Considering a flintlock

[Parault]

I am thinking about purchasing a flintlock for early war impression (private weapon showing up for enlistment early war). I have found a 1816 Springfield, however, I am not sure what would be considered a "private purchase." What would be a common flintlock of private useage be during the1850's? I own a double barrel shotgun, so that has already been done.
Would the 1816 Springfield work?

On another note I am also considering a Lorenz purchase. Were the Lorenz weapons predominately smoothbore or rifled?

Thanks

[militiaman1835]

The Lorenz was rifled 54 cal. The earlier austrian muskets were 69 71 cal and most smoothbore. JIM HENSLEY

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

A long discussion that...

In brief and to over-generalize...

Three "streams" to fish in:

1. The prior service family "heirloom" from the Rev War, War of 1812, or even maybe the Seminole Wars taken down from above the door or from over the fireplace. (Of course, it would not necessarily look NIB and pristine...) or

2. The prior or current service "militia" type obsolete musket, (also not new and pristine), or

3. The deer or bear hunting rifle of the relevent regional schools, etc.,

IMHO, while one can somewhat "get away" with Nos. 1 and 2, with some aging and distressing work so that a say M1795 SPringfield does not look mint, unissued, unused...
No. 3 is also doable at the custom-built level as there are few or very limited choices for modern commecially made, mass produced, deer and bear, mountain, and plains rifles of the 1820's through 1840's.

Others' mileage will vary...

Curt
Not a fan of 1850's or 1860's St. Louis Samuel Hawken or Campbell "Hawken" rifles for eastern ACW use Mess

[mboyce]

Some of the Arkansas units were outfitted with flinlocks early in the war. I have read, sorry can't find the source this instant, that the 6th Arkansas was issued the M1822 .69cal flintlock, and used them for the first year of the war. Commanders complained about the difficulty of firing them in wet weather, at Shilo.

[Joe Walker]

My choice would be the "Poor Boy" rifle style used from the mid-1830's on. It would be non-frill with a hole in the stock for patch and grease. Most were in the .36 to .44 cal. These guns can be found from Texas to Virginia and many were used as "military" substitutes early on in the War. There are fellas making them in Arkansas and Tenn today. Several had been converted to percussion at the time of the Texas Revolution (Crockett's men brought several with them) so you could have one that would be in original flint, but most likely by the 1850's they would have been original percussion or converted.

I am sure you will get several responses on the Lorenez, but this is a War-time weapon, most likely .54 cal if Southern, or .58 if Northern imported (exceptions here) and the majority of .54 cals had cheek pieces.

My 2cents worth.

Joe Walker
Waco Guards
CMH

[Vuhginyuh]

The choice would be up to him and based on the rank of society he portrays. Volunteers are not always poor or country folk. Therefore the options can range from a well used inherited fowler to an newer, fine rifle.

[Vuhginyuh]

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10627&highlight=flintlock

[lukegilly13]

My 4g grandfather was a blacksmith in the area pre-war. Several of his rifles still exist. He made a pair of matching muskets somewhere around 1855 (I can't remember the exact date). My family has one...the other is in a local museum on display. They are both flintlock. They are smootbore but both seem to be .69 cal. They are not exactly the same however and neither are exactly .69 cal. (I think one is .675 and the other .71). This could be due to heavy use or a lack of equipment/ability to make it that exact. Both are complete with bullet mold and named Mary and Joseph! I will be in the area on Tuesday...I will go in and get some good digital pictures (the curator lets me do this since our family is nice enough to let them display the gun). However, the best part of the display is the newspaper article claiming that he killed the last deer in the county with that rifle!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anyway, to get back to the point...there is a rifle in the same collection that contains a Springfield lockplate. It is also labeled as a homemade rifle. Was this normal or is this most likely a later alteration or repair? As I said, I will post pictures as soon as I can if they will indeed still let me photograph!

[Joe Walker]

Mr. Beal,

"Poor Boy" is considered a type of country rifle, not reflecting status.

Joe Walker

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

It is not unusal for "locally made" guns to be "pieces/parts."

Even as early as 1775/76, local Committees of Safety's scrounged damaged guns and salvageable parts and contracted with local gunsmiths to "restock" them into "sericeable" arms to equipment the Continental forces scrambling for arms.
After the War, it was not unusual for local gunmakers to "recycle" and "cannibalize" parts from guns to ressemble or use them in the making of new guns (believed by some to by a way of offering a reduced price option for the buyer with less or more limited spending cash.

