Original 1816 Springfield

[rickystl]

Hello All.

Here is another item I picked up while at the Antique Arms Show in Baltimore last month.
Seller said it had been re-converted back to flintlock. And I don't dought that. The vent hole shows no corrosion or wear like the rest of the gun.
While this is not in my area of expertise, I come to you guys with a couple questions/comments: The lock is dated 1827. The frizzen looks like the 1816 style, but with the old remenants of being half-soled. But if I'm correct, it looks like the re-conversion was done utilizing a 1795 style hammer. Is that correct ? Also, the caliber at the muzzle is about .74 I thought they were all standard U.S. .69 I did not mike it, but the simple bore guage comes out to that.
Anyway, I thought this might be a good candidate to make into a shooter. The lock's in good working order. Just needs a new frizzen. And the ramrod is missing. But that can also be replaced. The bore looks a bit rough. Hope it will burnish out ok. If not, it can have Hoyt install a liner. The stock is very solid. No cracks. The only thing thats a real mystery is the bore caliber. Any ideas ? Thanks.

Rick

 

[varsity07840]

The first thing I noticed was the cock. It’s not uncommon to see things like that on reconversions. I have two myself and the lock on one was a disaster when I got it. Your musket had a “Belgian” cone conversion. I have found that replacement frizzens are a problem. They can be a real pain to harden properly. One of my locks has an original that sparks great. The other one resisted my offorts and those of a professional to harden, so it was resoled. Be aware that doing so can alter the geometry of the lock. Mine requires a pretty short flint or else it’s a flint basher. You are correct that the bore should be
nominal .69 caliber. .75 would not have passed inspection. It probably “grew” from neglect. I would definitely have Bobby check it out to see if it can be relined. He did one of mine. I
personally wouldn’t shoot it as is. Good luck with your project.
The flint 1816 is a lot of fun to shoot. You’ll attract a lot of attention at the range.

 

[rickystl]

Hi Duane.

Thanks so much for your response. Most helpful. No, I would not attempt to shoot it as is. And thanks for the tips on frizzen replacement. Curious they don't want to harden correctly. Hmmmm. I wonder if a frizzen from a Pedersoli gun would work ? Thanks again for your input.

Rick

 

[varsity07840]

Interesting that you thought about using a Pedersoli frizzen. I tried that and it didn't fit.

 

[rickystl]

Well, thanks again Duane. That saved me some time.
There's a couple things I can try. I'll keep you posted.

Rick :hatsoff:

 

[stubshaft]

IIRC - The pan for the lock should be brass. Overall the gun looks to be in great shape. Much, better than the one I have.

+1 On sending it to Bobby to have the barrel checked.

 

[Artificer]

Hi Rick,

As to your question of why the .74 caliber, I can offer some historic information and informed speculation.

Allow me to say first that I have done more research into making British and to a lesser extent French 18th century Muskets than early 19th century American muskets. But I do have some information on the latter.

By the third quarter of the 18th century, British Muskets that were supposed to be nominally .76 caliber, ran from .76 to .78 caliber when new. French Muskets were just a bit closer to nominal bore size, but it was easier to maintain that as most Military Arms production was done in French Government Arsenals.

John Hall began working with Harpers Ferry Arsenal in the 1820's to make military arms closer to "Interchangeable Parts" specifications/tolerances, though Springfield Armory lagged behind Harpers Ferry. It wasn't until the M1830 Muskets, that SOME amount of Interchangeable Parts tolerances were introduced. So your Musket, with a lock plate of 1827 and made at Springfield, means it was not yet the beginning of some of the tighter manufacturing tolerances. Still, I'm fairly sure American Armories were capable of holding the older British tolerance of only .02 inch maximum over nominal bore size.

OK, considering that, it would mean the bore size would have been no larger than .71 inch when new. So how might/would the bore size have "grown" to .74 caliber? There are two period reasons for that.

The first reason is that when the Musket was originally converted to percussion, it is likely and even probable that one of the Government Armories or Civilian Contractors who performed the conversion, reamed the barrel a bit larger in diameter to get rid of any pits/erosion in the barrel and get it back to a smooth interior surface. This so it was easier to clean and maintain the barrel by soldiers.

The second reason is that the Steel Rammers were known to enlarge the muzzle end of the Iron Barrel through normal wear in use. British Flintlock Muskets were known to have grown or worn another .02 to more than that at the muzzle, due to the use of Steel Rammers.

