Touchholes in the breechplug on MVT Muskets?

[JGPrince]

Hi all.

I'm a Civil War reenactor who wanted to branch out and do a Mexican War impression too, so for Christmas (and a College graduation gift) my parents bought me a Middlesex Village 1816 Springfield. Beautiful piece, though I had to reshape the butt to actually look like that of an 1816. Never mind the thing is as long as a Charleville.

These muskets are claimed to be able to live fire, and the group I would join only does living history and does a lot of live firing. I have not proofed the musket yet, but was cleaning it up during routine maintenance (I was cleaning my Armi Sport 1842 and James River Armory 1861 since I'm going to a CW event next Friday, thought I'd clean the 1816 too) and made a shocking (to me) discovery: instead of the touchhole going horizontally into the barrel, it goes into the breechplug in a curving L pattern and then into the actual breech section of the barrel! I discovered this first when I got fouling out of the "slot" I had discovered in the breech, despite the fact I have cleaned this musket since I shot a few blanks out of it on New Years. I got it Dec 25, and have fired maybe ten 60 and 80grain blanks out of it just to "try it out", and have cleaned it just as thoroughly as I do my other muskets and rifles, but never got into this "slot" mainly because I didn't know it was there.

Seeing that, I sprung my rammer but used the threaded end first, as we do during arms inspection when our muskets have too much fouling from the previous battle to do it the proper way. I found that the rod rests up with the entire rammer tip protruding from the muzzle when it is resting on the actual breech, but goes down maybe 1/4 of an inch when the ramrod itself is worked into this "slot" or flash channel. It is that big!

So I stuck my mini maglite down the bore and saw that part of the breech screw is hollowed out to form a flash channel from the touchhole. Using a tape measure, I found the actual breech is about 1/2 an inch into the barrel, where it should be, the touchhole is 4/10 of an inch into the barrel (where it shouldn't be, on this India gun either the barrel is too far forward or the lock too far back, as the part of the tang that is next to the barrel is even with the beginning of the flash pan, on the original the actual barrel [not plug] is even with the beginning of the pan), meaning a fully intact breech plug only extends 3/10 of an inch into the barrel, and powder is (or can) get into this large flash channel and explode there, as evident by fowling and a couple of unburned grains I removed.

My question is, is this 1816 a safe weapon? I've lurked on this forum for a while and see that many of you own guns from MVTCo, how is your touch hole? Is it simply a horizontal hole where it should be in front of the plug and only in the barrel, or does it go into the plug as mine? Is this musket going to be safe to live fire or should I attempt to get MVTCo to give my parents there money back, even though it has been a month, since to my way of thinking this is probably a defect in the design. I emailed Pete Plunkett about this "slot" as I called it (didn't know it was a flash channel at the time) but have received no response in two days.

When I pointed out flaws with the musket (the various ways it blatantly differs to anyone with a passing knowledge of what an 1816 looks like, now this slot) in a nice gesture to get the company to change the design I got no response, but when I asked for proofing instructions I had an email the next moring. I'm a nice guy and was willing to keep the musket before I saw the breech plug problem (which given my limited knowledge and what my pards at CWReenactors have told me makes this nothing but an expensive paperweight), but honestly I feel I was taken in and that my parents bought me something that was misrepresented. I had inquired about this musket back in February of last year, but they weren't available till October. The only pictures he had were of the prototype I saw some issues (especially the comb) but the page said they were being addressed. When I got the musket and brought out my 1842 to compare, that's when I realized the size was completely wrong. Then it took a day for me to even realize, this musket had a high pronounced comb (just like MVT's 1777)... but the defining feature of the real 1816 was a combless stock. The hardware only passingly resembled that of a real 1816, instead it was evident it was from the 1777 with minor modification, especially the way the stock was still shaped to accomodate the hardware. But hey, it was a gift, I love muskets, I've always wanted a flintlock, so I decided to keep it. My mother was so happy she could do that (the $3,000 I've sunk into my CW impression was all my own doing, not easy for a struggling college kid putting himself through school), so I wasn't about to send it back. So long as it fired right, was safe, and did everything that was advertised I could be agreeable. But this "slotted breech plug" just has me wondering just what I bought.

