• Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

My oldest smoothbore Warhorse

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Oct 13, 2020
Messages
29
Reaction score
111
Location
Arkansas
In my long-standing attempt to collect an example of every major longarm used by the US military, I just got this in a few weeks ago. It's a model 1816 Springfield .69 cal smoothbore flintlock manufactured in 1832. The M1816s were improved versions of the M1795, which was our very first domestic manufactured general military longarm and mostly used in the war of 1812. The M1795 was based on the French Charleville musket pattern used by the continental army in fairly large numbers---2nd only to the use of the Brown Bess overall. The US military determined that the Charleville pattern was superior to---and easier to, manufacture than the Bess so that's what they went with. The M1816 was produced from 1816 until 1844 and afterward, many were converted from flintlock to percussion so many soldiered on--even through the ACW.

This is one of the listing pictures that convinced me to purchase it. It actually looked even better in person than in these lightbox photos and came with a nice matching US marked and inspected bayonet. It's obviously been cleaned and the metal all buffed back to armory bright, so I got it at a good price. Click on any of the pictures to enlarge except the last photo of the reenactors
eHDUOsM.jpg


The M1816s were used in the 2nd Seminole war in 1835 and reportedly some older early models were used in the Texas War of Independence also in 1835. It then was our main battle musket for the Mexican-American war (1846-1848). Even though the army was in the midst of converting to percussion by the time of the Mexican-American war, the leaders and planners were worried about the logistics of keeping the armies on the Texas frontier and in Mexico supplied with musket caps. These caps could only be produced in sophisticated factory environments. Thus, if a soldier armed with a percussion firearm ran out of musket caps all he was left with was a fancy club or a spear if he had a bayonet. On the other hand, flints are long-lasting plus they are a naturally occurring mineral that can be found almost anywhere.

Here is it in person along with a few appropriate props. We were still using white buff leather during the Mexican-American war so that's what I went with for the photo. The Mexican war M1839 forage caps looked a bit like a modern police hat. click picture for full size
X08AZjc.jpg


Between the Springfield and the Harpers Ferry armories plus a number of contract makers, over 700,000 of these were produced up until 1844. In the mid to late 1840s the armories started converting these to percussion while they also introduced the Model 1842 which was simply the M1816 design manufactured as a percussion model. These muskets remained our main battle musket up until 1855 when the .58 cal Minie ball was adopted. This meant that the army could finally convert to more accurate rifled muskets. Our military was also being issued rifles, such as the M1841 "Mississippi", during these earlier periods but they were reserved for specialty troops like scouts, skirmishers, and what were sometimes referred to as flanking units.

The Dragoons (cavalry) during the Mexican-American war were even issued early breech-loading rifles since managing a muzzleloader from horseback was problematic. Still, the smoothbore musket remained the main infantry longarm until 1855, because it was both easier to load, simpler to maintain, and required less training to use effectively.

It should be noted that due to the shortages of rifled muskets at the start of the ACW, 10s of thousands of the converted smoothbore M1816s saw service by both the North and the South in the early years of the war. Some Southerners were still carrying flintlock versions. Thus, this musket was in continuous service longer than just about any other US service arm--from 1816 to as late as 1864 or 48 years. Of course, these muskets were made more effective as smoothbores during the ACW by the use of "buck & ball" loads which were made up of 3 each quarter-inch buckshot on top of a .68 cal round ball.


My example still has faint images of the original military inspection cartouches in the wood.
WnznwgC.jpg


close up detail of the previous layout photo--click for full size
098dqG7.jpg


Finally, here's an old photo of some US regular reenactors from the Mexican-American war. Notice how their white buff slings make an X on the chest. I have been told that this was the inspiration for the white X symbols used to indicate infantry positions on a map. I will say that with all the gray in their beards, these guys look a little long in the tooth to have been a typical soldier of the period.
default.jpg


Thanks for reading and I hope I didn't bore you with information you already knew.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
In my long-standing attempt to collect an example of every major longarm used by the US military, I just got this in a few weeks ago. It's a model 1816 Springfield .69 cal smoothbore flintlock manufactured in 1832. The M1816s were improved versions of the M1795, which was our very first domestic manufactured general military longarm and mostly used in the war of 1812. The M1795 was based on the French Charleville musket pattern used by the continental army in fairly large numbers---2nd only to the use of the Brown Bess overall. The US military determined that the Charleville pattern was superior to---and easier to, manufacture than the Bess so that's what they went with. The M1816 was produced from 1816 until 1844 and afterward, many were converted from flintlock to percussion so many soldiered on--even through the ACW.

