Price check: M1840 musket - percussion smoothbore

[Rick Davis]

Any estimates on approximate value?

Percussion, appears to be a conversion done in antiquity. I understand this is a "Remington" style conversion, more desirable than the Belgian or cone conversions. About 69 cal smooth-bore, ramrod doesn't look original. Sights are mounted on the barrel bands. Appears to be original length, little to no ramrod wear at muzzle. Refinished at some point. Appears to be shootable, nipple is usable.

Lock is marked "D Nippes", Daniel Nippes of Lower Merion Township, PA. Apparently this was an early Civil War musket and a tad on the rare side.

Can anyone verify the details I have (above) as correct?

It doesn't have, nor was ever fitted with band retaining springs. See first photo.

All photos enlarge with a click.

- - - - - - - -

What are your thoughts?

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

It is a bolster style conversion of a flintlock US M1840 smoothbore musket, the last flintlock musket used by the US. There are no band springs as you say and since there is no evidence of there ever were any, the forearm appears to have been replaced. This also calls into question the bands, though those for the M1840 were identical to the bands for the M1842 and are available from time to time. It appears that the rear band may be on backwards. The ramrod, as I am sure you are aware, is not original and is not of the correct type.

The conversion is not a Remington Conversion and is more correctly called a bolster conversion.

As noted, the M1840 is a scarce musket and in original condition is worth a premium. I have not kept up with current values, but a quick check of Flayderman's Guide will give you a starting point. Make adjustments for the new wooden forearm and the replaced modern style ramrod.

 

[varsity07840]

A few things stand out on this musket. First as noted above, it's not a Remington conversion, but a bolster type normally done by Hewes& Phillips for a New Jersey contract. But!! That type of breech was similar to a patent type and was threaded into the cut off breech section. I don't see a seam on this barrel at the breech. Also, most if not all of those muskets were rifled when converted and had 1861 type rear sights. Is yours rifled? The rear barrel band is backwards. Also, I'm curious about the length of the barrel which is too long for the stock. The absence of band springs is certainly odd and the front band does not have a hole for the pin on a front band spring, which would normally be the case. I agree with Va. regarding the replacement forearm which would account for the lack of band springs. The front band is probably a repro.

Duane

 

[Tumblernotch]

I have to agree with the others. The bands appear to be repros and the bottom band is definitely on backwards. Also the absence of band springs is a sure indication of a forearm replacement. Removal of the lower band will most likely reveal the joint. I believe the barrel is probably full length, but without a measurement can't tell. The wood needs to be at least a couple of inches longer to be full length. As for no visible seam at the breech of the barrel, it may be that the bolster was brazed to the barrel instead of a new breech being installed. Many were altered this way. I couldn't see a rear sight in the picture, but if this gun was rifled, there should be a long range sight on there. That would be a large ramp and ladder type leaf sight like the early M1855 rifle musket had.

Overall, this musket is not a bad looking piece, but it certainly wouldn't fetch a premium. Any major repairs, restorations or repro parts would greatly lessen its value.

By the way, if you want to research more on this weapon, it was also called the M1835, the year it was actually adopted. Production didn't start until 1840 and although the pattern muskets were made at Harpers Ferry, none were made there. The musket we're discussing here was made three years after production of this model ceased at Springfield. They were already producing the M1842 at this time.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Good posts by KanawhaRanger and Duane. I might add that while the nipple may have a clear passage, I do not consider it in any way usable, there is far too much wear and corrosion visible. If you want to fire the weapon it will need to be replaced. Have it checked by a knowledgeable gunsmith who knows blackpowder firearms to see that the bore is not too eroded and that the breachplug is solid with good threads.

 

[Tumblernotch]

I was thinkin' the same thing. That nipple is trashed. With a full load it may blow out. There's no telling what shape its threads and those in the bolster are in.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Agreed. You are also correct about the distinct possibility that the bolster was brazed on as opposed to a new breach section being threaded on.

 

[Rick Davis]

I can't thank all of you enough for your insight and expertise.

To address many of the comments, here's a new batch of photos that should provide more details.

There does appear to be a forearm splice, and evidence of wood refinishing.

The wood profile under the front band is suspicious, but the good news is the wood appears very solid and even has cartouches. The metal under the woodline is in very good condition.

The barrel measures 41 1/2" (41.5") from the back of the breechplug (not including the tang) to the muzzle.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

 

[varsity07840]

The new pics settle one issue. The breech is indeed the type used by Hewes and Phillips. I've never seen a rear barrel band with a sight on it, but the longer you play with these guns the more you see. I don't believe it was a military modification. I'd guess that all the restorations/modifications done to this musket were done quite a while ago. Certainly the splice joint for the forearm looks pretty old. Without the provision for a barrel mounted rear sight, we can assume that the barrel remained a smoothbore, which is pretty rare for a Hewes and Phillips conversion. The front band seems to be a repro. The front sight blade appears to be iron, rather than brass as per an original.

If you do intend to shoot it, I'd send the barrel to Bob Hoyt and let him check it out. I shoot an original 1816 flint and rifled 1842 that he put back in shape with relines. He will also make sure that the the breech is sound.

Duane

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

PA Rifleman, thanks for posting the excellent quality photos, they help a lot. The bolster is indeed a screwed on breach section as indicated by the seam seen in the clean underside of the barrel, whether Hughes and Philips, I am not sure but it may be, I am away from my references so will have to check later.

The forearm is indeed a replacement that has aged somewhat, it may have been done as long ago as 30 years ago but, sadly, it was done by someone that didn't know much about the M1840. The rear band is an original but has been installed backwards with improperly done inletting.It also has what apears to be (maybe?) an old but civilian installed rear sight. The middle band appears to be for another style of musket, probably of foreign manufacture and may be an antique, the front sling swivel is attached to it properly and not with a screw. The front band is a reproduction as is indicated by the integrally cast iron front sight as opposed to a brazed brass blade as would be correct if original and as already stated, there is no hole for the band spring. But on the positive side, it has aged nicely and could be made to look original. The inletting of the forearm tip is improper for the front band.

The most obvious improvement would be to install the rear band properly, stretch the forearm and, heavens for the sake of install the proper band springs.

Altogether, you have the beginnings of a nice restoration project that can add to your collection. The M1840 is not a common musket and ones made by Nippes are relatively hard to find.

 

[Tumblernotch]

Yep, I can see the joint between the barrel and breech now. Bolster ain't soldered on! I also see that the ramrod spring (spoon) is missing. Looks like part of the pin is still in the hole. Other than a couple of apparently repro bands, this looks like a nice piece to restore.
:thumbsup: