Austrian Lorenz Repop

[marlin teat]

I was looking around in an antinque store this afternoon and found a bayonet. It was locked in a case so I didn't get to handle it but it was obviously for a muzzle smaller than .577, probably .54. I have a couple of questions:

1. Were there any .54 caliber weapons other than the Lorenz that took a triangular bayonet?

2. What features and markings should I look for? I know nothing about Lorenz bayonets.

3. What is the going price for a Lorenz bayonet in v.g. shape?

Thanks

[KentuckyReb]

Actually, I don't think it's a Lorenz bayonet, unless I'm wrong in thinking that they were 4-sided.

[hireddutchcutthroat]

It could have been a postwar bayonet, such as a Martini Henry or Trapdoor Springfield.

[Jimmayo]

I would agree it is probably a trapdoor 45/70 since they are very common. In addition the outside diameter of a .54 Austrian Lorenz barrel and one re-rifled to .58 is the same.

[NY Pvt]

You can confuse other details of the lorenz at first sight with the Springfield and Enfield, but the difference in the socket is hard to miss.

All of the Springfield and Enfield bayonets from during the war and post war had 90 degree angles in the opening in the socket as seen here:

http://www.gundersonmilitaria.com/descriptiondisplay.html?bayonetm18552rivetscab

http://shilohrelics.com/Assets/Product/Images/SR936720038241739184.jpg



The Lorenz didn't, as seen here:

http://www.gundersonmilitaria.com/picturedisplay.html?bayonetlorenzcompletevg

[58 lorenz]

I paid around $250 for a Lorenz bayonet in a nice 2-rivet scabbard on eBay early last year.

[marlin teat]

I'm going to try to get back to look at it again this weekend. I looked up some pictures of Martini-Henry baynets and the locking ring was entirely different although there may have been variatons.

As I mentioned, the inside diameter was smaller than the outside diameter of any "common" military caliber weapon that I'm aware of. Other than that, it had the outward appearance of any bayonet that you would glance at on a table at a relic show and move on.

The asking price was $125.00.

[Jimmayo]

3. What is the going price for a Lorenz bayonet in v.g. shape?



I bought this one at the Richmond show in Novermber of 03 for 125. The going price at the shows is between 100 and 135 although one recently sold on e-bay for less than 100. The one pictured is in very good condition and required no cleaning or fitting to my original Lorenz.

[James Brenner]

While I suspect that they do, can someone confirm that a Lorenz four-sided bayonet will fit in a c.1860 US scabbard intended for a triangular bayonet, please? The 104th OVI received Lorenz muskets in September 1862 and Enfields w/bayonets three months later. None of the regiment's primary sources suggest that new scabbards accompanied the Enfield issue. I haven't yet found an answer in any of the secondary sources I've consulted: Reilly, Man at Arms, etc.

Thanks

[Canton Zouave]

James,

Have you examined any of the returns or documenst related to the 104th in the Ohio Historical Society. The A.G. records were a good source for me for some records when I was doing research on the 4th Ohio.

Also, I have a copy of a masters thesis that was written about the 104th OVI. I will look and see if I might find any references in there that may help you.

[Jimmayo]

The Lorenz bayonet blade is about 1 inch longer than a springfield or enfield bayonet blade. I don't have an original Springfield scabbard but do have repros in which my original Springfield bayonets fit well. The Lorenz will not fit but half way into these scabbards. The Lorenz 4 sided blade is just too fat and if it did fit inside the scabbard it would be too long. As far an Enfield scabbard, the 4 sided Lorenz will never make it past the 3 side brass triangle throat of the scabbard.

Now to your post. You said 104th OVI had Austrians and then received Enfields. The Enfield bayonet WILL fit into a US made Lorenz scabbard. I do have a two rivet US mfg. Lorenz scabbard which came into my collection with a Springfield bayonet inside it. It is pictured on http://www.angelfire.com/ma4/j_mayo/relics.html

It may be possible that they used the Enfield bayonets in the US arsenal made Austrian scabbards.

[Ambrose Bierce]

Though it is not something they normaly stock, I would contact Lukas Berg at the Quartermaster Stores and ask him to make you up a Lorenz scabbard. He has a great pattern, the construction is excellent, and the materials are first rate. In short, all that make up a great reproduction. He made mine, I am very happy with it.

Hope this helps.

Ivan F. Ingraham

[James Brenner]

Thank you all for your responses. I suspect that the 104th was issued US made scabbards for use with the Lorenz bayonets and then used them for the Enfield bayonets a few months later. (I wonder who made the scabbards?) The records for the 104th in the various respositories - National Archives, Ohio Historical Society, and the Western Reserve Historical Society- merely state that the 104th received "scabbards". So far, the pictures I've come across don't show enough detail to be of much use. Gotta keep looking, though. The answer's out there somewhere.

Did Bradley Keefer write the thesis on the 104th? If so, I have a copy.

[Tim Prince]

The US government produced 2 different styles of scabbards for use with the cruciform pattern Lorenz bayonet. One style has diamond shaped throat in cross section and the other style has an oval shaped throat. Both were, of course long enough to accommodate the added blade length of the Austrian bayonet versus the US bayonet. Both were of the “2-rivet” pattern, with 2 rivets on the frog. I have not seen any evidence that the leather covered, wooden body Austrian style scabbards were ever used by US troops. Every image that I have seen of a US soldier with a Lorenz has shown a standard “Gaylord” pattern bayonet scabbard (if a scabbard was visible in the image).
I own an original with the diamond shaped throat that I sent to Don Smith at TMDCo. He has produced an excellent reproduction for me, and now has the pattern to produce more.

[Johan Steele]

I was told recently that Dixie Gunworks was offering a repro Lorenz in .54 & a Colt Revolving Rifle repro as well. After searching the site I managed to either miss them or they aren't there. Does anyone know who makes repros of either?

[Minieball577]

I was told recently that Dixie Gunworks was offering a repro Lorenz in .54 & a Colt Revolving Rifle repro as well. After searching the site I managed to either miss them or they aren't there. Does anyone know who makes repros of either?
As far as I know, no one is reproducing these arms as of yet. I have heard several times of the projects being underway, but do not think they have come to fruition. Dixie does offer an Austrian Jaeger Rifle, but this is a whole different animal than the Lorenz Rifle-musket. There are also "revolving carbines" available, but they do not resemble anything that was used in the WBTS.

Please let me know if you find out otherwise.

[rogue]

:D As far as I know, no one is reproducing these arms as of yet. I have heard several times of the projects being underway, but do not think they have come to fruition. Dixie does offer an Austrian Jaeger Rifle, but this is a whole different animal than the Lorenz Rifle-musket. There are also "revolving carbines" available, but they do not resemble anything that was used in the WBTS.

Please let me know if you find out otherwise.
Stay away from the Dixie sold Austrian. It is a stubby little thing with many problems. It is made in the Czech Republic by a factory that used to turn out AK-47's and explains one major reason for the fall of communism, bad industrial production. It is not the three band Austian Lorenz but a shorter cousin with no ramrod hole in the stock. The ramrod is purchased with a sword bayonet for $200 plus and carried in a leather over the shoulder sling. On mine the bayonet would not fit and the mainspring was too weak to pop a percussion cap. Also the barrel was bored off center. The fine folks at Dixie gave me full credit and I got one of their Miroku model '61 Springfields, a wonder in comparison!
Steve Sullivan
46th Illinois and Artifakes

[Yellowhammer]

I believe this the "Colt Revolving Carbine" currently being offered by a few vendors is just a revolver frame with shoulder stock (not to be confused with the Colt's that actually had a detachable shoulder stock) and extra long barrel. It isn't really a copy of anything in particular.

This is the "Remington" version:

http://www.midwayusa.com/midwayusa/applications/mediasvr.dll/highresimage?saleitemid=633440

[tmdreb]

Actually,

Palmetto was supposed to be making a repro of the Colt's Revolving Rifle, to be sold through Dixie Gun works. I believe the last time I asked Palmetto, it was supposed to be out by the end of last year. Some posters on the NSSA message board had more up-to-date info, but that board seems to be down at the moment. Palmetto usually makes repros of pistols, and one of their newest products is the 1855 Colt "Root" or "Sidehammer" revolver. So, if they ever do decide to release the dang thing, it should indeed be a Colt. I have not heard of anyone reproducing a quality rifle-length Lorenz.

[Johan Steele]

Message answered through search engine. Don't need to go over the same ground again.

[drider98]

Hello,

I recently heard from Palmetto Arms about the 1855 Colt Revolving Rifle, Here is their reply:

From: Palmetto Arms
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 6:13 AM
To: David Rider
Subject: Re: Colt Revolving Rifle


Hello David,

We are in production with the 1855 musket two bands without bayonet
attacment which will be soon available at Dixie Gun Works plant in
Tennessee. The first lot is preview in .44 -6 chambers only, while other
calibers will be available after the fist batch but not for this year.

David Rider
Company "C" 2nd Reg.t U.S. Sharpshooters
http://www.berdansharpshooters.com

[Marc]

Hello,

I recently heard from Palmetto Arms about the 1855 Colt Revolving Rifle, Here is their reply:

From: Palmetto Arms
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 6:13 AM
To: David Rider
Subject: Re: Colt Revolving Rifle


Hello David,

We are in production with the 1855 musket two bands without bayonet
attacment which will be soon available at Dixie Gun Works plant in
Tennessee. The first lot is preview in .44 -6 chambers only, while other
calibers will be available after the fist batch but not for this year.

David Rider
Company "C" 2nd Reg.t U.S. Sharpshooters
http://www.berdansharpshooters.com

As we all know, the Colt Revolving Rifle was a 5 cyclinder .58 caliber. I doubt if anyone will ever make a true reproduction of the Colt Revolving Rifle used by the Berdan Sharpshooters and a few other regiments.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kamerad!

Five chambers, but one cylinder... ;-)
(Five on .56 versions and larger, six chambers on smaller bores)

IMHO, they are only test marketing to the CAS/SASS cowboy shooters and not the military community- as they did with the Spencer carbine.

The Colt-Root Model 1855 repeating rifle came in a variety of models, but as a "Berdan" I sure would like a Sharpshooter version rather than a .44 (produced in a range of .40 through .64, with .44, .50, and .56 being PEC, as well as with different barrel lengths)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
Company "A," 1st USSS

[hireddutchcutthroat]

I would think that a true reproduction of a Colts revolving rifle would be a possible insurance risk, due to the possibility of a chain fire in close proximity of the users fore arm.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kameraden!

I would think no less, no more, than the bastardized "Remington" pistol-carbines now being sold, or any of the shoulder stocks sold for the Army or Navy Colts.

As an aside, the problem of multiple discharges on cap-and-ball revolvers (or the Colt rifle which is essentially a revolver action rifle) comes from the cone side of the cylinder and usually always not the barrel side of the chambers.
An oversized ball is squeezed into the chamber, sealing off the powder charge from flash at the barrel end/forcing cone end- even without grease or wad.
Improperly made cones, cones that are cracked or improperly seated, or even cones with oversized vents allow flash blow-back to move along the front of the cylinder and jump and dance into successive cone vents.
Some time ago, and I cannot find it at the moment, a detailed study was conducted on multiple revolver discharges which was able to capture the "flash dance" with a high speed camera.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[markj]

This is a nice image:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=13712&item=2256707808&rd=1

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[Lone_Rebel87]

Boy he looks ready to skewer some rebs with that pig sticker don't he?

Jordan Davis

[Yellowhammer]

Mark,

That's a great image. It looks like he was a pretty good sized fellow.

I've always liked this image of a young Lorenz-armed Birney's Zouave. Just for fun, compare how far his Lorenz comes up on his body to the image Mark posted.

http://www.angelfire.com/pa5/gettysburgpa/23rdpaimages/unknown2.JPG

http://i14.ebayimg.com/01/i/02/1e/92/9f_3.JPG

[rogue]

About two months ago a Texas dealer on eBay had an image he titled "Tall Yank" as it showed what appeared to be a significant giant of a man. Upon closer examination, he was leaning against a Lorenz, making anyone of normal stature appear to be a giant in height.
Steve Sullivan
46th Illimois
Co. Mil. Hist.

[TKlas]

Hi Mark,

Excellent image and thanks for posting :wink_smil . Great to see some accouterments along with the Model of 1854 in a clear picture. Too bad the cartridgebox and cartridgebox belt did not make the image.

[rogue]

Go back a post or two on this thread and see my mention of an image auctioned off earlier on eBay. I found a scan I had made, the Lorenz being a personal favorite of mine.
He does appear tall, but is probably average height, 'tis the gun that makes the man, or...size counts!
Steve Sullivan
46th Illinois
Co. Mil. Hist.

[markj]

It should be easy to figure out the approximate heights of the men in the images: combine the lengths of the Lorenz and bayonet, then add or subtract a little extra based on whether rifle is taller or shorter than they are as shown.

For example, using the image I submitted, the length of a standard Lorenz was 52.75" + bayonet blade length of about 19" (depending on how it's measured) = 71.25". Subtract about 5" from this (accounting for the man's cap and any extra height he got from his shoes) and this gives us an approximate height of about 66.25. The scan is at an angle so I'm likely a bit off but probably not by much--the soldier was almost certainly around 67", give or take a little.

The Birney Zouave was clearly even shorter since the muzzle of the rifle (52.75") reaches up to shoulder-length. I don't have access to a Lorenz but I believe the distance from the muzzle to the top band is approximately 8". So, even allowing a little extra due to the young man's slightly stooped posture, he was likely no more than 5' 3" or 5' 4". He simply looks taller due to his cap. Somebody who has access to forensic photograph knowledge/technology could undoubtedly get an even better measurement using known dimensions of items shown in the images (e.g., waist belt plates, etc.).


Thoughts?

Mark Jaeger

[Ringgold]

To Heck with his height, look at the size of his HANDS! Gadzooks! Private Popeye reporting for duty, Sir! :tounge_sm

I know how digital cameras tend to have a fisheye effect when copying images, but this gent must have been a blacksmith with mitts like those. A hard worker at the least.

[markj]

You want to see some oven mitts? Shucks, take a look at Abe Lincoln's hands sometime. Massive--they reflect an early life of backbreaking labor.

http://community.webshots.com/photo/2781612/3091067TWZGPoVnhJ

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[trippcor]

Someone is now repopping the Lorenz in mass. Unfortunately they picked a bore size that they already have tooling for, so the bore is too big. Maybe if enough of us complain they will at least get it down to 58 Cal if not the 54 Cal. The pics don't look to bad either.

http://www.loyalistarms.freeservers.com/1854LORENZ.htm

[GrumpyDave]

62 cal stinks. If it was made in 54 or 58 you could at the least find an original bayonet for the thing. As it is you'd have to wait for them to start manufacturing the bayonet too. Not a bad thing for the manufacturer/distributer. The price isn't bad for now but, wait until demand kicks in.

[Minieball577]

You could always have someone likie Bobby Hoyt or Dan Whitacre put a rifled liner in the bore, at whatever calibre you wanted.

[Will Eichler]

I think the best thing we can do is to let Blair, the owner of Loyalist, know that we want the weapon in .54. I've had several conversations with him via email (he's been very kind and forthcoming) and have already lodged that comment myself. Shoot them an email. Let them know what you think.

If more did so, we might have a go at it. Personally, I'd love an Austrian, but I too am holding out for a .54 barrel.

Best,

Will Eichler

[Kevin O'Beirne]

An except from John Tobey's recent article on the Lorenz, published in The Columbia Examiner newsletter, June 2006 issue:

**********************

Known to Civil War soldiers as simply, “Austrian Rifles” and to modern collectors as “the Lorenz”, the Austrian Model 1854 rifle-musket saw widespread use in the Army of the Potomac prior to 1864. In fact, it was the second-most popular imported long arm in the hands of all Federal troops, with 226,924 imported by the US Government during the Civil War.

Although there were small numbers of other Austrian weapons used by Federal forces, such as the 1854 Short Rifle, this article covers only the Model 1854 and its derivative, the Model 1861, because these two types were usually not differentiated by the US government.

Importation
What was the ratio of different types issued? Of one group of 16,511 Lorenzes identifiable by type, 15,528 were .54 caliber Model 1854s; 12,384 had the block sight and 3,144 the leaf sight. In the same group, 983 were also Model 1854s, but bored out to .58 caliber.

Accessories included combination tools (comprised of a cone wrench, screw driver, and spring drift), ball screws, wipers, and cleaning jags of the Austrian pattern; interestingly, there appears to be no documentation of spare cones or spring vices of a distinct Austrian pattern being issued to Federal troops—when issued, these items were probably of the standard US pattern.

Another model was imported and described as “Austrian rifle muskets, bored out to .58 caliber:”

“In imitation of the Enfield rifle; barrel and lock blued, and tompion and snap cap attached…somewhat superior, in every respect, to [the other two types of Lorenz rifles previously described].”

A total of 7,376 of these guns had been received, and these were certainly the “Model 1861” weapons described later in this article.....

*

The US government preferred weapons that conformed to its own newfound standard of .58 caliber, so many Austrian rifles were consequently bored out by American and European gunsmiths, presumably in an attempt to make them more marketable to the US Army. Unfortunately, there was little consistency in the machining processes used to do this, and when the delivered weapons were actually inspected, bores were found to measure .56, .57, .59, and even .60 in addition to the .54 stock diameter and the desired .58. Theoretically, all the weapons with bores other than .54 and .58 were put into storage, but it’s hard to accept this as being put into practice during the weapon shortages that lasted from late 1861 to late 1862. Indeed, this variation in bore size may account for the inconsistent performance recorded by Lorenz rifles in the field. Some units reported their weapons as being extremely accurate, and other units recorded theirs as being unable to hit anything at over 100 yards.

The M1854 came in two basic models. One was equipped with a block sight that was supposed to be issued to the center companies of a regiment and a leaf sight that was issued to sharpshooters and the flank companies.

A second version made its Austrian debut in 1861, and included a redesigned lockplate shaped much like that used on the English Enfield. Although this model was not normally differentiated by the US Army, it was sometimes called the “Austrian Enfield”. This so-called “M1861” was only manufactured with the leaf sight.

Some researchers have held the opinion that the M1861’s were only imported late in the war, after the Austrians had sold off the older models they had available in storage. A closer look at the documentation, both written and photographic, refutes this.

*************************

The bayonets for the Lorenz were a good deal longer than those for '53 Enfields and Springfield rifle-muskets, so indeed someone has to make the bayonet and the scabbard to hold it. In addition to the length, there were other important differences between Lorenz bayonets and the Enfield and Springfield bayonets, including cross-sectional arrangement and the mortise on the shank.

Okay, enough. Frankly put this is all Mr. Tobey's research. :)

[Jimmayo]

The bayonets for the Lorenz were a good deal longer than those for '53 Enfields and Springfield rifle-muskets, so indeed someone has to make the bayonet and the scabbard to hold it.




Reproduction CS lead finial scabbard and original bayonet. Scabbard is available.

I would be surprised if original bayonets fit the repro austrian.

[LibertyHallVols]

The pics don't look to bad either.

I gotta disagree. It only looks like a Lorenz if I squint at the screen. Generally, anything I've seen from L.A. looks worse than the Italian stuff we're all used to.

[Garrett Silliman]

To reiterate other peoples comments, Blair Higgins is an exceptionally nice man to deal with. He was very forthcoming with information etc. , and I know he would welcome people's comments/questions etc. You can email him atloyalistarms@hfx.eastlink.ca. I had the opportunity to examine detailed photos of their Lorenz and I offered my comments (for what it's worth).

The .62 caliber smoothbore is a problem - No question. The question would be whether or not an original replacement barrel (defarbing) would fit the stock and hardware. I know he was interested in reproducing the bayonet and said that if anyone had an original they would be willing to part with he would give them a discount on a completed weapon. I applaud Loyalists efforts, and hopefully we'll have a reporduction Lorenz very soon.

Garrett Silliman

[Western Blue Belly]

...It only looks like a Lorenz if I squint at the screen. Generally, anything I've seen from L.A. looks worse than the Italian stuff we're all used to.

I agree. I have a picture of myself holding an original Lorenz from several years ago (my kit and I look terrible, but the rifle looks great). I did a comparison of my picture to the one on the L.A. site.The repo looks way too thick, adding weight which is typical of L.A. and the hammer looks quite a bit differant. Of course compairing pictures is not the best way of going about
this.

Ken Zimmer

[LibertyHallVols]

I had the opportunity to examine detailed photos of their Lorenz and I offered my comments (for what it's worth).

So...
What feedback did you give? What shortcomings did you note on the LA Lorenz?

Do you know if they plan to correct the shortcomings you noted?

[Garrett Silliman]

So...
What feedback did you give? What shortcomings did you note on the LA Lorenz?

Do you know if they plan to correct the shortcomings you noted?
John,

Let me say that I was not a consultant on the LA Lorenz project, but merely an interested party with whom they shared some information with. I was one of many people that commented on the Lorenz.

That being said, there were a few things that jumped out such as problems with the stock. The grip and butt appeared to be at an odd angle compared to originals I have seen. The lock plate housing and the lock seemed to be poorly fitted, which they said was a result of the prototype and would be corrected in the production version. Also with the stock, I was concerned with the actual wood they were using as I understand LA uses Indian wood.

I am certainly not the formost expert on the Lorenz, nor is it easy to see dimensions etc from even good photos, so I would encourage any interested parties to contact Blair and let him know your thoughts/concerns etc.

Garrett Silliman

[trippcor]

One thing I have noticed with Loyalist Arms, is that they will continue to refine the weapons they offer over time. I have a long land bess that I got from them it is at least the third if not forth version of that weapon. The first one they came out with had several issues which LA was very forth coming about. With each new run though they improved the weapon which is more than I can say of the Italian folks.

I agree it would be nice if they waited till it was closer to perfect but developing new products is costly. Offering the new weapon early, allows for sales to provide capitol to improve the product and also helps to judge interest before spending a lot of money to develop a product that only a few want. This seems to be the normal course of modern business just look at Microsoft.

[ACo.]

:confused: Has anyone bothered to ask for a measurement of the outside diameter of the muzzle and compared it to the inside diameter of an original bayonet? How far is the front sight from the muzzle? I agree that the caliber can be considered a problem to a shooter but to a reenactor? Many reenactors use original Springfield M1861s and Enfield P53s and Lorenz rifle muskets that have been reamed smooth (usually to .62 caliber - thats about standard 20 guage) post ACW and are not derided for it so that is really not a problem. If an original bayonet will fit or if a decent repop bayonet is made available, this could be an answer to all of the calls for a Lorenz for those wanting one. Give the company a chance, in my contacts with them they have been very friendly and are interested in doing a good job. My first Lorenz was original and cost me $250 12 years ago. The next cost $450 3 years later. Those days are gone and an original can only be carried at a risk of doing damage to an expensive collector's item that deserves the respect due its history. I say give them a chance and encourage them.

[csabugler]

Hey Tripp, I'm gonna send that site to my old buddy Skip. He was one of the guys who got onto the Lorenz early, way back probably 12 years ago. He's had several. interested to see his opinion. The ranger at the mill befor Chuck wouldn't let Skip carry an original at the Mill for some long forgotten event because he didn't think it was "typical and customary". We have learned otherwise sinse.
Pete

[unclefrank]

The rifle looks nice. I hear that the wood they use is kinda heavy. Can anyone confirm that.

[Rebbeh]

I sent an email last night at about 11pm, PST to Blair, asking him some basic questions and whatnot. At 9:30am, he sent his reply (that's good service right there!). I for one already have a '42 Springfield, and a '53 Enfield. I have live fired them both, and as fun as the Enfield is to fire, I prefer to fire the '42, simply because it makes a louder pop, is more fun to see the balls travel hither and thither, and is a lot easier to clean and maintain than the rifling of the Enfield. If your going to live fire a Lorenz, then you probably want an accurate calibre. But if your just putting powder down the barrel, what difference does it make at a reenactment? Makes about as much sense as a Confederate with a Henry in my opinion. Anyways, here is the reply from Blair, and I totally agree with him. Muskets are starting to get up there in price. My friend bought his first Euroarms '61 Springfield for $300 dollars new. Now, they sell for over $600. I don't want another $8-900 dollar musket floating around out there that only the well to do can aquire.

*******

Dear Ty,

Good to hear from you and many thanks for the valuable info.

Our Lorenz will not be available in .54 or .58 cal rifled as the barrel
factory does not have the proper equipment
.
If you desire a rifled version, all I can suggest is to contact a
domestic rifle barrel maker and install one of
these barrels into our stock.
The cost of a US made rifled barrel for a Lorenz in .54 or .58 , the
last time I checked, (4-5 years ago), was
about $285.00 US and the wait was approx. 4-6 months.
It would then have to be fitted to the gun as it would not likely be a
drop in fit.
If you were to have a custom made barrel for a Euroarms or Armisport
rifle made, fitting would still be needed.

The Lorenz was basically designed for reenacting and shooting round
ball. It was designed to look accurate and
function well at a reasonable cost.
It was not designed for targeting, so there was no use for rifling.
We hear a lot of complaints that Euroarms and Armisport Enfields are
"not accurate", but how exact does the average
customer require his repro rifle??
It really depends on the individual. Does he require a museum exact
copy, or a good repro. that functions well on
the field?

For the factory to gear up to crank out .54 & 58 rifled barrels, would
cost so much and with the necessary
government permits required, it would not be worth the hassle.
We would have another percussion musket over the $900.00 mark. We might
sell a few, but we would just exclude a lot
of customers in the lower income margin.
I have always held the opinion that Reenacting should not be for the
select few, who are better off financially,
but for anyone.
Having a smooth bored .62 cal barrel is much less expensive, and
brings the Lorenz into the more affordable price
bracket for the average reenactor.
As you probably know, the average Italian percussion rifles are
creeping into the $800.00 - 900.00 range, if you
look at a recent Dixire Gun Works catalog.
Dixies Lorenz, (carbine), for example, is $875.00 and we know that
very few Lorenz, (jaegers), were actually
imported.
Some customers desperate for a Lorenz, have actually bought these
things since there is nothing else available.

The only other option, is to have a Lorenz custom made which would
probably cost over $1800.00 US.

So the more affordable version has a smooth bore barrel, and any custom
or customized version will cost
significantly more.
That's simple economics. We are offering a good repro with a warranty
that looks fine, but has a slightly larger
smooth bore.
We know customers would always prefer a rifled barrel, but that is just
not economically possible at this time for
us nor the customer.

Hope this is helpful Ty; have a great day and thanks for your best
wishes. It's folks like you who keep us going.
Best wishes to you and your fellow reenactors this coming Fall.

Your Servant,
Blair Higgins.
www.loyalistarms.freeservers.com

-Ty "Tic-Tac" Gladden

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

To pick a few... butt stock/wrist/comb area, lock and lock stampings, front sight, ramrod, .62 smoothbore, what appears to be a not fully finished sand-cast breech and bolster, and a teak (??) stock?

IMHO, compare it it the original.
Having said that... sigh... and not comparing Apples and Oranges repro's with repro's-
for $450 it is just as "good appearing" and "useful" as the Italian M1855/61/63 "Springfield " or the Italian P1853 4th Model "Enfield" with all their faults, problems, and errors that we readily and commonly accept and use as is. (and at less money)

Maybe I am doing the moan of the glass half empty, glass half full, thing here. But I did some sommersaults down the basement stairs Monday night breaking up a dog fight- and may have rattled what marbles remain...

Others' mileage may vary...

Curt
So close and yet so far, far away Mess

[Tim Prince]

Curt beat me to it, but you can rule out using an original bayonet (no matter the barrel diameter) due to the fact that the front site is a rectangular profile instead of oval, and placed square on the barrel instead of off-set to accept the helical mortise of the Lorenz bayonet. The biggest plus to their offering is that you may be able to buy some parts from them to restore a Lorenz. With the double strapped front band from a Lorenz selling in the $100-$200 range these days, a decent repro band would be a god send for those looking to rebuild a "fixer-upper" gun. The reality is that you can still get a really good looking original Lorenz that is safe and functional in the $1000-$1200 range and that would be money much better spent than on another "close but no cigar" Civil War reproduction. And as Curt pointed out, that rammer is funky and it would give the gun away as a reproduction from quite a distance. I've probably owned over two dozen Lorenz's over the years and retailed nearly a dozen in the past 2 years. I'm pretty well acquainted with these guns and this one misses the mark considerably. It is about equivalent to those fixed site Indian/Pakistani Enfields that made the rounds of sutler tents a few years ago.

[trippcor]

I got basically the same response Ty did from LA. I agree to some extent but not entirely. I still bet if we push hard enough, we can get a better weapon. Like I said LA continued to improve their Long Land Bess over time as flaws were pointed out to them.

[Feckless]

All in all, a very commendable effort from Loyalist Arms; and at a price point that will make it a tough (fun?) choice vs. the other Italian offerings.

A couple of comments (with my 862 orig sitting in my lap right now):

- The screws (for the internal lock parts, not the screws that hold the plate itself) are off a little. Mainspring hole on orig much closer to front plate screw hole; and sear screw holes (behind the hammer) are the same size on the orig. The hole directly below the bolster isn't on my orig at all. This is being picky, admittedly, but since we're on the subject.....

- Date stamp is much smaller on the orig, and it would have been nice to get an armoury stamp (Ferlach armoury usually) at the rear of the plate.

- It hard to tell from the pics on Loyalist's website, but original stocks were made of very light colored beechwood (that's what grew in central Europe in those days), and LA's appears to be darker walnut. My orig doesn't have a cheek-piece either, but earlier/larger bore models did, I think.

- Why .62 caliber? I'd be interested in buying, but my original quad bayonets (at .54) wouldn't fit - nice they're making a repop, though. Rifling would certainly up the price, so let's be thankful for what we get for $475 (particularly with the correct octagonal-to-round barrel).

- Last but not least, the middle & front barrel bands appear much closer together on the 862 orig vs. Loyalist's; and the top (swivel) band protrudes forward about 1/2" on its underside (like the bottom band).

It's admittedly easy to point out these things when comparing directly to an orig that LA is probably not trying to copy exactly anyway. Let's give these guys a lot of credit for taking a chance on this. It's been a long time coming.

Wonder what Greg Edington (remember his attempt a few years ago?) thinks of this one. I'd be curious to hear from him, if he's still in this business.

Regards, John Roger

[TKlas]

Gents,

I would agree with everyone that this would be an excellent rifle-musket to reproduce accurately but from the feedback I would agree with Curt and Tim your best bet is to get an original at this time. I own one and so do several members of the Hard Heads both in the 54. and 58. caliber models. As Tripp stated, perhaps if this company keeps refining their product, we may need to re-discuss the possibilities of looking into this in a few years. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Encouraging news for enthusiasts of Austrian Lorenz rifle-muskets in the 54. and 58. caliber models.

Best Regards,

[trippcor]

John,
That is just the kind of things Loyalist needs to see. It was that kind of feed back they used to improve their Long Land Bess. Make sure you pass contact LA. You might want to include pictures of your orginal to better illustrate your point.

[NC5thCav]

I don't think that we'll see a rifled version, but I would be happy if some of the other faults that Curt and Tim pointed out were corrected. Although bore diameter for reenactors is not a top concern, overall barrel dimensions are. The problems with the front site are some that I would really like to see addressed, especially since the unique bayonet arrangement is one of the things that sets the Lorenz apart. I know it has some major flaws, but at least someone is willing to try.

[ACo.]

Some of the concerns have been addressed. One of the problems pointed out is the rear sight. Ii seems that many people involved in this discussion have a tendency to look at pictures and not read the text, here is a quote on the rear sight:

"Another feature is the front sight. It looks like it is twisted on the barrel
but this shape accommodates the angled groove in the bayonet socket."

Loyalist Arms has used the photographs of their early prototype of their reproduction to illustrate the article, they do realize that the sight is angled for the correct bayonet. Also, keep in mind that the smooth bore in .62 cal does not necesarily mean that the outside diameter is grossly different from the original. It may indeed be the same? And they are comming out with their own repop bayonet.

There has been some concern about the color of the wood and the cheekpiece. The originals were mostly made using beechwood that was stained dark but a few show up in an original unstained state. The lighter color can be considered correct but in many cases it indicates the work of people improperly "restoring" their rifles at some point during the last 140 years and some of the lightened stocks are now taking on the patina of original. At any rate the dark stock is predominantly correct. Too bad they are not using beechwood but it is not economically available to them. And don't worry about the chheck piece on the repop, it is correct and was used on some but certainly not all originals.

The biggest problem in my eyes is the ramrod, it is completely wrong, hopefully they will do something about it but we can expect this to be a major stumbling block since a correctly made brass banded rammer involves some compicated processes. A beautifully correct reproduction can be had from "The Rifle Shoppe" if you want to try them, expect a waite.

Altogether, the reproduction Lorenz from Loyalist arms looks good and, with certain improvements, can be at least as good if not better than any of the Italian pieces. We should encourage them rather than sitting back in our armchairs at our computer keyboards denegrating their efforts. Email them your suggestions. It will never be perfect but it can be acceptable and we will NEVER see one out of Italy.

[Jimmayo]

Posting some pictures for those of you who don't have a Lorenz handy to look at.

The first picture (L to R) shows the ramrod which should have a brass band in the channel in front of the hole. The brass band is missing on this example.

Third picture shows the orientation of the front sight.

The pictures of the lock and stock show the wood actual color which is pretty close to the picture.

The history on this Austrian is that it was brought back from the war by Oren Fletcher of the 11th Pa. Cav. From the OR records Oren most likely picked the rifle up during his travels north from Andersonville to DC area to rejoin his regiment after he was released. It is a .54 cal. and shows very little wear.

[NC5thCav]

Thanks Jim. That appears to be a gorgeous rifle. From what I here, Loyalist is known for listening to customer input, so many of these problems may be fixed in the future.

[Jim Chochole]

I agree, if we give L.A. a chance and take a look at what they offer- things will indeed get better over time. They are an up-and-coming company just like Pedersoli was at one time. I have tested their P-53 Enfields, and the new M1840 cone-in-barrel and they are a solid piece. The discussions on L.A. have gone from how quality are they to- the authenticity of the shaping of the muskets and rifles. That is a good sign, many reenactors see them as a chance to at least have some competition with the Italians. Competition is a good thing as it works in the best interests of the reenactors and quality products. I have noticed that, in as much as the Indian products are shaped oddly at times, Pedersoli's muskets can be as thick as tree-trunks a times as well. Both companies products, coming out-of-the-box, need work. Often times the question becomes howmuch work, and at what cost to begin with?

Cheers,
Jim Chochole

[TheGrayGhost]

....................

[billmatt04]

Altogether, the reproduction Lorenz from Loyalist arms looks good and, with certain improvements, can be at least as good if not better than any of the Italian pieces. We should encourage them rather than sitting back in our armchairs at our computer keyboards denegrating their efforts. Email them your suggestions. It will never be perfect but it can be acceptable and we will NEVER see one out of Italy.

Amen to that.

[LibertyHallVols]

Amen to that.

While I am supportive of the idea that well-intentioned firms, responsive to customer feedback and intent on improving their product be encouraged to make such improvements, I do not believe that the products themselves should be supported, endorsed, or recommended until they have reached a level of quality and fidelity to originals that meets some minimum standard.

[billmatt04]

While I am supportive of the idea that well-intentioned firms, responsive to customer feedback and intent on improving their product be encouraged to make such improvements, I do not believe that the products themselves should be supported, endorsed, or recommended until they have reached a level of quality and fidelity to originals that meets some minimum standard.

What I was referring to is a proactive effort to get the problems corrected rather than sitting back and complaining. I applaud the efforts of those who are communicating with the manufacturers to produce a better quality weapon. You and I appear to be in complete agreement.

Best,

[LibertyHallVols]

What I was referring to is a proactive effort to get the problems corrected rather than sitting back and complaining. I applaud the efforts of those who are communicating with the manufacturers to produce a better quality weapon. You and I appear to be in complete agreement.

Best,

Cool. I just hope to see a better mousetrap before we beat a path to anyone's door. Good efforts and intentions are great, but results are all that matter.

[ACo.]

While I am supportive of the idea that well-intentioned firms, responsive to customer feedback and intent on improving their product be encouraged to make such improvements, I do not believe that the products themselves should be supported, endorsed, or recommended until they have reached a level of quality and fidelity to originals that meets some minimum standard.



That is my intent as well so it is good to see that you agree. We have to remember that development of a new product for market is an expensive proposition and any intelligent company will pull the plug after a short run if there is no interest in a product. For years there has been a clamor on the part of reenactors for a reasonably accurate copy of the Lorenz, be it the M1854 or the M1862 so here is our chance for input from the ground floor. At best they MAY sell as many as 1000 units so they need to know that there is interest. When contacting them, let them know that there are those that want this, make suggestions and observations and ask for updates on the progress. Maybe they can do a mailing list? Support them in this and for the first time you may have some say in what you have to use.

[LibertyHallVols]

That is my intent as well so it is good to see that you agree. We have to remember that development of a new product for market is an expensive proposition and any intelligent company will pull the plug after a short run if there is no interest in a product. For years there has been a clamor on the part of reenactors for a reasonably accurate copy of the Lorenz, be it the M1854 or the M1862 so here is our chance for input from the ground floor. At best they MAY sell as many as 1000 units so they need to know that there is interest. When contacting them, let them know that there are those that want this, make suggestions and observations and ask for updates on the progress. Maybe they can do a mailing list? Support them in this and for the first time you may have some say in what you have to use.

I agree with you 100% and am glad there are good folks working with to get them good information. Some of the earlier posts stating that their Lorenz "looked really good" just didn't match what my eyes saw when looking at photos of their product.

Thanks!

[trippcor]

Folks,
I have emailed a bit more with LA. The pictures they have posted are just of the prototype and not the final product so now is the best time to contact them with any issues you may see. MAybe they would be willing to allow one of our AC gun experts review one of their final products. They did allow some respected individuals in the Rev War Campaigner community to review their Long Land Bess.

[Jim Chochole]

I have to agree with Mr. Wickett 100%, it is easy to sit back and critique about something that has just arrived. Before you kill a product as it is not to your liking- try and change or at least investigate the accuracy and be an agent for good. The process of making a weapon such as the Lorenz requires a chunk of change and access to many originals. heck to properly creat a weapon one has to destroy fully one whole weapon to "mic" the parts and get the correct thicknesses and tolerances. Let's try and work with this company and maybe get something out of it better tahn what is currently available.

Cheers,
Jim Chochole

[trippcor]

Folks,
Loyalist Arms has read this thread and contacted me with a very postive response. They were not aware that they could post as well and have asked me to post this for them.

From Loyalist Arms:
I do appreciate all the input from the people on the board, and although some of it seems a little premature and harsh, it is all constructive criticism. I actually put the web page together and forgot to mention that this one pictured, was the prototype. My apologizes for any confusion this has caused.

The front sight sight is already being fixed. The prototype had a square block front sight, even though we had supplied one that was accurate. In any case, it will be different on the finished product. Perhaps the factory thought that they were correcting a mistake that we had made. After all, the original front sight is indeed odd looking. The rammer is not correct, but thanks to one of your contributors, I now have a nice close up of one.

We had no original to copy. You see, being in Canada, Lorenz rifles are extremely rare. We never had a civil war that needed vast numbers of European guns to be imported. I think our first attempt wasn't too bad.

Stock color is irrelevant as a customer can have his stock in any color he wants, even painted black if he so chooses.. We do the finishing work here in our shop. The stock is made from ROSEWOOD, which is denser than walnut. Anyone acquainted with fine furniture or musical instruments knows Rosewood is an excellent, tough, (and expensive),wood. It is rather light until we stain it with the best stain on the market, "Laurel Mountain Forge" made in the USA. These guns are partially completed overseas, and then we do the detailing here in our shop.

The barrel on the prototype measures .789 at the end of the muzzle and .812 at the end of the front band, behind the sight. Is this somewhat close to the originals?? I do know that the Lorenz rifles were all hand fitted with varying degrees of fit & finish, and quality for that matter. I would be interested in getting exact micrometer measurements on barrel dimensions of say 5-10 of them to see if they all match. In any case, we hope soon to have the bayonet available, (as soon as we can get our hands on an original to copy).
Is it that important to fit an original bayonet on a repro gun ? How many reenactors have original bayonets to fit on the repro anyway? I had to ask this question. I hope I don't offend anyone, but it has me stumped.

Can anyone there give me the exact measurement between the lower end of the rammer tube of the front band and the front of the middle band? It would be most appreciated.

If any of the folks on the forum wants to criticize our efforts, how about they help us get this project more accurate by supplying a bayonet to copy??
We will give the individual supplying the bayonet a repro. replacement bayonet for free, up to five more bayonets at our cost, a discount of $200.00 on a production Lorenz, and honorable mention on our website for their assistance. They can have their original bayonet back eventually**.

**One thing I have to be honest about;
If we send a bayonet overseas, there is always a possibility of loss or damage, so this does take some risk on their part. I just want to be up front about this.

We always post pics of our prototypes so we can get useful feedback on them. It's customers feedback that helps us produce a decent product, and if we can achieve maybe a 85%+ correct gun, we will be doing well by most repro. standards I believe.

Another question I have is if there were different style hammers used on the Lorenz muskets ?? We have 2 examples here, (just hammers, not the guns).
We do not have a complete gun to copy, just parts and pictures and a few specs. It's been quite a challenge as you can imagine.

So, the rest is up to you folks. We are doing this all for our fine US customers.
Do you really want a Lorenz? We need your help. How often do reenactors get some say in the products they purchase?? Now's your chance.....
How about helping us get this thing developed as accurately and as feasible as possible?

Looking forward to your replies.
Best Wishes,

Your Servant,
Blair Higgins.
www.loyalistarms.freeservers.com

[Will Eichler]

Gents,

I called Blair just as he hit the send button on the email to Trip. Seems we have a chance to very positively infleuence the final product! Do send the info along. He really wants our help.

I've got a bayonet on the way for Blair. It should be here next week. If is doesn't work out, I'll be sure to let you all know so someone else can take him up on the deal.

Best to all,

Will

[coastaltrash]

Tripp,
The only advice I would pass them is to contact Tim Prince. As far as a bayonet, Tim HAD one on his site http://www.collegehillarsenal.com/shop/product.php?productid=16205&cat=256&page=1

and I'm sure could get another one. If I were ever in the market for a lorenz (original) he is who I would turn to, he is also the person I had examine my Dad's original Lorenz that was cut down from the original size. Now I'll step back in line, and wait like the rest of us.

[NC5thCav]

Now THAT is what I call customer service.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallol!

Three Cheers and a Tiger!

Now that is infinitely BETTER than anything the Italians have offered "
"us" in almost fifty years!

On another note, IMHO the striving to have reproductions (of any manner of article of clothing, item or gear, or weapon, etc.) compared and favorably comparing to originals is not "criticism."
It is rather, IMHO, an expression of the striving toward and the standards for, greater "authenticity" in our impressions and persona. In recent decades it has fueled the movement toward "better" clothing, gear, and weapons- as well as those segments of the Civil War Community that embrace them.

While I have never paid them, I do appreciate the effort and finanical costs of bringing new clothing, gear, and arms out for "me" to use.
However, I do not appreciate the business theory or business necessities that have allowed the "Italians" to produce inferior products. But I do not blame the Italians for a successful business practice, I blame "us" for continually buying what the "Italians" offer in large enough numbers to act as a disincentive for change or product improvement for over thirty years.

But it is in the Nature of the Authentic Campaigner Beast to compare reproductions against the original they claim to reproduce/copy/imitiate.
As Odysseus in TROY says, "It's no insult to say that a dead man is dead."

If I had not have sold off my CW collection to finance my daughter's college education in this state, I would have sent a "Lorenz" to be copied if I thought or known it would have, could have, had a positive effect on a reproduction.

I have no idea how many "Lorenz's" the CW Commuity market will purchase, but think it a risky small number to weigh against development and production costs (even in India or Pakistan, etc.,). And in a CW hobby where we have been using "authenticity challenged" Italian offerings for decades, the rantings and ravings, overly critical or not- of the right (no pun intended) half of the F/M/C/P/H/A Paradigm...
I applaud Mr. Higgins desire and effort to bring interesting, new and different, affordable 18th and 19th century firearms to the Blackpowder Community. I do.
And doubly applaud and commend his responsiveness, interest, and effort to do a good job of things!

Curt
Heretic

[Jimmayo]

The barrel on the prototype measures .789 at the end of the muzzle and .812 at the end of the front band, behind the sight. Is this somewhat close to the originals??

Mine measures 0.774 or 0.775 inch barrel diameter measured with the instrument up against the front band.

Midway between the end of the barrel and the front sight it measures 0.755 or 0.756 inch.

I took several measurments and they came out to be either of the two numbers given. I didn't like taking the measurement at the muzzle because it may have been deformed slightly through the years.


In any case, we hope soon to have the bayonet available, (as soon as we can get our hands on an original to copy).

Originals can be bought for around $125. Contact Horse Soldier of Gettysburg.


Is it that important to fit an original bayonet on a repro gun ? How many reenactors have original bayonets to fit on the repro anyway?

Depends on quality of repros. Quite a few people use original M42 bayonets.

Can anyone there give me the exact measurement between the lower end of the rammer tube of the front band and the front of the middle band? It would be most appreciated.

From lower end of tube to front of middle band is 2 inches.

From lower end of tube to front of rear band is 16.25 inches. Both were measured using a tape measure.

Hope this helps. Also shown is a dug version of the ramrod with the brass band intact.

[FlatLandFed]

Greetings,

"Is it that important to fit an original bayonet on a repro gun ? How many reenactors have original bayonets to fit on the repro anyway? I had to ask this question. I hope I don't offend anyone, but it has me stumped."

Original U.S. bayonet for my repro .69 Springfield and original British bayonet for my repro .577 Enfield have served me well in the field, thank you.

Yes -- the ability to fix an original bayonet on a long arm would be an important consideration for me.

Best of luck in your endeavor.
Paul Hadley
Lincoln, Neb.

[Rebbeh]

Today, Monday, at about 3:30pm I sent Blair an email telling him about how many of my pards use original bayonets and whatnot. I own 2 muskets ('42 Springfield and '53 Enfield) and only use original bayonets for both. I've seen too many "round" bayonets after someone takes a hit. Plus, for the most part, originals and repops are about the same price. I'd gladly throw down 25-30 extra bucks for an original.

Just my opinion. But I prefer to use original bayonets simply because they are more well made

[James the Haggard Ranger]

Chuck and I have been comparing the picture of the Loylist Arms prototype Austrian Lorenz to our original on display in the museum. They have a long way to go for it to be a Lorenz.

Their prototype appears to be a retooled reproduction Italian 1863 Springfield Rifled Musket made to resemble a Lorenz. Compare Loylist Arms images to the 1863 Springfield and you will notice immediately the hammer is a '63, lock plate is a '63, stock is a '63, ramrod is a '63, etc.

If they have retooled a '63 Springfield why not leave it .58cal?

Their is a good photo of a Lorenz in the Union Echos of Glory book which does not match their prototype, however the prototype does looks more similar to the original 1863 Springfield in the same book.

I hope this observation can be useful.

Thanks,

James Wooten, Interpretive Ranger
Pickett's Mill Battlefield state Historic site

[ACo.]

Chuck and I have been comparing the picture of the Loylist Arms prototype Austrian Lorenz to our original on display in the museum. They have a long way to go for it to be a Lorenz.

Their prototype appears to be a retooled reproduction Italian 1863 Springfield Rifled Musket made to resemble a Lorenz. Compare Loylist Arms images to the 1863 Springfield and you will notice immediately the hammer is a '63, lock plate is a '63, stock is a '63, ramrod is a '63, etc.

If they have retooled a '63 Springfield why not leave it .58cal?

Their is a good photo of a Lorenz in the Union Echos of Glory book which does not match their prototype, however the prototype does looks more similar to the original 1863 Springfield in the same book.

I hope this observation can be useful.

Thanks,

James Wooten, Interpretive Ranger
Pickett's Mill Battlefield state Historic site




Actually it is not useful since you are comparing reproduction to reproduction. Agreed, there are similarities to the ’63 but not to the degree that you state. Someone with little knowledge about military firearms of the era would not notice the differences either. We don't get an accurate view of things looking at photographs on a computer, even when we have an original in hand as you do? Please don't take offense but I do not see the same similarities that you see and in 30 years of handling original firearms I think (?) I have a pretty good idea of the subtleties in what I am looking at. The differences between the Lorenz reproduction and the '63 are obvious, especially in the hammer and lock plate - they are completely different from the ’63 whether it be original or reproduction. Give them a chance and maybe they will satisfy you? My chief problem with it at this point is the horrible brass tipped ramrod which, incidentally, is nothing like a '63 ramrod - if you stretch your imagination it can be said to be similar to the M1855 - 61 ramrod but really isn’t that either. Sorry, I do not want to offend, maybe you should look closer?

[Jim Chochole]

I received my new Loyalist Arms prototype 1854 Lorenz this week. I am attaching a bunch of close-ups and details of this production arm. It is very light at about 7-8lbs and has a nice heft.

1. The front sight has been modified from a square to the rounded off-center one.
2. The bands aren't perfect and the middle one does not have the flar along the bottom
3. The hammer nose is a tad longer than on the originals- but it completely covers the cone- and is safer for flying cap chards.

Other than the aforementioned items, see for yourself and let's chat this new piece up for all folks who have an interest.

**If folks need more or different pics- please let me know.

Cheers,
Jim Chochole

[1stMaine]

Comrade,

3 Questions for you:

1.) What calibre is the reproduction offered in?

2.) Is a bayonet available?

3.) What sort of markings are there and where are they located?

Respects,

[trippcor]

Jim,
I know you own a large number of orginal weapons. I would be interested in seeing a side by side comparison with an original. Hopefully including some measurements and pictures.

[Lone Guard]

When I first saw this on then Loyalist website, I immediately took out my EOG to compare it.

Besides the calibre being off, I think the major differences I remember were the ramrod bell being different, as well as the screw locations on the lockplate.

At least someone is making an effort to put on out there, even if it is a off a few marks.

[Dignann]

1.) What calibre is the reproduction offered in?
2.) Is a bayonet available?
3.) What sort of markings are there and where are they located?
Austrian Lorenz Repop (http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6464)

Eric

[LibertyHallVols]

A number of relic vendors are currently carrying original Lorenz muskets, including an A-C Approved Vendor who has posted a number of detailed pics. :wink_smil

Judge for yourself.

I see (in random order):
- Wrist longer on repro than original, resulting in misshapen cheek piece.
- Misshapen left side panel.
- relative distance between front and mid band longer on the repro.
- Shape differences in the plate on the left panel (counter to the lock).
- Subtle difference in hammer shape.

Some of these items are common to almost every repro musket I've seen, such as the side panel shapes.

[KyCavalier]

:cry_smile When I was a senior in H.S. a good friend of mine had an original with bayonet...I had him talked into $200. But, his dad had the last word. :baring_te If I run into him I'll ask what happened to it.

Tony Downs
6th Ky Cav

[Jim Chochole]

I have contacted Loyalist about the bayonet- I know they are in the works, but I will seek an exact time of availability.

1. the caliber is about .62- a standard (incorrect) triangular Enfield bayonet
fits well.
2. the rammer swell is all brass, but they are being corrected as we speak- I
was told by Blair Higgins.
3. only markings on the Lorenz is "858" for 1858 on the lockplate centered

Thanks and hope this helps!
Jim Chochole

**working on putting an original side-by-side with it.

[firstexas]

Pards,

There are some good pictures of an original Lorenz rifle on Tim Price's site:

http://www.collegehillarsenal.com/shop/product.php?productid=16206&cat=261&page=1

FYI, Bill.

[Minieball577]

I have attached some measurments that you can use to compare the reproduction with an original. These specs are what members of the N-SSA use to build reproduction forearms, and are drawn from an original specimen.

Barrel, band, and sight measurments are made from the barrel/tang intersection line. Measurments are from this reference point to the first verticle surface on the part being measured.

Other measurements are taken from the butt plat to the muzzle, from the tigger on half cock to the butt plate, and from the butt plate to the stock tip.

[ACo.]

This all comes under the "For What Its Worth" category... :rolleyes:

Well, not too bad, they are making a good effort. One thing that we have to remember about the Lorenz is that the originals were not completely interchangeable and there were variations when it comes to cheek piece/no cheek piece and the percussion bolster and lock. The M1854 is what we have here; the bolster and lock are of that model. The M1862 has a lock and bolster form closely matching the P53 Enfield. There may be some confusion on the part of some when it comes to this but this is, overall, a pretty close approximation of the Austro-Hungarian M1854 rifle musket. Also, bear in mind that the Lorenz was a hand assembled gun with much variation from lot to lot in one arsenal/maker’s production and there can be some relatively wide variations by modern (US 1842 - 1865 production) standards. These will manifest themselves when comparing originals to each other. In other words, two people in different places, each with a good eye for proportion, can have two different originals and compare them to one of these repops and come up with entirely different opinions – one good and one bad.

There is still one glaring problem, that being the ramrod of course. The shaft is shaped incorrectly and the brass head? Ouch, to say the least. It may be the best we can hope for and if so, there is the Rifle Shoppe who makes a good reproduction of the original, brass band and all. That beings said, will it fit in the groove and hole of this repro?

There are some minor problems:
(1)The rear sight appears to be a little off, but that can be fixed in later production runs, the base is the most noticeable problem and that is easy to fix in production.
(2)The sideplate is pretty good but the location of the forward lock bolt has an extension that is a little too low – again, easy to fix in later runs.
(3)The shape of the lock plate, hammer and bolster is good but the mating of the bolster and the lock is downright sloppy and needs to be better. Withought holding it in my hands I would say that the problem is that the front of the plate needs to move up. In other words, the shape of the parts is okay but the mortising of the lock needs to be adjusted. Fixable.
(4)The shape of the left lock panel has been mentioned as being wrong but that is an easily fixed problem.
(5)The shape of the cheek piece can be altered, it is off especially at the front, easily fixed.

Good things:
(1)The stock shape is overall pretty good.
(2)The wood is not walnut but the grain structure and the color are reasonable.
(3)Overall, the hardware (butt plate, trigger guard, bands) is okay. Some refining could be done but the fit and finish along with shape is certainly as good as anything we have seen out of the Italians.
(4)A bayonet is coming. If it is a good reproduction and made of good metal so it won’t bend, or worse, snap off, then the package will be complete.
(5)Markings are minimal with the date only shown but if other marks (inspection, proof, etc.) can be added that would be a plus, however, be careful what you wish for – too close to perfect and you start getting into what collectors and the general antique community frown on as fakes believe it or not this is a serious consideration outside of our very small and insular world.
(6)The price – Very good if the above fixes (and maybe a few others) can be made and the price can be kept in the current ballpark.

There will inevitably be comparisons made to the original, there should be, that is what we are all about, getting as close to “real” as we can get. With prices on original equipment rising the way they are we do a grave disservice to the past and to our pocket books by using originals in the field and we verge on silly by having to treat gear as if it is worth its weight in gold, especially in our hobby where security of our property is often non-existent when in the field at an event, no matter how big or how small. I’m not sure what the current going rate of an NRA Antique VG+ to excellent condition Lorenz is these days, but that is the condition we should be using to portray a soldier in 1863, not one in a lesser degree of condition with staining and obvious 140 year old damage and dirt accumulation. To clean and polish an original to look that way is wrong and even foolish – you will destroy its intrinsic value as a piece of history. They only option to this reproduction is to purchase the excellent parts from “The Rifle Shoppe” and make your own - the parts will only run around $800 (maybe a little more!) and if you have the skills in metal working and wood working to make a presentable piece, you will be happy. If not (they are not “snap together" kits!) you will have to find a person with the skills and pay them dearly for their work. Not only metal filing, polishing, hardening and tempering but also some minor wood carving skills and not to mention properly applying a correct 19th Century wood finish. (I've done it and it is not for everyone!) And all of the above to duplicate the skilled hand work of a proffesional armorer in Austria-Hungary whose work was inspected and passed by men whose job it was to be certain that only the best work got into the hands of the Emporer's troops. It takes skill and time... The end cost will be roughly the same as or maybe slightly more than the current original’s price. In my personal opinion (maybe not really worth much to others) I think we have a good piece here that can be used with some changes. Others may disagree... Sorry to be so long winded. :o

[biddler165]

How does a Loyalist Arms 1842 Springfield stand up to an original? I've just seen photos of originals and can't get a good enough view to form an opinion

[DD-393]

Greetings:

This is my first post, and it turns out to be regarding something "near and dear" to my impression.

Has anyone had any experience with Loyalist Arms? What is the quality and reliability of their weapons?

Thanks.

[trippcor]

As I mentioned in another post on this thread, I have one of their Long Land Brown Bess muskets. It is a very fine weapon. I have never had a misfire with it yet. I have been very happy with it and with LA's customer service.

[HighPrvt]

I'm thinking of ordering one, but I think I'm going to wait and for some improvements to be made. From the sound of it I doubt we'll ever see a rifled barrel, but personally I can live without that.

Tripp,
We're behind so it looks like I ain't going to make it to Prelude. I was really looking foward to it. Anybody going to the Candlelight tour at Picketts Mill?

[trippcor]

Sorry to hear you might not make it to Prelude. Things have really come together and even if I say so myself I think it will be a darn good event. If things change and you can make it your spot will be there. I am currently planning to be at the candle light tours.

[rogue]

A friend bought a rather dark model 1854 Lorenz for me at a show this past weekend in Minneapolis. After a quick look it is all there save for the ramrod and rear sight. The metal that was exposed to the elements has a "crud" on it, a crusty rust like finish, but the protected areas, underside of the barrel, is wonderfully clean.
Aside from steel wool and hand work, or some sort of mechanical wheel (buffing), is there any chemical way to remove 140 plus years of patina without ruining the metal below?
In outer darkness and ignorance,
Steve Sullivan
46th Illinois
Co. Mil. Hist.
CWPT

[Rear Guard]

Try Naval Jelly, I'm told that works.

Jeff Lawson

[ACo.]

Steel wool? NAVAL JELLY?? :cry_smile Do either and it won't be "worthy" any longer...
Yeah, both will work but if you do either the historical value goes out the window. While we all like a "purdy, shiney" gun, the collector's value of the Lorenz is in it's history evidenced by age - remove the evidence of age and you will remove a considerable amount of it's historical not to mention monetary value. If you want to clean it, then wipe the metal down with a rough rag dampened with oil and then keep it lightly oiled, nothing more. Murphy's oil soap will clean the wood but keep it to a minmum.

[1stMaine]

Comrade,

Depends what he wants to do with it. personally, I'm all for restoring artifacts to as close to original finish as is possible. I know that Jim Mayo and others disagree with me, and this comment is no slight to them. I just come from a different school of thought.