This is one of the listing pictures that convinced me to purchase it. It actually looked even better in person than in these lightbox photos and came with a nice matching US marked and inspected bayonet. It's obviously been cleaned and the metal all buffed back to armory bright, so I got it at a good price.
eHDUOsM.jpg


The M1816s were used in the 2nd Seminole war in 1835 and reportedly some older early models were used in the Texas War of Independence also in 1835. It then was our main battle musket for the Mexican-American war (1846-1848). Even though the army was in the midst of converting to percussion by the time of the Mexican-American war, the leaders and planners were worried about the logistics of keeping the armies on the Texas frontier and in Mexico supplied with musket caps. These caps could only be produced in sophisticated factory environments. Thus, if a soldier armed with a percussion firearm ran out of musket caps all he was left with was a fancy club or a spear if he had a bayonet. On the other hand, flints are long-lasting plus they are a naturally occurring mineral that can be found almost anywhere.

Here is it in person along with a few appropriate props. We were still using white buff leather during the Mexican-American war so that's what I went with for the photo. The Mexican war M1839 forage caps looked a bit like a modern police hat.
X08AZjc.jpg


Between the Springfield and the Harpers Ferry armories plus a number of contract makers, over 700,000 of these were produced up until 1844. In the mid to late 1840s the armories started converting these to percussion while they also introduced the Model 1842 which was simply the M1816 design manufactured as a percussion model. These muskets remained our main battle musket up until 1855 when the .58 cal Minie ball was adopted. This meant that the army could finally convert to more accurate rifled muskets. Our military was also being issued rifles, such as the M1841 "Mississippi", during these earlier periods but they were reserved for specialty troops like scouts, skirmishers, and what were sometimes referred to as flanking units.

The Dragoons (cavalry) during the Mexican-American war were even issued early breech-loading rifles since managing a muzzleloader from horseback was problematic. Still, the smoothbore musket remained the main infantry longarm until 1855, because it was both easier to load, simpler to maintain, and required less training to use effectively.

It should be noted that due to the shortages of rifled muskets at the start of the ACW, 10s of thousands of the converted smoothbore M1816s saw service by both the North and the South in the early years of the war. Some Southerners were still carrying flintlock versions. Thus, this musket was in continuous service longer than just about any other US service arm--from 1816 to as late as 1864 or 48 years. Of course, these muskets were made more effective as smoothbores during the ACW by the use of "buck & ball" loads which were made up of 3 each quarter-inch buckshot on top of a .68 cal round ball.


My example still has faint images of the original military inspection cartouches in the wood.
WnznwgC.jpg


close up detail of the previous layout photo
098dqG7.jpg


Finally, here's an old photo of some US regular reenactors from the Mexican-American war. Notice how their white buff slings make an X on the chest. I have been told that this was the inspiration for the white X symbols used to indicate infantry positions on a map. I will say that with all the gray in their beards, these guys look a little long in the tooth to have been a typical soldier of the period.
default.jpg


Thanks for reading and I hope I didn't bore you with information you already knew.

Cheers

I always wondered what the Texicans used in the war for independence in 1835-36. I always figured they had a mix of Brown Besses and Charlevilles. Where did you find info about their using the M1816?
 
Thanks for the kind words gents.

I always wondered what the Texicans used in the war for independence in 1835-36. I always figured they had a mix of Brown Besses and Charlevilles. Where did you find info about their using the M1816?

They used a wide variety of firearms in the Texas revolution including the ones you mention but I came across the info about the M1816 being used in the Texas revolution from Wikipedia of all places

Here's the link : M1816 musket

and here's the pertinent quote:
This model of Springfield musket was used by Texans during the Texas Revolution and by the U.S. Army and militia during the Mexican–American War. During this conflict, the flintlock version of the Model 1816 was preferred by U.S. regular forces, due to percussion cap supply concerns.

I can only guess that since the M1816 would have been in service by 1835 for 19 years and had gone through several revisions, some of the older models had been sold off as surplus.

Cheers
 
The 1842 Springfield percussion musket was a direct descendant of the 1835/1840 flintlock musket, not the 1816.
 
The 1842 Springfield percussion musket was a direct descendant of the 1835/1840 flintlock musket, not the 1816.

That is technically correct, but according to authors George Moller and Kent W. Johns both the M1835/1840 and the subsequent M1842 line of muskets were mostly derivative of the M1816. I probably could have stated this in my original text but did not.

