1847 Harper's Ferry Musket

[guad42]

Last year I recieved my reproduction M1842 smoothbore with a Harper's Ferry marked lockplate with the year 1844. I have a question though, I notice that a number of my comrades carry '42s with the low profile front sight blade on the top or #1 barrel band. Mine however does not have any sights. Were some '42s made with a fixed front sight, while others were not? Is there some difference here regarding the manufacturer?

Sam Kilborn Dolan

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

The M1842 had a rounded brass "blade" front sight on the forward strap of the double loop barrel band.
The repro has this feature as just a cast steel simulation.

My guess is, that someone tried to so-called "de-farb" it, and filed off the steel front sight and either stopped there- or perhaps soldered a brass replacement on which has since been knocked off or fallen off before you received it.

(I lost a brass one at McDowell once....)

IMHO, the best way to deal with this is make the front sight with a post that goes down into a hole drilled into the barel band and that is peened/mushroomed underneath (in a manner in which 18th century longrifle sights were made). Then when the brass blade is soldered in place- it is not going anywhere...)

Curt

[guad42]

Actually, I recieved it new, without front sight. I was told recently by a friend that it is possible that some of the Harper's Ferry '42s were actually minus the sight, but I have no proof of this.

Sam Kilborn Dolan

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Could you please post a picture of this?

I do not see the Italians grinding off the front sight from the one piece casting...

Thanks!

And no, historically Harpers Ferry did not make M1842's with and without front sights. Here is a picture of an original M1842 above, and a modified repro below:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/Michael1787/1842OrandReNoses.jpg

Curt

[guad42]

Image should be attached. I traded for this musket, I believe it's origins are Loyalist.

Sam Dolan

[LibertyHallVols]

Loyalist, eh? That explains a thing or two.

Curt,
That is one friggin' nice original '42!!!! I love pics in posts! "A Picture is Worth 1,000 Words"

[guad42]

Well what can I say, it was a trade.

SK Dolan

[guad42]

Okay, does anyone sell replacement barrell bands with sights?

SK Dolan

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

"The crime is solve- ed." -Inspector Clouseau

Me too, John! And here is another:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/Michael1787/M1842ORERS.jpg

Curt
Who keeps forgetting about Loyalist Arms, et al Mess

[LibertyHallVols]

Curt,
Is that an original hammer I see on the repop? It looks like one of the taller Harpers Ferry variety. Also, it looks as though you did some stock reshaping(?). Very nice!

[Jim Mayo]

Nevermind, I put my glasses on and the stud is there.


Doesn't appear to have a bayonet stud either.

[cpinkhaminsc]

Blockade Runner sells the front band with brass sight. I think he gives a small trade-in for your plain one. Have no experience dealing with him though.
My buddies and I bought a batch of the repro's when they first came out. I brazed new sights on all of them. Most of us reshaped the stocks quite a bit and thinned and tapered the buttplates. Then I found a rifled original for $75!!! which I had Bill Large stretch and reline the barrel, got new forearm, upper band, and repro sight, for another $450. So I sold the repro to Doug Cooper. But that was years ago, and I digress.
The other thing you'll need is a new ramrod, some of the early aftermarket "smoothbore" style ones were crap and subsequently broke. Get a new one with a solid tip from Lodgewood Mfg, he can also get you a new hammer. With a bit of work, your gun can look like the one pictured in the thread. (Very nice rework, Curt!)
Charles Pinkham
Minnesota First, Company D

[Craig L Barry]

You can tell the Armi Sport US 1842 repro from an original by the slightly mis-shaped trigger guard. The original that they copied apparently had some damage to that part, and they copied it exactly. This is a quick way to pick out the repro from a mile away.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

The "rifled and sighted" repro is a Pedersoli, and belonged to my late friend. So, I canot take any credit for it.
But, the hammer is "out of the box as it came, Pedersoli."

Mine was a standard M1842, also by Pedersoli, but "de-farbed" to include a swapped out mint original 1853 dated Springfield made lock.
Unforunately, I sold it a few years back, and then a virus got through the expensive, fancy-schmancy impossible to get through, anti-virus protection and corrupted or ate about 1/3 of my photo reference library of originals and reproductions. Sigh. Including my "M1842 " pics.

Curt

[LibertyHallVols]

Pedersoli!?!? I didn't know they ever made '42's!

That hammer clearly looks like a much better reproduction hammer than the stock Armi Sport/Taylor's hammer (here's a pic from an old thread of an Armi Sport).
http://authentic-campaigner.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5352&d=1182131698

I thought it was an original HF hammer mostly because of the taller cocking piece.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Thanks John!
I was typing faster than I was thinking. Armi Sport not Pedersoli.

Yes, the higher spur also reminds me of some of the M1822 conversions. Once Upon A Time in the Way Back Daze I was sold a conversion hammer as a "M1842" hammer.
I cannot explain it, that is the hammer that came with the Armi SPort. When they first came out, my late pard and I both snatched one up- he went with the "rifled and sighted" and I went with the unaltered.

Curt

[Craig L Barry]

Right, Pedersoli only makes the decent US 1816 smoothbore flint and Colt conversion repros. Excellent lock function on those. The dwarf percussion hammer Pedersoli uses looked weird, so it was replaced on mine with a Maynard hammer.