So unless someone enlarged the barrel diameter in more recent times than the historic period, the reaming to smooth out the barrel and the muzzle damage from Steel Rammers would be the most probable reasons your Barrel diameter has "grown" to .74 caliber.

Gus

 

[rickystl]

Hi Stubs

Thanks for your reply. Well, that's what I thought too ref the brass pan. It seems the re-conversion was done utilizing an 1816 lockplate and frizzen, and a 1795 hammer and pan. LOL :haha: I wonder if a 1795 frizzen would fit ? I think I'll order both 1795 and 1816 frizzens and try it out.
I've sent Bobby many barrels. On smoothbores, sometimes they just need burnished out. While others need a liner. Just deprnds on bore condition as you know. But in this case, I'll just have him install a new liner to bring the bore size back to the regulation .69 Thanks again. Rick

 

[rickystl]

Hi Gus

Thank you very much for the comprehensive response !!
That answers a lot of my questions. Especially from the historical standpoint. Much appreciated.

So, a barrel liner, new ramrod, and frizzen and it should be ready to shoot - yet again ! LOL :haha: Just wish it didn't take so long to get a barrel back from Bobby. But I know he's always loaded with work. He has another barrel of mine there now waiting in line.

As Stubs observed, overall, the gun's in very solid condition and should make a good shooter when done.

The frizzen situation that Duane mentins above is a bit worrisome. I noticed the S&S Firearms and one other carry replacement frizzens.

Thanks again for everyones assistance. A good example of the value of this Forum.

Rick :hatsoff:

 

[Artificer]

Rick,

You are most welcome.

I don't know if you have seen the Lodgewood repro of the 1816 frizzen, but if you have not, I linked it below. Having the hole already drilled might make fitting the frizzen easier to your lock plate as long as the hole is not too oversized for the frizzen screw AND the hole is not too far off the position of the hole in your pan bridle and lockplate. http://www.lodgewood.com/1816-Springfield-Cast-Frizzen-Reproduction-for-Original_p_1903.html

One thing about both the Lodgewood and S&S frizzens are that they all have to be fitted and hardened/annealed. Unfortunately, that almost always means you have to fit the frizzen before hardening/annealing and then do some further adjustments afterwards, because the parts warp a little when doing the hardening/annealing.

BTW, I found it much better to file the forward section of the frizzen so it fits nicely inside the pan bridle. File the casting lines off the bottom of the frizzen that goes over top of the pan and get that bottom surface dead flat. Then see how the top of the pan fits the bottom of the frizzen, if too far off, then filing on the bottom of the frizzen and top of the pan is in order. Then align, drill/ream the frizzen screw hole and THEN do the major fitting of the bottom of the frizzen to the top of the pan. Then harden/anneal the frizzen and see what adjustments you have to make from there.

Gus

 

[varsity07840]

If for some reason Bobby can't do a reline and has nothing laying around that you could use, consider having a barrel made by him or Dan Whitacre. Dan doesn't list it on his website but he'll make a flint 1816. I had him do one for me but just for fun, I had him rifle it with the same rifling as a rifled 1842. It has a barrel mounted front sight and simple single leaf rear. I call it my "prototype" rifled musket. Not historically correct but one hell of a shooter with patched balls or a Rapine minie.

 

[rickystl]

BUMP UPDATE

Happy New Year All. Just thought I would post an update. Well, it's been about 8 months, but finally got around to getting this gun correct and in to shooting condition. The barrel has a new .69 liner by Bobby Hoyt. New ramrod from Lodgewood Manufacturing. The lock work was done by Jeff Miller and now has all the correct 1816 parts fitted and tuned. So she's ready for action again. Here are some new pics. Thank you all for the additional help.

Rick

 

[rickystl]

BUMP UPDATE

Happy New Year All. Just thought I would post an update. Well, it's been about 8 months, but finally got around to getting this gun correct and in to shooting condition. The barrel has a new .69 liner by Bobby Hoyt. New ramrod from Lodgewood Manufacturing. The lock work was done by Jeff Miller and now has all the correct 1816 parts fitted and tuned. So she's ready for action again. Here are some new pics. Thank you all for the additional help.

Rick

Woops.....Forgot to Post the pics............