At one time all the later versions of the M1816 used to have their own model numbers, but at some point, because they all were so derivative of the previous model collectors just started dividing them into Types. Type I from 1816 to 1821, then type II from 1822 until 1831 and then Type III from 1832 until 1844.

The M1835/1840 was the first to realize a new model number because of the emphasis on being manufactured with interchangeable parts but it is still considered as a derivation of the M1816. I just chose not to muddy the waters with these technical classifications because most people don't care about that much detail.

It was created during a period when all the national armories were trying to implement fully interchangeable parts. Its biggest innovation over the M1816 was a thicker barrel with the idea that it could be rifled sometime in the future. However, it's still a .69 caliber smoothbore flintlock with the exact same length as the M1816 at 57 and 13/16th inches. The locks were almost identical as were most of the fittings. The M1840 had a slightly higher comb on the stock and a slightly different configured front barrel band. I think the top jaw on the cock varied.

Here's the summation on this at Wikipedia. I don't like using them all the time as a reference but it's easier than hand transcribing all this info from my two books on the subject matter

Link: The model 1842 musket

lead quote from the article:

The US Model 1842 Musket was a .69 caliber musket manufactured and used in the United States during the 19th Century. It is a continuation of the Model 1816 line of muskets but is generally referred to as its own model number rather than just a variant of the Model 1816.

The Model 1842 was the last U.S. smoothbore musket. Many features that had been retrofitted into the Model 1840 were standard on the Model 1842. The Model 1842 was the first primary U.S. muskets to be produced with a percussion lock; however, most of the Model 1840 flintlocks ended up being converted to percussion locks before reaching the field. The percussion cap system was vastly superior to the flintlock, being much more reliable and much more resistant to weather.

Like all Model 1816 derivatives, the Model 1842 has a .69 caliber smoothbore barrel that was 42 inches (110 cm) in length. The Model 1842 had an overall length of 58 inches (150 cm) and a weight of ten pounds (4,5 kg).


Cheers
 
Last edited:
In my long-standing attempt to collect an example of every major longarm used by the US military, I just got this in a few weeks ago. It's a model 1816 Springfield .69 cal smoothbore flintlock manufactured in 1832. The M1816s were improved versions of the M1795, which was our very first domestic manufactured general military longarm and mostly used in the war of 1812. The M1795 was based on the French Charleville musket pattern used by the continental army in fairly large numbers---2nd only to the use of the Brown Bess overall. The US military determined that the Charleville pattern was superior to---and easier to, manufacture than the Bess so that's what they went with. The M1816 was produced from 1816 until 1844 and afterward, many were converted from flintlock to percussion so many soldiered on--even through the ACW.

This is one of the listing pictures that convinced me to purchase it. It actually looked even better in person than in these lightbox photos and came with a nice matching US marked and inspected bayonet. It's obviously been cleaned and the metal all buffed back to armory bright, so I got it at a good price. Click on any of the pictures to enlarge except the last photo of the reenactors
eHDUOsM.jpg


The M1816s were used in the 2nd Seminole war in 1835 and reportedly some older early models were used in the Texas War of Independence also in 1835. It then was our main battle musket for the Mexican-American war (1846-1848). Even though the army was in the midst of converting to percussion by the time of the Mexican-American war, the leaders and planners were worried about the logistics of keeping the armies on the Texas frontier and in Mexico supplied with musket caps. These caps could only be produced in sophisticated factory environments. Thus, if a soldier armed with a percussion firearm ran out of musket caps all he was left with was a fancy club or a spear if he had a bayonet. On the other hand, flints are long-lasting plus they are a naturally occurring mineral that can be found almost anywhere.

Here is it in person along with a few appropriate props. We were still using white buff leather during the Mexican-American war so that's what I went with for the photo. The Mexican war M1839 forage caps looked a bit like a modern police hat. click picture for full size
X08AZjc.jpg


Between the Springfield and the Harpers Ferry armories plus a number of contract makers, over 700,000 of these were produced up until 1844. In the mid to late 1840s the armories started converting these to percussion while they also introduced the Model 1842 which was simply the M1816 design manufactured as a percussion model. These muskets remained our main battle musket up until 1855 when the .58 cal Minie ball was adopted. This meant that the army could finally convert to more accurate rifled muskets. Our military was also being issued rifles, such as the M1841 "Mississippi", during these earlier periods but they were reserved for specialty troops like scouts, skirmishers, and what were sometimes referred to as flanking units.