I'm not interested in the perceived value of a piece set by one portion of the hobby. Any item is only actually worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it, and not a penny more. I was raised in the antiques business, and a restored item, in many cases, is worth much more than one with the original finish destroyed and decaying.

The man is looking to clean up his Lorenz to use in the field, and that's his call, as he owns it, and I fully support him in it.

Respects,

[John Kline]

Naval Jelly is phosphoric acid, after it attacks the rust it goes after the metal.

If it is pitted and the patina is removed to the white, what's left is shiny metal with dark pock marks. I hate to point out how to get remedy that.

Personally, I'd listen to T.P Hern and Jim Mayo.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Assuming the decision has been made to "make it bright..."

Yes, abrasives work well. A buffing wheel and bufing compound saves on Elbow Grease.
"Acidic" chemicals work well if the surface is not pitted. Birchwood Casey's
Rust and Blue Remover and 0000 steel wool or SCOTS BRITE pads work well.
NAVAL JELLY will remove patina, but will leave the surface a flat battleship gray that does not look like burnished or maintained iron- unless one repolishes or reburnishes it.

And then I could be evil and bring up the discussion, as with the P1853 Enfield, as they left the factory the "Lorenz" (sometimes called "the Austrian Enfield" had some color-casehardened parts and a blued barrel. ;) :) :)

Curt

[Jimmayo]

Since Tim brought my name up I will have to say my .02. I agree with Curt that since the decision has been made to make it bright, lets try to get it right. I would not use Naval Jelly. It will make the metal look dull or frosted. Any abrasive will also scratch the metal. The trick is to find an abrasive where the scratches are so fine that they are invisable but course enough to remove the crud. Almost impossible so you may have to clean in steps. The common wire buffing wheel sold at Sears and other hardware stores are too rough to use. The super fine wire wheels are almost impossible to find but can be used although very carefully and followed up with Crocus cloth. If you havn't used them before it can get you into trouble fast. Don't go there. I have never tried a buffing wheel or the rust and blue remover but it sounds like a good idea. I would use either those or acetone and fine scotch brite or 0000 steel wool or both since I have plenty of each in the garage. I have never used acetone to clean off crud but it should work. Observe the usual precautions when working with solvents. After you have finished cleaning, follow up with Crocus cloth. That will put a bright polish on the barrel but you will use several sheets as it clogs very fast. You still may not be able to get some of the embedded dark discoloration off of the barrel.

Good Luck

[Becky Morgan]

One alternative for cleaning an item, or in this case part of an item, may be the use of a small hand steamer and a scrunge or other non-metallic (plastic fiber-felt) scrub pad. I'm always amazed at how much crud comes off an item with very small amounts of steam and a rubdown with one of those pads, and it's relatively harmless.

Another note: if you do use an acid cleaner like naval jelly, it's a good idea to follow up with baking soda (to neutralize the acid residue) then rinse with distilled water or distilled water steam and dry THOROUGHLY before you do anything else to the piece.

Edited to add: I just happened to think: if you have a dollar store nearby, check the cosmetic section for nail sanding blocks. They're ultra-fine abrasive on firm foam rubber, about three inches long by an inch square, and they do very well at removing surface crud from irregularly shaped items without causing major damage. As a non-period example, we've lifted dirt out of chrome on golf club shafts without tearing up the chrome layer.

Also, consider what the normal refinishing or cleaning cycle of the whatsis would be. I still grin at the memory of a museum docent, familiar with furniture and clothing but not machinery, who got her feathers in a ruffle because the museum's volunteers had stripped and repainted their newly acquired steam locomotive. "They destroyed every bit of the antique value!" If they hadn't destroyed the rust-bubbled paint, I doubt the engine would be in one piece by now.

Becky Morgan

[ACo.]

Comrade,

Depends what he wants to do with it. personally, I'm all for restoring artifacts to as close to original finish as is possible. I know that Jim Mayo and others disagree with me, and this comment is no slight to them. I just come from a different school of thought.

I'm not interested in the perceived value of a piece set by one portion of the hobby. Any item is only actually worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it, and not a penny more. I was raised in the antiques business, and a restored item, in many cases, is worth much more than one with the original finish destroyed and decaying.

The man is looking to clean up his Lorenz to use in the field, and that's his call, as he owns it, and I fully support him in it.

Respects,







Not to get into a contest to see who is right here, you as well as anyone are welcome to your opinion. Having been "raised in the antiques business" as you were can be a double edged sword - there are different schools of thought within the antique community. Properly restore a classic automobile - good. Restore a firearm, even properly - bad. A 19th Century table that is in equivalent condition to the Lorenz under discussion would be of little value and can benefit from a careful and proper restoration, however if done badly or carelessly, the table becomes an item for everyday use, it is no longer a collectable. The same can be said of a 19th Century military rifle, as long as the work is well done by someone with knowledge and experience doing the work it will not only stop further damage, it will improve it somewhat. Such a person has years of training and knows the tools and methods that are properly used to get the work done properly and is well paid to do the work. If on the other hand it is done by a hack it destroys the piece making it an item for use only and then eventual destruction.

And, I might add, Herr Schmidt is correct. Some (but not all) Lorenz rifle muskets were made with a blued barrel and case hardened lock. But this is beyond the work of even the experienced restorer when the rifle musket is in the condition described. It's sort of like putting an 80 year old woman in a pair of hip hugger jeans and a tank top. :eek: It will always show. And yes, I have done it! (Restore more than a few originals that is, not the 80 year old lady!) It takes careful and thoughtful work and I do have the hard learned experience, but I found out years ago that there are many collectors that will not touch a restored piece even if the work is well done, unless it is a very high value Golden Age American longrifle or a high value Victorian English double rifle, both valued in the tens of thousands of dollars. Rogue, if you decide to go through with the project, get help from a mentor and follow the advice of both Herr Schmidt and Jim Mayo to guide your hand. I do wish you the best, you may discover a hidden talent and the work well done can be rewarding. :)

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

IMHO, there are two discussions going on here, and both are valid.

As a former Civil War collector who sold off his collection of arms to finance his daughter's $150,000 college education here in the 2nd from the bottom State for affordable education...

Removing patina of any kind from an original CW firearms WILL have a negative effect on its resale "value." Agressively cleaning one to the point of leaving wire wheel marks, steel wool or SCOTS BRITE marks, etc., etc., will also.
A number of originals are often found with age blackened varnish someone painted on to "preserve" things many years ago. A number of originals are found with darkened and dried "grease" of one kind or another done for the same reason. IMHO, these can be carefully and expertly removed without affecting the resale value.

On the other hand there are personal different forms of "currency" when it comes to value besides dollars and sense, er cents. :)
Meaning, what form of non-monetary value does the owner derive or gain from having it and using it for reenacting purposes (as part of the expense of investing money at one end to get pleasureable returns or fun, etc., etc out of the other end)?
I, and some few friends, have "professionally" restored CW and WWI firearms to their Civil War and WWI period condition/appearance because our Mental Pictures required or demanded such an investment. That we were "losing money" on the collectors' or historical "resale value" was off-set by the enjoyment and "other than cash money" value we derived from having (restored) originals in their Civil War appearance/condition.
I guess it can be kind of like buying a new car. One usually always takes a "bath" a soon as one drives it off the lot. ;) :rolleyes:

Regarding buffing wheels. IMHO, wire brush wheels are way too abrasive and leave way too deep of scratches that required much progressive grit polishing to return the metal to a burnished or polished appearance.
The secret to polishing metal whether by machine or by hand, or both together, is to progressively replace deeper scratches with finer scratches until the human eye no longer perceives the fine scratches as scratches but rather a smooth sheen or shine.
What I was referring to was the cloth type buffing pads or wheels and the use of progressive grit buffing compound/paste. I use an old washing machine motor mounted on my workbench and two inches of buffing pads- along with 220 or 400 grit buffing compound. Plus 0000 steel wool and oil depending on whether I am after a "from the armory" or a "field maintianed with fire pit ash paste" type appearance.

Others' mileage, and forms of currency, may vary...

Curt

[M.Latham]

As someone who restores antique firearms I would ask, should the ramrod and sight not be replaced? When does the history of a piece, and the story it has to tell become diminished?

I would guess that the rammer was taken out for another Lorenz sometime in the last 20 years and the sight was taken at the same time to "restore" another Lorenz. Then, as now such practices ARE common. Ask the multitude of jackasses breaking up original guns to sell on Ebay.

Also consider this, rust is a chemical process and once started WILL continue unabated. While an honest patina can help preserve an firearm, active rust will destroy it.

Thoughtful preservation is a must.

The soapbox is yours,

Mark latham

[Jim Chochole]

I have test fired the Lorenz this past weekend and it handled well. It didn't have a single misfire and it is quite capable of handling large loads easily. It stands about 1.5" shorter than an Enfield from Armi-Sport, so in the rear rank, it is feasable as well. The lock was reliable and I fired about 30 rounds thru it quickly in battle.

FYI- I rigged up a bayonet temporarily from an M1861 Springfield repop from India and it fit perfectly in terms of diameter. I had to cut off the support bridge on the bayonet to allow it to seat properly- but it worked well until the correct quadrangular ones come in from Loyalist.

Many folks came out to see it and were impressed by its lightness and ease of use.

Cheers,
Jim Chochole

[DD-393]

Every Lorenz that I have handled has had a very low half-cock, most not even clearing the nipple. How is the half-cock on the repro? High enough to pass a safety test?

TIA

Charlie

[bushwacker]

Check this sight out! They have Lorenz Repros for a great price. Could someone let me know if they are farby or if they are a good manufacturer. I am really wanting to see more Lorenz rifles in the field

http://www.loyalistarms.com/

Joseph C Perry

[Dignann]

Could someone let me know if they are farby or if they are a good manufacturer.
Joseph,

I think you'll find some answers embodied in this same thread.

Eric

[Bill]

Does anyone have contact information for the "Rifle Shoppe"? I own an original Lorenz that needs a correct ramrod.

Thanks

[Chris Suppelsa]

Am I the only one who has a problem with it being a smoothbore?

