• 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

Old Musket Identification, need some help, not many markings

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

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

HoskinsCD

32 Cal
Joined
Sep 19, 2020
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
I'm looking to buy some old musket and the guy has no information on it other than it looks cut down, .69 cal, and it was a conversion from a flintlock. He claims it was probably used in the American Civil War but I'm hesitant to purchase without any key identifiers. The only markings I can see are on the barrel by the cone. I have cross referenced it with most (all I can find) proof marks of US and European muskets but come up empty handed. I appreciate any and all help, thanks!

Musket, whole.PNG
Musket, lock.PNG
Musket, oppisite the lock.PNG
Musket picture, barrel.PNG
 
Belgian conversion from flintlock? French issue muskets usually have stampings all over them. Looks French, not sure.
 
Thanks! It looks like you are correct. In my haste to find the answer, I bought a book on European weapons in the ACW. From the pictures and description in the book, this is a M1777/1835 Belgian Infantry Musket. Which is, if I'm correct, a French 1777 flintlock musket that's been converted to percussion lock starting in 1835. They added riflings and rear elevation sights it seems. It stated that the lock and placement of the cone are the distinguishing parts that set this aside from a Peidmontese musket. I still would like to ID the two markings on the barrel before purchasing... any ideas now that we know the realm at least?
 
May have to remove the lock and barrel to check for more marks. This may have been rejected for military service and sold as surplus. The visible stamp MAY be the contractor that did the conversion, I’m not sure....
 
One observation, which will not help with identification, is that the nipple appears to be an old one but it looks like one for a sporting arm. The cone is smaller, to take a "civilian" sized percussion cap, or at least it looks that way to me. I would think a military arm would take a musket cap.

Nowadays, percussion caps for sporting arms are pretty much limited to #10 and #11, but years ago, they came in a much larger variety of sizes. This could really complicate supply for military applications. Musket caps and musket nipples, as far as I know, were much more uniform in size, to simplify supply. Nipples on surplus guns did sometimes have the cones turned down at some point to allow the use of sporting caps, but to me, the base of this nipple also looks small. Musket nipples typically have a 5/16" or 8mm threaded shank and correspondingly sized base. Sporting nipples would more likely be around 1/4" or ~6mm.

If I am correct in this assessment (and I could be wrong... It's been known to happen... Just ask my wife!), it would suggest to me that this gun may have been surplus, or the nipple may have been replaced at a later date.

Post #3 says something about rifling and "rear elevation sights," but I don't see any sights on this gun and there are no photos of the bore, so I don't know if it has been rifled or not. I think a smoothbore configuration and a simple rear sight, or no rear sight, would be more desirable in a gun destined for the surplus market and civilian use, to allow the use of bird shot, buckshot, or ball ammunition.

Respectfully suggested,

Notchy Bob
 
Greetings, if I had one answer to toss into the ID fray it would be a model 1854 Austrian Lorenz rifle. It was used by both sides during the CW.
 
The conversion from flint was done by replacing the lockplate with a new one and installing a percussion hammer. If the lock was removed one could possibly see where the touchhole was plugged. The presence of a #11 nipple doesn't mean much as that could have been changed anytime up till last week. The lack of a nose cap indicates it has been shortened to just above the middle band. Possibly for use in a military academy? I don't see any sights and I'm guessing it is still a smoothbore. From the condition of the stock and the lack of almost all the molding around the lockplate I would say it has been heavily sanded. The edges of the molding on the opposite side of the lock are rounded and the tang is proud of the stock. That may possibly be the remnants of an inspector's mark above the trigger on the left of the stock but it's hard to say. I haven't seen any reference to these being used in the Civil War and I would throw the burden of proof back on him. The identification as an M1777/1835 Belgian Infantry Musket seems correct.

The overall condition with the exception of my comments on the stock refinish seems quite good and if the price were appealing I would buy it for a shooter and not an historical piece.
 
A Lorenz has a bolster for the nipple to screw into on the barrel. On this musket, the nipple is screwed into the top o f the barrel. And the lock shape is wrong. The hammer shape is wrong. I have owned a Lorenz in the past. This musket ain’t one.
 
Back
Top