So is it safe, or am I just saddled with a $600 wallhanging paperweight? I've been advised I could put a new barrel into it, but the barrel is four inches longer than an original (46" vs 42"). At best I can get a 1777 barrel and hope it will fit the Indian stock. Or I can spend $700 and build a new gun around the lock. And at that price I can look for a used Pedersoli 1816.

Thanks for any and all advice.

 

[MSW]

not being a reenactor, i'm not sure about the exact historical accuracy of the set- up you describe, although it certianly sound very unusual.

in all the flintlock rifles i've built, the touch hole goes slightly foreward (about 1/8 of an inch or more, if you can get there) of the face of the breechplug. modern breechplugs are usually a bit longer than antiques (we worry about safety a bit more, i am told) and so there are some subtle differences in the overall geometry/architecture. the location of the trigger as relates to the length of pull drives this train, and the location of the trigger drives the placement of the lock, and the location of the lock positions the touch hole, which determines the placement of the barrel as it relates to the breechplug. at least, that's how i do it, and it usually works for me (if you use a precarved stock, most of these decisions have been made for you and you pretty much have to go with what's given).

i use White Lightnin' touch hole liners, which add a bit more length to the space between the breechface and the hole. if you're doing your own carving, this is not difficult to plan in, but, if you're being bound by the decisions of another (by using a precarve), you may have to file a groove in the breechface in order to make a clear channel for the incandescence of the priming charge to ignite the main charge and thus launch your lead. it sounds as if you have an extreem variant of this situation.

as regards your question as to the wallhanger- ness of your rifle, i simply don't know. if it proofs OK, and it is reliable, and you don't mind spending the extra time cleaning it, i don't see a real problem, since the same water floats many boats.

good luck with your new found project!

 

[Parzifal]

Hi sir there is the same recess in the breech from my blunderbess from military heritage, and she shoots good.
Though I inspected the breech on my loyalist muskets and the 2 besses I have from them both carbine and longland dont have it.

Odd thing about my piedersoli, the touchhole is drilled right into the breech, making it aplenty foul ridden after few shots.

Rob

 

[mmahlock]

Your Pedersoli is made with a modern version of the Patent Breach which was created in the early 19th Century if I have my time frame correct. At any rate is designed to have two chambers connected with a longitudinal channel. A lot of guns today are made that way. Personally I don't care for them. As you said the rear chamber collects fowling and is hard to clean unless you have a removable touch hole liner or a drum that you can remove.

 

The chambered breech is not a modern invention at all, it is even older than the flint patent breech which was patented in England in 1787 by Nock, which makes it a late 18th century deverlopment.

Chambered breeches are VERY safe and can from a mechanical engineering standpoint in fact be "safer" than a standard breeching (this is true only of course if everything is done right, but than that's true no matter what..)

Here's a pic of a chambered breech compared to Nock's original patent drawing - both can be well documented if need be:

Hope this eases your mind........just because someone is a reenactor doesn't make them a gunsmith :nono:

 

[mmahlock]

Thanks for the pictures :thumbsup: The one on the right without the plug screw on the left side is very similar to what I've observed in Pedersoli and other "factory" guns. They just drill the anti-chamber without going all the way through.

1787. Well I was close.:bow: :wink:

An additional problem with the modern versions of either design is the longitudinal channel which they tend to make way too small in diameter which results in powder clogging up at the entrance preventing it from getting to where the flash from the touch hole can get to it. A recent article in Muzzleloader describes this in detail and describes the same fix I had to implement to solve problems of flashes in the pan. :thumbsup:

 

[B. Miller]

I have a Navy Arms version of a Harpers Ferry Pistol, which is still made by Pedersoli. The vent on this is drilled into the very end of the breech plug. I have cleaned it but never fired it. On this one it is an obvious mistake. I think I would like to get the groove in the breech plug which is from the drilling the vent opened up or flaired or something.

Bruce

 

[Rebel]

JG, A few years back i had an Early English flinter from NSW. The vent in it was drilled right across the face of the breechplug. We pulled the plug and opened it up enough in the plug so that powder could get back behind the vent hole polished it up good and it worked ok. As long as you don't take a lot of threads out opening the slot it should be fine.