The Dragoons (cavalry) during the Mexican-American war were even issued early breech-loading rifles since managing a muzzleloader from horseback was problematic. Still, the smoothbore musket remained the main infantry longarm until 1855, because it was both easier to load, simpler to maintain, and required less training to use effectively.

It should be noted that due to the shortages of rifled muskets at the start of the ACW, 10s of thousands of the converted smoothbore M1816s saw service by both the North and the South in the early years of the war. Some Southerners were still carrying flintlock versions. Thus, this musket was in continuous service longer than just about any other US service arm--from 1816 to as late as 1864 or 48 years. Of course, these muskets were made more effective as smoothbores during the ACW by the use of "buck & ball" loads which were made up of 3 each quarter-inch buckshot on top of a .68 cal round ball.


My example still has faint images of the original military inspection cartouches in the wood.
WnznwgC.jpg


close up detail of the previous layout photo--click for full size
098dqG7.jpg


Finally, here's an old photo of some US regular reenactors from the Mexican-American war. Notice how their white buff slings make an X on the chest. I have been told that this was the inspiration for the white X symbols used to indicate infantry positions on a map. I will say that with all the gray in their beards, these guys look a little long in the tooth to have been a typical soldier of the period.
default.jpg


Thanks for reading and I hope I didn't bore you with information you already knew.

Cheers
Really nice post, thanks for the great photos.
 
In my long-standing attempt to collect an example of every major longarm used by the US military, I just got this in a few weeks ago. It's a model 1816 Springfield .69 cal smoothbore flintlock manufactured in 1832. The M1816s were improved versions of the M1795, which was our very first domestic manufactured general military longarm and mostly used in the war of 1812. The M1795 was based on the French Charleville musket pattern used by the continental army in fairly large numbers---2nd only to the use of the Brown Bess overall. The US military determined that the Charleville pattern was superior to---and easier to, manufacture than the Bess so that's what they went with. The M1816 was produced from 1816 until 1844 and afterward, many were converted from flintlock to percussion so many soldiered on--even through the ACW.

This is one of the listing pictures that convinced me to purchase it. It actually looked even better in person than in these lightbox photos and came with a nice matching US marked and inspected bayonet. It's obviously been cleaned and the metal all buffed back to armory bright, so I got it at a good price. Click on any of the pictures to enlarge except the last photo of the reenactors
eHDUOsM.jpg


The M1816s were used in the 2nd Seminole war in 1835 and reportedly some older early models were used in the Texas War of Independence also in 1835. It then was our main battle musket for the Mexican-American war (1846-1848). Even though the army was in the midst of converting to percussion by the time of the Mexican-American war, the leaders and planners were worried about the logistics of keeping the armies on the Texas frontier and in Mexico supplied with musket caps. These caps could only be produced in sophisticated factory environments. Thus, if a soldier armed with a percussion firearm ran out of musket caps all he was left with was a fancy club or a spear if he had a bayonet. On the other hand, flints are long-lasting plus they are a naturally occurring mineral that can be found almost anywhere.

Here is it in person along with a few appropriate props. We were still using white buff leather during the Mexican-American war so that's what I went with for the photo. The Mexican war M1839 forage caps looked a bit like a modern police hat. click picture for full size
X08AZjc.jpg


Between the Springfield and the Harpers Ferry armories plus a number of contract makers, over 700,000 of these were produced up until 1844. In the mid to late 1840s the armories started converting these to percussion while they also introduced the Model 1842 which was simply the M1816 design manufactured as a percussion model. These muskets remained our main battle musket up until 1855 when the .58 cal Minie ball was adopted. This meant that the army could finally convert to more accurate rifled muskets. Our military was also being issued rifles, such as the M1841 "Mississippi", during these earlier periods but they were reserved for specialty troops like scouts, skirmishers, and what were sometimes referred to as flanking units.

The Dragoons (cavalry) during the Mexican-American war were even issued early breech-loading rifles since managing a muzzleloader from horseback was problematic. Still, the smoothbore musket remained the main infantry longarm until 1855, because it was both easier to load, simpler to maintain, and required less training to use effectively.

