1857 and found that doing so weakened the barrel sufficiently as to make it unsafe. The issue was a combination of the barrel being thinned out by the rifling process and the additional breech pressure created by the use of expanding base ammunition. The end result was that a substantial number of the rifled M1816 muskets burst in the field, and the project was abandoned." (College Hill Arsenal website)

A lot of the pre 1842 models were not rifled and were issued as smoothbores. If yours has or had a rear sight it's possible it is rifled. The rifling would be quite shallow, 3 wide lands and grooves, and difficult to see if there is rust and dirt present.

 

[Celticstoneman]

Hiya Hawkeye, thank you for the reply.I don't think that there is rifling.Eh? It came with a bayonet that I believe is post 1860 with no markings. There are two views of a dove tailed slot I am assuming is for a sight. What is your thoughts. Oh, is that Browning or surface rust?

 

[hawkeye2]

Rust. For sure that's a sight dovetail and it looks like an armory job. The rear of the dovetail should be a vertical cut and the front is undercut if it's original. There will be a hole for a 10-32 screw just forward of the dovetail and most likely it was filled with a screw and filed smooth making it difficult to find with the rust. The hammer is correct for the lock as it has the cutting edge to cut the tape primer as it hits the nipple. I'm far from well informed on the smoothbore Springfields but I have never seen one with a '55/'61 style bolster though it looks original to the conversion. There were improvements made to these over the years they were in production and conversions were made by a number of different contractors resulting in a lot of variations by the time they saw service in the Civil War. I hope someone can be of more help to you.

 

[Celticstoneman]

Rust. For sure that's a sight dovetail and it looks like an armory job. The rear of the dovetail should be a vertical cut and the front is undercut if it's original. There will be a hole for a 10-32 screw just forward of the dovetail and most likely it was filled with a screw and filed smooth making it difficult to find with the rust. The hammer is correct for the lock as it has the cutting edge to cut the tape primer as it hits the nipple. I'm far from well informed on the smoothbore Springfields but I have never seen one with a '55/'61 style bolster though it looks original to the conversion. There were improvements made to these over the years they were in production and conversions were made by a number of different contractors resulting in a lot of variations by the time they saw service in the Civil War. I hope someone can be of more help to you.

Hawkeye, the hole forward of the dove tail cut is there just as you described it. Thank you and good luck.