As the Industrial Revolution took off, fewer and fewer gunmakers "bothered" to make lock, stock, barrel, and furniture entirely by hand- and often bought parts from local general and hardware stores. And even "big name" gun companies supplies say locks and barrels to hardward stores for sale.

A military lock on a "local" gun, IMHO, is just possible part of the "Hey, watcha got you can make me a gun out of lying around here?" :)

Curt

[KPavia]

In the History Channel's special on the American Revolution, they state that the British brown bess was issued to colonial militia. You can pass one off as a family heirloom handed down from the revolution.

In Don Troiani's "Civil War" it states on page 21 when talking about Shiloh, "Like many troops in General Albert Sidney Johnston's army, the 19th Tennessee had marched to war armed with outdated Model 1816 flintlock muskets. Despite the Confederacy's seizure of US arsenals, not until sufficient shipments of British Enfields began to arrive would the South be able to equip its forces with substantial numbers of modern percussion long arms." So, if you're portraying an early war confederate in Johnston's army, an M1816 springfield would be accurate, especially if you're doing a Tennessee soldier.

[john.vansickle]

There are a couple of things to consider. First, the latest "Brown Bess" would be a third model which have even been used in the War of 1812 and would be fifty years old. This is something that would have to be made up of Rifle Shoppe parts since it is very different than the imported "Long Land Pattern" repro, which has been shortened for production purposes. For some reason, even later British arms such as the .70 cal. Model 1851 Minie rifle were still referred to as the "Brown Bess" so this may cause some confusion. A better choice for a flintlock might be a M1816 or even better the M1835. These muskets appear in many early CDVs. Many of these muskets were left unaltered to percussion at the beginning of the war. This could make the gun a Mexican War veteran and not such a far stretch. These guns are also available as reproductions, although a little pricy. If money and barrel length are not a consideration, a Hall breechloader would also be a great choice for an early gun. This is something that would also have to be built up from parts.

As far as the Austian Lorenz, the earlier M1849 was called the "Kammerbusche" and used a strange primer system. The "Lorenz" were the models of 1854 abd 1862. These guns were often cobbled up from older surplus parts and were .54 cal. Many, were rebored to .58 for import during WBTS, while others remained in their original configuration. It's also important to know that many of these guns were converted to flintlock during the *late* 19th century, Belgium for the African trade.

Respectfully,
John Van Sickle

[Vuhginyuh]

There are a few Pro and Con "bess" threads worth looking in to.

[Benedict]

As far as the Austian Lorenz, the earlier M1849 was called the "Kammerbusche" and used a strange primer system.

Maybe it is "Kammerbüchse" and not Kammerbusche. Büchse is the German term for "rifle."

I know, these Umlaute can drive you crazy ;)

[Andrew Kasmar]

Hi,

On a completely different note, who sells M1816 muskets?

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

"I know, these Umlaute can drive you crazy."

We fear not diacriticals, and rather than adjust our keyboards, just add the "e." ;) :)

Curt

[Benedict]

Hallo!

"I know, these Umlaute can drive you crazy."

We fear not diacriticals, and rather than adjust our keyboards, just add the "e." ;) :)

Curt

Or use the "alt option" + "U"-a/o/u combination on Macs ;) Now back to topic.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Schoen!

We used to have diacriticals in English, but they have fallen by the wayside over the years such as in coördinate, naïve, coöperate, or reënact.

In the Old Hessian dialect, my first name is diphthonged with a single dot over the "u." That makes it pronounced as "kwet" rather than the "German"
"koort" or the "American' "kirt."

We now return control of this hijacked thread to you by saying...

The Italian repro "M1816" is more like their M1777 "Charleville" fudged a wee bit... :rolleyes: :(

:)

Curt
Klaus Umlaut, umpire at the '85 U.S. Open Mess

[Vuhginyuh]

..."Poor Boy" is considered a type of country rifle, not reflecting status...



As I understand it ''poor boy'' is a modern term to describe a product; in this case an early American long arm that was somewhat primitive in regards to other technology of its period and had inexpensive and scant hardware.

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

I am thinking about purchasing a flintlock for early war impression (private weapon showing up for enlistment early war). I have found a 1816 Springfield, however, I am not sure what would be considered a "private purchase." What would be a common flintlock of private useage be during the1850's? I own a double barrel shotgun, so that has already been done.
Would the 1816 Springfield work?

On another note I am also considering a Lorenz purchase. Were the Lorenz weapons predominately smoothbore or rifled?

Thanks

I think if your'e looking for something most-common for a "private-purchase" for an early enlistment firearm, such that may have been brought from home...then you'll want to for the most part steer clear of Martial Weapons.