Armi Sport makes the very decent US 1842, which is probably the best of the current "out of the box" repros. Or as Curt has put it, the "least worst". And like their Enfields, the earlier production runs were better made than the current crop. The tolerances were tighter and the metal parts less soft. This is particularly noticeable in the triggers and springs.

Note how the spread eagle on the lock plate faces "dexter" (right) on the US 1842s, and afterwards on the US model rifle-muskets it generally faces "sinister" (left), in heraldic terms.

It seems like on originals, the tall thumbspur style hammers were more prevalent on Harpers Ferry produced 1842s, or am I remembering that wrong?

[LibertyHallVols]

It seems like on originals, the tall thumbspur style hammers were more prevalent on Harpers Ferry produced 1842s, or am I remembering that wrong?

That is exactly what I was referring to. And, yes, I believe you are correct Personally, I like the look of the taller thumbspur.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Correct!

Alas, I no longer have any on hand to measure to put up measurements. Sigh.
But I will make a call tonight and see what I might can arrange.

(and while the M1842 was supposed to be the first model with interchangeable parts, they don't always "inter-change..." Those Southerners.... ;-) :-)

Curt

[Craig L Barry]

You are correct Curt. The original US 1842s were supposed to be parts interchangeable but do not always interchange all parts. For that matter, the US 1861s may not either, particularly if produced by a Federal contractor vs the Springfield Armory. I think the difference is the US model parts can usually be "fit" whereas (for example) with a commercial grade 2 P-53, some parts will just never fit.

One Birmingham Small Arms Trade P-53 in my collection has an arbor shaft that is square on the end and another one is diamond shaped so the hammers will not interchange. The lock assemblies do not interchange parts because screw holes are ever so slightly off from one another and so on.

[onemoreb]

We de-farbed our Armi Sport '42's by grinding off the blade sight and using silver solder to place a brass blade on it and out of the 6 we have done none have come off. It is quite easy and takes about 20 minutes to do it.

[tsgalloway]

Below are some photos of my original '42 with an 1847 Harper's Ferry lockplate. At some point in it's life, it was painted black. I'd like to clean it up a bit. Is there a safe way to remove this paint with out compromising the musket?

[tsgalloway]

A few more pics. As you can see above, it has been shortened as well.

[LibertyHallVols]

If this piece is all-original, it blows the theory of the tall thumbspur being a "Harpers Ferry Thang". Another theory bites the dust?

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

The black paint can be removed with a solvent such as paint thinner, acetone, or even paint stripper, and a soft rag and/or brush like a tooth brush.
Wear rubber gloves as solvents can be toxic, as are their fumes.

And.. disassemble the gun first as chemicals have a tendency to bleach and damage wood.

Curt
Still working on the M1842 Hammer spur height Mess

[LibertyHallVols]

I'll add to Curt's caution on gloves:
Be aware that gloves you wear may be soluble in some solvents, especially the thin "examination" type gloves. Have a look at your gloves as your work, because they may be disolving slowly as you go.

[huntdaw]

If this piece is all-original, it blows the theory of the tall thumbspur being a "Harpers Ferry Thang". Another theory bites the dust?

John,

I don't quite follow here and I'm not the most knowledgeable on period weapons - a deficit I am working on. I think I may know but would like some clarification for my own understanding. If it is a Harper Ferry's lockplate would it not have the tall Harper's Ferry thumbspur on the hammer? Or is the hammer not considered part of the lockplate and you are saying the hammer would be a Springfield put on a Harper's Ferry plate?

[LibertyHallVols]

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

The piece is considered as a whole. This being the case, in my (limited!) experience, I have noticed that Springfield-made US M1842's appear to have a shorter thumbspur than those made by Harpers Ferry.

The piece pictured appears to be a Harpers Ferry example, yet it appears to have the shorter variety of thumbspur. If one assumes that the piece is comprised of parts that have been together since the time of manufacture, then my (and others) theory of the long thumbspur being associated with "The Ferry" has been disproven... at least in part. :wink_smil

Does that make more sense?

John,

I don't quite follow here and I'm not the most knowledgeable on period weapons - a deficit I am working on. I think I may know but would like some clarification for my own understanding. If it is a Harper Ferry's lockplate would it not have the tall Harper's Ferry thumbspur on the hammer? Or is the hammer not considered part of the lockplate and you are saying the hammer would be a Springfield put on a Harper's Ferry plate?

[huntdaw]

Yes, it does make more sense. Thanks for the explanation.

[Craig L Barry]

I have seen the tall hammers on US 1842s from both Armories, but they seem to show up more often on the Harpers Ferry marked guns. Hammers are one of the parts that interchanged on that model fairly easily. Hammers wear, crack and then get replaced. Don't get too hung up on the height of the thumbspur and exclusivity of that style hammer to the output one Armory.

[gilham]

Tristan
Use denatured alcohol. It is less reactive than most commercial thinners and strippers.It is highly flammable though.Also it wont damage your skin.It hurts if you get in a cut.Yes do disassemble the piece before you do anything.I had a Springfield Trapdoor conversion that was also coated in black paint at one time.Also dental picks work great on the small stuff.In the detail on the lock plate is what I am referring to.
Give me a call if you have any questions.

[tsgalloway]

Thanks for the advice. When I get an opportunity in my schedule, I'll clean it up.

[Karl F]

How much of a difference are we talking? 1/2 to 1 inch?