It should be noted that due to the shortages of rifled muskets at the start of the ACW, 10s of thousands of the converted smoothbore M1816s saw service by both the North and the South in the early years of the war. Some Southerners were still carrying flintlock versions. Thus, this musket was in continuous service longer than just about any other US service arm--from 1816 to as late as 1864 or 48 years. Of course, these muskets were made more effective as smoothbores during the ACW by the use of "buck & ball" loads which were made up of 3 each quarter-inch buckshot on top of a .68 cal round ball.


My example still has faint images of the original military inspection cartouches in the wood.
WnznwgC.jpg


close up detail of the previous layout photo--click for full size
098dqG7.jpg


Finally, here's an old photo of some US regular reenactors from the Mexican-American war. Notice how their white buff slings make an X on the chest. I have been told that this was the inspiration for the white X symbols used to indicate infantry positions on a map. I will say that with all the gray in their beards, these guys look a little long in the tooth to have been a typical soldier of the period.
default.jpg


Thanks for reading and I hope I didn't bore you with information you already knew.

Cheers
True of most re-enactors! Colorful photo, though! Keeping the whites white, would have been an ongoing chore! Kind of like spit-shined boots in today's military! ('Course, many of them use the "rough out" desert stuff!)
 
Great post, very informative, and nice photographs! I've been on an early 19thC collecting kick myself. Have a decent Wickham M1816 that escaped conversion to Percussion and it needs a sling, @Frontstuffer where did you pick up the white sling for your piece?
 
That is a great looking M1816 and even in original flintlock configuration. Certainly a cool piece of history. When can we expect videos of buck and ball being fired? Here's mine from 1831 that was converted to percussion with a little buck and ball.
 

Attachments

  • PXL_20230331_184049813.jpg
    PXL_20230331_184049813.jpg
    2.9 MB · Views: 0
  • IMG_7494.mov
    3.6 MB
I am sorry I just read this thread almost two years after it was originally posted. The musket is simply lovely as are the period accoutrements. Thank you sir!
Much appreciated--and yes, I was kind of surprised when I started getting all these nice comments for a post I made that long ago.

Great post, very informative, and nice photographs! I've been on an early 19thC collecting kick myself. Have a decent Wickham M1816 that escaped conversion to Percussion and it needs a sling, @Frontstuffer where did you pick up the white sling for your piece?
Thanks, I think the sling came from S & S firearms and was actually meant for a M1841 Mississppi rifle. However, the distance between the swivels was close enough on both firearms that it worked---at least for the picture. I now have a russet-colored sling on it that also came from S & S.

I've posted this picture in another thread previously, but here's the same sling on my original and shootable M1841. It was made by Robbins & Lawrence with a lock date of 1848 which was probably too late to see action in the Mexican-American war but I couldn't resist doing a layout to represent how it would have looked if carried by the 1st Mississippi Volunteers led by Jefferson Davis when they repulsed a charge of Mexican lancers to turn the tide of battle at Beuna Vista. That's how the rifle got its "Mississippi" nickname. The M1841 Rifleman's pouch with a split sling to also hold a flask also came from S & S. Since the M1841 had no provision for a bayonet at this point, the Mississippians were issued large Bowie knives.
IMG_2528.post 2.JPG


Here's a depiction of the Mississippians charging the lancers after thinning them out with nothing but their Bowies and a lot of grit. During the war, President Polk asked each state for a regiment of volunteers. The US government was responsible for the firearms but the state had to provide the uniforms. Mississippi chose canvas trousers, red overshirts, and straw hats for Mexico.
Untitled.2.jpg


Cheers
 
Last edited:
Back in the early 1970's , I buit up some Kit Bown Besses for a local fort do visitor demonstrations . I liked the robust .75 cal. muskits so much , I put one togather for myself , to see if I might hunt small game w/ it. The fun was the process of experimenting with it to see what it might do. I learned a lot from experimenting with it. Is is a safe queen these days. Gave it to my hunting buddy to use fir a few yrs. , he used it and gave it back.
 
The OP's musket is a really nice example, cleaned or not. They bring a large premium at auctions if it can be conformed it was NOT re-converted from percussion later (in the 20th/21st Century) as many have been - including mine. Congratulations.

Here is my 1816. The lock plate is dated 1827. I bought this very cheap. It was missing it's ramrod. Someone had re-converted the lock back to flintlock - but used new parts for a Model 1795. Darn. The bore measured closer to .72 caliber, and was not in the best shape. But overall, the gun was solid and in good shape. A good example to restore to shooting condition. So, I sent the lock off to Jeff Miller and had him re-do and tune the lock using new, replica 1816 parts. Then sent the barrel off to Bobby Hoyt to install a new liner bringing it back to it's original .69 caliber. And a new, replica ramrod from S&S Firearms. So she's now ready for a new life in shooting. I figure she will not rate too well in the collector's corner. But I have no more cost in it than the price of an Indian made replica. And an original to shoot.