 

[JGPrince]

I'm going to try to send the musket back. Pete told me to use a double load, double ball proof. Well since I live in a town I just used a double blank load (150 grains) and fired it twice like that not five hours ago. The explosion of just a double loaded blank against this poorly constructed breechplug pushed it out slightly. Not really noticeable with the eye, but with water poured in the musket and the touchole taped over, water seeps out of the seam where the breechplug meets the barrel. If whater can get there, so can powder and hot explosive gases. This thing cannot be safe to live fire if a double blank did that.

This may be a one off defect since the 1816 is a new musket from their company. But I'm not taking my chances with an Indian made gun again, I'm demanding a refund. If only part of the face had been drilled out, that's one thing. But a large chunk, approx. 2/10 of an inch of the 5/10 of an inch long breech screw was drilled out or hollowed out to create a rather large flash channel capable of sticking the threaded end of a ramrod inside it. I think that the breech screw wasn't properly threaded (especially if the flashchannel was premade) and simply was unable to take the force of a large blank as powder, when rammed, was getting into what should have been part of the screw. God alone knows what would have happened if I had actually fired this thing live.

I'm going back to Italian muskets. The rest of the MVT line may be safe, but I'm not taking the chance on them, Military Heritage, or Loyalist Arms.

 

[Parzifal]

Yikes that sucks, Please post about the reaction to this if you would!
Ill be sticking to Loyalist guns myself.


Cheers

 

[Bon Sauvage]

Friend I think that you are making the right decision!

Ogre

 

Completely opposite experience from me,I spent nearly 1200 bucks on one of those Italian things,a brown bess infact the worst brown bess that ever was.
After 2 or 3 shots the thing wont fire, the swing swivels are cheap and incorrect.The lock is garbage.
The brass work is horrible. If that is called a quality firearm compared to a mvt musket I just stand agast.
I have since bought a 1 st land from pete at the MVT and I couldent be happier.
It fires more then twice before a need to clean it Its safe and beautiful in all respects.

I myself think the italian repros are better left on the wall or back in italy.

I bet if you talked to pete before schupting about it on this forum he would make it right.
MVT has fantastic service.

Its a pleasure to join this forum and I look foward to chewin fat with all of you.

 

[JGPrince]

I actually have been emailing Pete since I got the musket with various questions and suggestions since this was my first flintlock.

I emailed him about the lock problems, then got advice on my usual forum (www.cwreenactors.com/forums) to tighten the sear screw, and this fixed that problem. After calling him and leaving a message I finally got an email response, where he told me how to fix it myself with a file. But that is not modifying the lock, tightening a screw is. I've emailed him asking about the muzzle dimensions vis-a-vis the original so I could get a good repro bayonet, but got no response. I had never seen or heard anything about the breech screw having such a large flash channel so I emailed him asking what it was, and I got no response. When I sent him an email detailing various ways he could improve the musket since this in no way actually copies a U.S. Model 1816 (too long, wrong butt, wrong trigger guard, pan is not fitted to the barrel where it is on the original and hence my breech plug problem) and not to criticize, but to maybe cause the company to change the design because what they are peddling, to me, borders on false advertisement got no response. But when I wanted proofing instructions, by God I had them the next morning.

So I sent the email demanding a refund. I was nice and polite, and praised their excellent customer service and response times. But I made note of every problem and historical inaccuracy with this "U.S. Model 1816" which is blatantly a modified French 1777. To say his response was friendly and customer oriented is nothing short of a delusion. First he slammed me for altering the stock. I'll give him that one, never mind the fact that as it looks now (I based it off an 1832 dated original) it looks like a Model 1816 stock, not a French 1777 without the cheek rest, he accused me of modifying the lock because I tightened the sear screw slightly because the thing kept stopping on half cock and wouldn't hold at full cock, he accused me of not knowing how to clean a musket properly because I found rust and fouling in the breech channel that I didn't even know was there, and that because I clean my Civil War era muskets and have no problems with them doesn't matter because they are not flintlocks and hence are completely different than a percussion musket (other than having a bolster, what is the difference? Other than this 1816 having what I and my gunsmith consider a shoddy excuse for a breech plug), he critized my proofing methods as "making up my own testing methods" and not measuring the barrel because instead of using 140 grains of powder and two balls I used 150 grains of powder and a paper cartridge. He tried to say I was wrong about water leaking out of the seam at the breech plug because it must've come out of the touch hole because double wrapped electrical tape isn't water proof, never mind I saw where the water was and he didn't.