While it may be true that some individuals did enlist with their "granpappies musket from the Revolution, War of 1812...etc.", it is far more likely that there were greater numbers of individuals going off to fight the war with their favorite rifle/fowler...

Keeping in mind, that many of the Martial Weapons that would most likely have been left over from earlier periods, would have been sitting in State/Federal Arsenals throughout the country, and not in the hands of the general public...

The choice of a proper period rifle/fowler, can be rather complex...as these do tend to have regional designs/characteristics which were incorporated into the design.

Of course their are oddities in everything...take for example the Richmond Sharpshooters of Richmond, VA...who enlisted in the 23rd VA Vol. Regt. as company H...these men "privately-purchased" Mississippi Rifles...as it was felt this was the premier Martial Weapon of it's day. But this is on a Company level...not an individual decision.


Disclaimer: I realize full-well that some individuals certainly went off to the war with Ancestral weapons, which were brought home from previous wars/conflicts...but these would seem to be the exception...based on the assumption that many State/Federal Arsenals kept a pretty tight log on the surplus weapons of previous wars....

Paul B.

[Vuhginyuh]

Richmond in and of itself is complex, regardless of the topic. There is Tidewater made converted hunting rifle and a battle damaged Enfield in a fine home south of River Road. Both are attributed to a fellow from the Norfolk area.

The half-stock hunting rifle is slender little thing with fine curves, a rounded lock and what I call a well pronounced or Vincent style butt.

[KPavia]

Moderator Hat On....

Setting aside the on-going and currently unresolved safety issue as to whether "Indian" imports are wall-hangers or actual firearms...

The level of historical accuracy or "authenticity" of these imports is below the standards that the Authentic Campaigner strives for.

Please take personal recommendations for these imports to e-mail or PM.

Thanks.

Curt Schmidt
Moderator

[lukegilly13]

Euroarms makes a Duck shotgun...has anyone viewed one in person or know the historical accuracy of it??

[Tom Ezell]

It's going to depend on what the impression is...

There is some fairly good documentation for what the seceding states found in/took from the various Federal arsenals in the early days of 1861. Here in Arkansas, what they took were primarily the Model 1816 through M1840muskets in their various contractor clones, as well as Hall's rifles, again mostly in flint. Other southern states found themselves in much the same shape, as they had not taken a whole lot of effort to convert the old Arsenal guns to percussion. Tennessee had a number of Brown Bess muskets left over from around the War of 1812; and Texas had quite a few of Mexican vintage left over from the Revolution and the War with Mexico.

As in all things Confederate, it's best to figure out the regiment being portrayed, and what they were able to draw at the time.

[Bill]

When the Federal Government made the decision to convert their inventory of flint locks to percussion, a lot of old weapons in storage were condemned. I'm not sure how they disposed of these weapons; but that may have been a source of military flintlocks in private hands.

Maybe some of the more knowledgeable folks have more information.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

It varies over time...

And is difficult to nail down.

The end result of the 1840's survey of arms completed in 1848 listed:

National armories: 586,513 muskets of which were 1st Class (made between 1831 and 1844, suitable for alteration (mostly M1822's TYpe II's/III's, and 30,000 M1840's). These were not inspected, and held for issue only under special orders. 63,335 being 2nd Class (made between 1821 and 1831 suitable for alteration (M1822 Types I's/II's). 198,050 were 3rd Class (made between 1812 and 1820 considered not suitable for ordinary use nor alteration to percussion- but good enough for emergencies. 82,220 4th Class arms (made prior to 1812, or unserviceable of any age, and all damaged arms of any age not worthy of repair. These were collected at various depots and condemned to be sold at public auction for $3.00 down to .40.

Non national and state armories held 118,133 muskets with 50,826 1st Class, 12,850 2nd Class, 30,221 3rd Class, and 24,236 4th Class. In addition 2,365 foreign muskets were on hand but all 4th Class slated to be sold off.

IMHO, the implication for reenacting is in the unknown rate of dispersal and public sale between 1848 and 1861. We can subtract the "known" numbers of 1st Class and 2nd Class flintlocks altered to percussion.
Plus, we do not know the "rate or attrition" of these arms being "used up" or not between dates of alteration and 1861.

And last, we do not what might have been available outside of the national, state, and private armories particulalry the small number of neither "here nor there" "social" militias and home guard societies.

So, yes, there are "some."

And last but not least, for believable impressions, IMHO, is the "condition factor." Meaning, a brand spanking new, bright and shiny, minty, out-of-the-box currently available Italian repro "M1816" Type I in 1860-something...

;) :)

Curt