Rick

001 (Medium).JPG
002 (Medium).JPG
003 (Medium).JPG
004 (Medium).JPG
 
The OP's musket is a really nice example, cleaned or not. They bring a large premium at auctions if it can be conformed it was NOT re-converted from percussion later (in the 20th/21st Century) as many have been - including mine. Congratulations.

Here is my 1816. The lock plate is dated 1827. I bought this very cheap. It was missing it's ramrod. Someone had re-converted the lock back to flintlock - but used new parts for a Model 1795. Darn. The bore measured closer to .72 caliber, and was not in the best shape. But overall, the gun was solid and in good shape. A good example to restore to shooting condition. So, I sent the lock off to Jeff Miller and had him re-do and tune the lock using new, replica 1816 parts. Then sent the barrel off to Bobby Hoyt to install a new liner bringing it back to it's original .69 caliber. And a new, replica ramrod from S&S Firearms. So she's now ready for a new life in shooting. I figure she will not rate too well in the collector's corner. But I have no more cost in it than the price of an Indian made replica. And an original to shoot.

Rick

I guess it's time to come clean on my musket since you brought it up. When I bought it, I was told that it was "a cleaned/restored, but not a re-converted" musket. However, not too long after I got it and posted about it here, I acquired the following book from Amazon:

1692572443983.png


With the data presented in this book, I was able to determine that my musket was in fact a reconversion--a well-done reconversion but a reconversion nonetheless.

The book explains that when a lock was to be assembled they would gather all the parts for hand fitting but would stamp each and every part with a single lowercase letter of the alphabet--every part including screw heads with the exception of the mainspring and the sear spring. Those two springs could not be stamped without possibly damaging the temper. The Frizzen spring has a small tail that allows it to be stamped. This was done so that after a lock fitting had been completed, it could be disassembled and the parts sent to another part of the factory to be hardened by heat treating. The parts for several locks could be placed in the same basket for the kiln and afterward, the letter stamps would allow the workmen to sort them out to their respective lock group. I guess they never exceeded 26 locks at a time.

The assembly letter for my lock was a lowercase letter "c". You can see it on the head of the screw that secures the cock. That screw and the inner machine screw that holds the pan in place are the only parts that may survive a conversion and then a reconversion.

There is no stamp at all on the cock, the top jaw, the top jaw screw, the brass pan, the frizzen, the frizzen screw, and the frizzen spring screw--meaning they are replacement parts. The frizzen spring is original but it has the letter "v" on it so it came from another gun. None of this meant anything to me until I got the book

I was able to contact the seller and using his own listing picture prove to him that the musket was a reconversion. He was very apologetic and said he would take it back for a full refund including all shipping. Now, I was pretty happy with the gun and if it had been listed as a reconversion and priced accordingly, I might have bought it anyway since I had no plans to shoot it. I asked him if he was going to relist it as a reconversion and if so would he be willing to discuss the new price with me. He was quite embarrassed about the whole thing and quoted me a price that was over 30% less. I agreed to keep it and he promptly issued a credit for that amount to my credit card---the mark of an obviously ethical and honest seller.

As I said, I'm happy with the musket since it fills the proper place in my collection. It never dawned on me to come back to this thread and go through this over-long explanation until now. Anyway, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. ;)

Cheers
 
Last edited:
Hi Frontstuffer

WOW!! What an interesting follow-up story. Thanks for the information from the book. At one of my annual visits to the Antique Arms Show in Baltimore, there was a collector displaying his Springfield musket display. I had just purchased my musket above, so I was talking to him briefly about the different patterns, conversions, re-conversions, etc. Included in his collection was both a 1795 and 1816 that were both in original flintlock configuration. He mentioned it took him many years to locate just those two guns that he could confirm were not converted or re-converted later. He said that many of the reconversions were done very professionally. To the untrained eye, they looked legit. Even the metal on the new parts aged/altered to match the the remaining original parts. (Notice how well the matching on both Your's and My locks). Some guys are really good at this. It seems the Arsenals converted to percussion every one of these muskets they could lay their hands on. LOL Maybe the very rare, unconverted muskets somehow ended up in civilian hands (?)

Rick
 

Latest posts

Back
Top