In the end, his email left me wondering if this musket couldn't stand a double blank proof which is something that happens all the time in reenactment scenarios how could it stand a double ball proof? Double blank loading is making up my own testing and disregarding his, I didn't measure the barrel after the "proof" never mind that the issue is related to the breech plug, and magically this musket is still safe or the barrel can be fixed to fire live even though it obviously can't fire a simple double blanked load. I've fired and seen historical interpreters fire 120 grains in .58cal muskets, but apparently this .69cal MVT musket is so greatly built that it can't handle 150 grains.

Further he attacked me personally, stating that because I was asking him flintlock related questions I was no gun expert and that I have no experience with originals, I am nothing more than a reenactor. He was silent on the fact I spoke a gunsmith who has built N-SSA skirmish competition Civil War muskets and as many people knowledgable on the subject as I could. He accused me of not knowing how to clean a musket, claiming that it didn't matter I clean my Armi Sport 1842 and EuroArms 1861 the same way and they are fine, and boastfully stated "If you had flushed the barrel you would not have found fouling in the channel." Every time I clean a musket or my Trapdoor Springfield I clean them that way. Then I use a bore scrubber. Then I wipe with oil with about two dozen patches. I am anal when it comes to clean guns. He then claimed that the breech plug is like that found on many original guns. The problem is, despite his claim I am not a gun expert (which I am not, I'll admit. But I'm not a neophyte either) I have seen original 1816 breech plugs and they are solid and have no flash channel. The problem is the barrel is to far forward or the lock to far back and thus necessitate a "holy" breech screw. On an original, the touch hole sits in front of the breech screw. On an original, the barrel, not the breech plug tang, is even with the start of the brass flash pan. On this "reproduction" the breech plug is even with the beginning of the pan, meaning the touch hole cannot be where it is supposed to be.

So what will they do? Give me a new barrel or God forbid "fix" the barrel I have, then give it to me and tell me to pound sand. Maybe this was just a bad one, I don't know. All I know is in doing research to find out problems with this musket I've been contacted by numerous people with problems with India muskets, and it is enough to convince me to chuck this wall hanger. Your mileage may vary.

But if on Gunbroker or in the want ads here you see a MVT 1816 Springfield that is 4 inches longer than an original and with a butt that actually looks like an 1816, it'll be mine. You'll have my assurance though, it won't be sold until it has the replacement barrel from MVT. But I'm not going to fire it, proof it, or anything. I want nothing more to do with India guns. I've heard bad things about all the manufacturers. The Armi Sports are sometimes clunky (not their '42s), I've returned a EuroArms 1861 because it had a damaged/defective stock, and I've heard stories about the Pedersolis. But the difference is you don't have to worry about the breech plug popping out or the barrels exploding on these.

Thanks again for the welcome, you all seem like a knowledgeable bunch. Hopefully I can get another, working and quality flinter soon. Still want a '16 or a Bess.

 

[Todd Rickard]

I had my Indian musket for an entire weekend before I retured it. I wouldn't shoot that thing! They told me to PROOF it with 60 grains FFG and a single ball!

 

[JGPrince]

Good God.

Either to reassure me or dismiss me, Pete tried to discredit my blank proof (which I did because a Loyalist Arms Lorenz supposedly cracked after a single 100 grain blank charge) because I didn't measure the barrel, didn't follow his instructions, etc. Then he tried to suggest that maybe my proof didn't cause the leaky seam, he didn't know how it could. After all, since I didn't take measurements I didn't do it scientifically.

Think about that for a minute. By even suggesting that, does that not imply that, through irresponsibility, negligence, or misconduct for not actually checking these wall hanging muskets before he ships them, he possibly knowingly sold me a defective firearm? In either case, whether my double blank caused the seam to open or it was made that way because of apparently no quality control on either side of the pond (supposedly the locks are timed before they are sent, but mine kept hanging up on half cock. And since I tightened some screws that's their out that I modified it) the fact is the musket barrel and breech plug are defective. If they "fix" my barrel, the poor craftsman ship could still be present. Or if they give me a new one, without testing it, the same problem could exist.