 

[gemmer]

Enjoy it. If you plan on shooting patched balls out of it, mine likes a .662 ball with an .022 patch a 14 ga fiber cushion wad over 80 gr of 2F.

 

[rickystl]

Hi Gemmer. Thanks for your reply. That sounds like a good load to start with. Actually, my bore seems to measure close to .685 So I'm thinking the .662 ball should work, even with a .010 patch in this case. I keep reading that the fiber cushion between the patched ball and powder seems to improve accuracy. Will be fun to try out. Thanks.
Rick

 

[gemmer]

Bobby tries to maintain around .687, which was the average size of originals. He's done two rifled 1842s and a smoothie flint 1816 and they're all .687 or tad less.

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

Looks great Rick, have fun with it!

... I gotta get my snaphaunce lock up to Jeff so he can fix it ...

 

[rickystl]

Gemmer: So .687 was close to the original. Didn't know that. Looks like mine falls in the same catagory. I'll order some .662 balls and thicker patching from TOTW. Thanks for the info.

Hi Flint. Yes, I think it turned out well. Thanks.

Jeff Miller said that he has built a snaphaunce lock from scratch. So he understands how they are supposed to work. They can be tricky to get them tuned right to work.

Rick

 

[FlinterNick]

Hi Rick,

As to your question of why the .74 caliber, I can offer some historic information and informed speculation.

Allow me to say first that I have done more research into making British and to a lesser extent French 18th century Muskets than early 19th century American muskets. But I do have some information on the latter.

By the third quarter of the 18th century, British Muskets that were supposed to be nominally .76 caliber, ran from .76 to .78 caliber when new. French Muskets were just a bit closer to nominal bore size, but it was easier to maintain that as most Military Arms production was done in French Government Arsenals.

John Hall began working with Harpers Ferry Arsenal in the 1820's to make military arms closer to "Interchangeable Parts" specifications/tolerances, though Springfield Armory lagged behind Harpers Ferry. It wasn't until the M1830 Muskets, that SOME amount of Interchangeable Parts tolerances were introduced. So your Musket, with a lock plate of 1827 and made at Springfield, means it was not yet the beginning of some of the tighter manufacturing tolerances. Still, I'm fairly sure American Armories were capable of holding the older British tolerance of only .02 inch maximum over nominal bore size.

OK, considering that, it would mean the bore size would have been no larger than .71 inch when new. So how might/would the bore size have "grown" to .74 caliber? There are two period reasons for that.

The first reason is that when the Musket was originally converted to percussion, it is likely and even probable that one of the Government Armories or Civilian Contractors who performed the conversion, reamed the barrel a bit larger in diameter to get rid of any pits/erosion in the barrel and get it back to a smooth interior surface. This so it was easier to clean and maintain the barrel by soldiers.

The second reason is that the Steel Rammers were known to enlarge the muzzle end of the Iron Barrel through normal wear in use. British Flintlock Muskets were known to have grown or worn another .02 to more than that at the muzzle, due to the use of Steel Rammers.

So unless someone enlarged the barrel diameter in more recent times than the historic period, the reaming to smooth out the barrel and the muzzle damage from Steel Rammers would be the most probable reasons your Barrel diameter has "grown" to .74 caliber.

Gus

Agree with Gus here, the barrel was likely originally bored to .70/.72. Many standard .69 caliber muskets had actual bore sizes around .70. These types of muskets differed from the British pattern in that the barrels tapper was tighter from the breech to the muzzle, which over time with extensive use would have worn the barrel down requiring it to be corrected via reaming, or re-polishing with emory pads rammed repeatedly down the barrel.

You see this with many of the older Charleville musket 1763 and 1766 patterns, the original barrels are between .73 and .75. Many 1763 Charlevilles were reamed and converted because the barrels were designed extra heavy to accommodate the Steel Rammers depreciation effect on the barrel.

you have to also remember that the quality of the steel of the 18th century muskets was also very wrought. In time with muskets of the 1830's and 1850's leading into the Mexican American and Civil War stronger steel was used on military muskets, you'll notice that many original 1835 and 1842 .69 caliber Springfields can still be shot today mostly because the quality of the steel is much stronger.

 

[Artificer]

Rick,

That sure turned out lovely. Thanks for showing us the updated pics. ENJOY!!!!

Gus