What also gets me is the fact these obviously are not even checked for basic defects before being sent. Mine had a chip out of the breech plug, but naively I figured they'd at least give the muskets a good once over before sending them out, since Pete makes such a big deal on his website about how they are made to fire live, they are fire arms, well built, pass proofing, etc. That chip is where I saw the fouling. So these are being marketed as firearms, but without even being checked for basic safety before being given to a customer. Pete mocked my lack of being a gun expert, but I had the sense to try and proof my gun. What if someone bought this same gun, and it was defective either by original design or the shoddy construction through firing, and it exploded and killed someone.

What I also find amusing is Pete's Return if Unfired policy that he waved to me. So I buy the gun. I proof it. It explodes. Well gee, I can't return it because I fired it. Or to use what is EXACTLY my case, I proof it. It fails, but not catastrophically. I no longer feel safe with an Indian made gun or barrel. Can I get my money back? No siree, they'll "fix" my barrel or give me another defective and/or untested barrel and say there you go sir. If I don't have confidence in the gun, I'm not shooting it. So I get a wallhangar, and MVT gets to keep their $600.

I don't think all Indian guns are necessarily bad. I think they are actually like Italian guns. The difference is the Italian guns are subjected to proofing, so all the defective and shoddy ones (in terms of safety) are removed before they hit the general public. For the Indian guns we get to proof them ourselves. And if it fails, we can get a replacement part. Or die. But we can't send it back for a refund.

In the end, is it really worth the $200-$600 savings? I thought so at first. Now look at me. I had my parents spend $600 because they and I couldn't afford a $1,200 Pedersoli 1816. Now if I'm lucky I'll get $400 out of the MVT when I sell it, when I get the new barrel. So if I put $800 with it to get that Pedersoli, it will now have cost $1,400 instead of the original $1,200 I couldn't afford.

I came out lucky though. What if it had exploded or failed catastrophically to the point I was injured? Then since I doubt MVT would give me a dime, because Pete is telling people that the Bess explosion from November is all but user error, even though now at least one other of his muskets was shipped with a defective breech plug, his company would somehow disclaim responsibility. Especially if I hadn't proofed it. "Oh well he should have proofed it before he live fired it. We don't require it, but that's just common sense." So then if I get a Pedersoli it will have cost me $1,200, plus the $600 my parents spent on a POS India gun that blew, plus say $400 in medical bills. To acheive a net savings of $600 one could wind up spending $2,200 by the time you finally get that Pedersoli. If you wanted to spend that much in the first place, forget either the Indian gun or Pedersoli and get one from the Rifle Shoppe. That's my philosphy from now on. As I said on the CWReenactor Forums, I'm now a convert to the faith of Fusil de Italia.

 

[Parzifal]

So hes NOT going to take it back.....Even to inspect it?
I like tales of good-bad customer service, it helps me to decide where to send my hard earned dollars.

I think its further proof to well....PROOF all arms before firing, 1st musket I read about failing was a piedersoli then thy mystery 3rd mod bess then as I was talking to my importer about failure histories I heard about a few fancy customs popping out on the east coast.

Proof them muskets no matter where they come from.

Rob

 

[Mike Brooks]

Good Golly give it a rest!!!! You buy a piece of manure musket for $600 and expect it to work? Get into the real world. $600 doesn't even cover the cost of parts for a quality product. A good barrel goes $250, a lock is $125 a plain piece of english walnut goes $150, the rest of the parts probably another $100. Then you have the labor to fit it all together. You got exactly what you paid for......it always seems to work out that way. :wink:
That plug probably leaked water before you ever fired it. Probably improperly breach when it was made. Not surprising for $600 and some Indian squatting in a dimly lit shack fitting a breech plug with a dull rasp.
I wouldn't take the gun back either after you altered the buttstock. As soon as you received it and seen what a piece of manure it was you should have sent it back. There would have been no problems at that point. But no...... you had to mess with it.... you better figure on eating this one and learn a lesson from it. And above all remember, you get what you pay for. :shake:

 

[Carteret Kid]

I had been seriously thinking about buying from MVTC . If that is their style of customer service . No deal .
You think this guy would realize how small the reenactor / traditional muzzle loader community is . Internet makes it effectively much smaller in terms of word getting around .
"Merely a reenactor " , who is his customer base ?
I suspect they will not be in bussiness much longer .

 

[JGPrince]

His wife was very helpful, nice, polite, and friendly.

They will take the barrel back. I'm going to send it back today, but only to have it "fixed" or "replaced" then I'm going to sell the money and use it as a base to get a quality flintlock.

Mike, you are absolutely right, I should have sent it back the first day. The guy claims to want to make historical guns, blabs on about authenticity, and I get an "1816" with the butt of a 1777 and the length of a First Model Bess. But it was a gift and I wasn't going to do that to family members who spent $600 they couldn't afford. I could ignore the length (or at least pretend too). I could reshape the butt (which I did, and it looks good). I could deal with having to tighten screws in the lock. I got scared at a hacked up breech plug that Pete stressed was on many original guns, if I was a gun expert I'd know that. Keeping in mind that that supposed "gun expert" traveled to Springfield NHP and made a musket that is a joke of a representation of the 1816, uh-huh. Add to that I've seen many close up photos of an original 1816, position of the touch hole, and its breechplug. I don't care if Mr. Plunkett says a squirrel rifle had a breech plug like what he uses, a rifle is not a Model 1816. So I'm going to get the new barrel and just sell it. Someone out there will buy it, and I'll tell them to send any and all questions about proofing, returns, etc. to Middlesex.

Carteret, Pete is a very nice guy. Until you buy the product. I thought about getting a flintlock back in January of last year, and emailed him about his Besses. He was nice, polite, answered a myriad of my questions, and was a pleasure to speak too. I thought "wow, this will be a great place to order from." He told me of the 1816 Springfield so I resolved to just wait for it to come out, and so took the $580 I had saved up for a flintlock and got a used Armi Sport Model 1842. In retrospect best decision I could have made. This Italian repro is a sturdy, well built, and comparatively authentic gun.

Once I got the 1816 from Pete, and decided to keep it (because it was a gift. Inauthentic, but presumably workable)I emailed him on various ways this was in no way a real 1816. Didn't get a response. Had lock troubles, by the second day it would hang up on half cock. I emailed him, no response. I called him, and finally he emailed me. He suggested I could file down part of the sear or tumbler, to which I think "I've no clue how to do that, that's modifying and will void the warranty, no." So I get help from a gunsmith, and simply tighten the sear and bridle screws. It now works great, until you remove it from the stock and you have to retighten. I email for proofing instructions, and I get them. Then I find this pathetic excuse for a breech plug, email, no response. I email wanting to know the muzzle dimensions so I can get a bayonet, no response. Then after it fails my blank proof I demand a refund and get a personal attack as a response.

I doubted he would take it back. His return unfired told me that. I wanted to make it plan I am completely dissatisfied with this product, marketed as a fully firing, authentic reproduction of a Model 1816 and it was nether.

Carteret, the rest of their line may be good, I don't know. I can tell you this, though, I've been contacted by a lot of people that Pete has flamed, jumped on, given poor customer service to, and by people who have had nothing but problems with their muskets. For maybe blank firing smokepoles they might be ok (tongue in cheek, remembering mine couldn't stand a double blank) but I would not dream of risking mine to fire live, without having a certified gunsmith examine and/or proof test the barrel.

With Pete attacking me the way he did, pointing out how stupid and unknowledgeable about firearms I am, that the fact I can clean two other muskets and they don't rust or fail means nothing, and waving how he researches originals at me all the while peddling a musket that is a disgrace to the original, all I can say is I wouldn't buy a new Pedersoli for $5 from him. Especially when he claims to be a reenactor just like the rest of us.

 

[Sham66]

Howdy!

I'll begin by saying that I have an MVTC Brown Bess that I am elated with. Last range session it went 10 consecutive shots before the flint dulled.

Now to my point: I am in the customer service business. If vendors like MVTC (and others) are smart, they will 1)read this forum and 2)make it right with you. Privately is fine. Remember, these posts are basically advertising! I love my MVTC, but will think twice or thrice about purchasing from them now. I bet others feel the same way.

We spend our hard earned money on this lifestyle, and when dealing with weapons especially:
1)I want to know service will be available
2)I don't want to wander what the consequences will be when I pull that trigger

James