[DD-393]

The Rifle Shoppe - http://www.therifleshoppe.com/

I got a repro ramrod myself about a year ago. They're a little slow, but the quality is good.

[Johan Steele]

Am I the only one who has a problem with it being a smoothbore?
No, I paid $450 for one partialy... largely defarbed by Greg Edington. Still needs some work. But the option of $275 for the proper barrel was out of my price range at the moment. That said it can easily be lined to .54... .58 would be too thin a liner for safety. It can be done.

I learned more from that man in a couple conversations than in 6 mos of reading & researching on the Lorenz... that alone was worth the $450.

Cheaper than an original? No, I think I maybe should have forked over the $750 for the last original I saw but I'm not keen on taking an original out on the field. I've still got mixed feelings on the Loyalist Arms product, but I do like the heft & balance; both their Enfield & Lorenz are far closer to an original in that sense than any Italian repop.

[Bill]

Thank you Charlie,

That was a big help!

[vamick]

[QUOTE=Jim Chochole;38203]I have test fired the Lorenz this past weekend and it handled well. It didn't have a single misfire and it is quite capable of handling large loads easily.

Jim I think you've answered my question in advance..but just to clarify,,Ive been told that Loyalist arms weapons are not able to fire live rounds..that they're 'non fireable' powder burners only...?????? I questioned this info when I got it but have never spoken to anybody who actually owned one of their offerings and have salivated in the past over their '42 'pumkin slinger' carbine..well..do they shoot lead??:D

[trippcor]

I have a Long Land Pattern Bess from Loyalist Arms and it is fully function and safe for live firing.

[TKlas]

Gents,

You may want to check out this past thread on this topic and John Tobey's article before considering any type of purchase. Tim Prince has some great information as well. Buyer Beware :D .

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6464&highlight=Lorenz

Good luck,

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

I'm curious as to the current status of the LA Lorenze, many months back (September 2006) some correspondence had been posted about the further developement of a more authentic reproduction. Does anyone have any more information to support that research has continued since then to improve this piece? Otherwise, wer'e all just beating a dead horse, and I would recommend the closure of this thread.

Paul B. Boulden Jr.

RAH VA MIL '04
23rd VA Regt.

[Charles Heath]

Excellent suggestion, Paul, and enough people complained about a certain "assinine remark" to warrant the edit button.

[trippcor]

Loyalist Arms has recieved their fist batch of production run Lorenz Muskets. I have requested pictures which Loyalist Arms says they will send shortly. I will post them when I get them. LA however has indicated they made the following changes:

Ramrod has been updated with the brass band
Repositioned the 2 front barrel bands.

They are still working on the bayonet but expect to have it availible in a couple of months.

[trippcor]

I have received a picture from Loyalist Arms of the new production rammer they will include with their new Lorenz. It looks much better to me but I am no expert. I am posting it here for you to make your own evaluation. They also have received a double head eagle stamp for the lock plate.

[LibertyHallVols]

Rammer: Looks a little closer, but not quite there yet.
Repositioned Bands: Good move! Much better.

I think there are some other deficiencies that bear mentioning. In an earlier post, someone stated that the LA Lorenz looked like a reworked '63 Springfield. A large part of this observation stems from the fact that the wrist of the stock is quite long, as with a '55/'61/'63 springfield. This, combined with the hammer shape, make the piece look very "un-Lorenz-like".

Also, I think using beach (or is it birch???) as was used in the originals would help the appearance a great deal. It might be cheaper, too!

What baffles me is this:
Rather than fixing issues piece-meal, why note buy a high-condition Lorenz and "just copy it"? They are not hard to find. Tim Prince has one right now for less than $1700, a small investment when compared to the overall cost of producing these things.

I hope they keep working on perfecting it. I am bothered much less by the smooth bore than by other deficiencies.

Thanks!

[Craig L Barry]

Beech. The M-1854 Lorenz was generally stocked in beechwood, which is about 30% harder than walnut. The stocks were also "cast off" slightly to help with the line of sight for a soldier facing the target in the European fashion. See the Columbia Rifles Research Compendium 2nd Edition (2007) p.97, which has a pretty good article on the Lorenz.

The use of beechwood instead of walnut in military rifle stocks was common for European arms. British Enfields are sometimes found in beechwood dyed to mimic the color of walnut. Why would this be the case?

To address that, and your question as to why products are brought to market with mistakes that end up being fixed (or not) "piecemeal"...At the risk of repeating myself see The Civil War Musket, A Handbook for Historical Accuracy (2006) p. 144... "in the battle between historical accuracy and economics the safe bet is on economics."

[Kiev Thomason]

I have received a picture from Loyalist Arms of the new production rammer they will include with their new Lorenz. It looks much better to me but I am no expert. I am posting it here for you to make your own evaluation. They also have received a double head eagle stamp for the lock plate.

They also are working on the bayonets and scabbards is what the e mail I got two days ago stated.They did not say who was making them but said they will be done soon.I have no idea which scabbard though.

[LibertyHallVols]

Beech. The M-1854 Lorenz was generally stocked in beechwood, which is about 30% harder than walnut. The stocks were also "cast off" slightly to help with the line of sight for a soldier facing the target in the European fashion. See the Columbia Rifles Research Compendium 2nd Edition (2007) p.97, which has a pretty good article on the Lorenz.

The use of beechwood instead of walnut in military rifle stocks was common for European arms. British Enfields are sometimes found in beechwood dyed to mimic the color of walnut. Why would this be the case?

To address that, and your question as to why products are brought to market with mistakes that end up being fixed (or not) "piecemeal"...At the risk of repeating myself see The Civil War Musket, A Handbook for Historical Accuracy (2006) p. 144... "in the battle between historical accuracy and economics the safe bet is on economics."

Craig,
I can't buy these books right now or I'll ruin my family's gift lists for Fathers Day, birthday, and Christmas!! :tounge_sm

[Jimmayo]

Here are some poor photos of

1. An original ramrod that has lost the brass band
2. The same original ramrod along side a dug one with the brass band.
3 The front end of the rifle.

As Mr. Wickett said in an earlier post, the rammer is a lot better but not quite there yet. It still needs a little tweeking.

Anybody compared the feel of the repro to an original?

IMO this rifle appears to be as good a reproduction now as some of the Enfields on the market that have been out long enough to have been improved but haven't.

[58 lorenz]

I ordered one of these from Loyalist back in November, and now they have informed me that they are getting it ready to ship to me. When it comes, I will be sure to post photos of it next to my original Lorenz,so that interested people can get a good idea of what it really looks like,and exactly how it compares to an original.





Doug Price

[Craig L Barry]

Jim Mayo hit it right on the head. Considering the current options and comparing the repro M-1854 Lorenz to the modern Italian made P-53 Enfields & US Model 1861s, it is probably in the same ball park. That may be "damning by faint praise", but at least an option now exists for the those portraying enlisted men on both sides that were historically issued the M-1854 Lorenz.

The weight is pretty much dead-on with the original. The Austrian lb was called pfunden and it was lighter than the American lb. In US units of measure the Lorenz is about 8 lbs and a couple ounces according to the Austrian manual “Osterrichische Infanterie - Feurgewehr, Wien, 1857.” A proto-type version of the Loyalist Arms M-1854 Lorenz was reviewed for the Watchdog column in "Camp Chase Gazette" earlier this year, it was just about identical in weight.

[Todd Watts]

Still working on getting my own Lorenz into production, Craig. Just can't seem to catch a break. The Liege is first on my list, just to cut my teeth on, but as soon as I get that one in production the Lorenz is next. I'm having to build a barrel making machine to allow me to do the barrel right though. Nobody is willing to do it right.:mad:

Todd Watts

[ACo.]

Still working on getting my own Lorenz into production, Craig. Just can't seem to catch a break. The Liege is first on my list, just to cut my teeth on, but as soon as I get that one in production the Lorenz is next. I'm having to build a barrel making machine to allow me to do the barrel right though. Nobody is willing to do it right.:mad:

Todd Watts



Have you tried Bobby Hoyt, Colerain Barrels or Ed Rayl? All of them can do it and do it right using breech castings from TRS. None better. My last barrel came from Colerain, it is a .69 smoothbore barrel for a M1795 flint musket I am building and it is about as perfect a reproduction as you can find - no extra metal (that means the weight is right) and the dimensions are as exact as you can expect from a gun that originally had so much variation in manufacture. Give any or all of them a call and tell them exactly what you want, expect a waite for delivery (could be 6 months to two years) but you will be pleased.

[Todd Watts]

No, it is the smaller parts I am needing a reliable and cheap source for. The barrel and stock and assembly of the gun will be my job, but I don't have time to make the smaller parts as well. I cannot locate anyone in the States or even Canada willing to do this cost-effectively. I have tried Mexico, Brazil, Peru, China, and India as well. My best bet will be India, but so far no bites there either.

Whittaker will be making my Liege barrels and he is ready to go but is on hold until I get small parts made. I've been on this process with Jerry Smith of The Blockade Runner now for over a year and we're having trouble with this 1 aspect.

[Craig L Barry]

Todd the Gunsmith:
I am anxious to see what the "Liege" musket comes out like, as smoothbores are still woefully under-represented in the hobby at virtually all events. I told you the M-1854 Lorenz project would be a barrel of monkeys. This has been tried before.

Greg Eddington did a M-1854 Lorenz project about ten years ago that never really got off the ground due to the high cost. I understand that a grand total of about one (1) finished M-1854 Lorenz repro resulted from that venture. However, the "Rifle Shoppe" still lists Lorenz parts (or at least rough castings) on their website. Expect very rough work, high cost and extreme delays if you go that route. Their website is www.therifleshoppe.com/(698).htm. IE: A complete M-1854 assembled lock from Rifle Shoppe is $195, stock is $225, barrel is $250 and the ramrod is $40. You still need the bands, trigger, sights, screws, etc. Two parts, the barrel and stock alone, are the full finished cost of the Loyalist Arms 1854 Lorenz.

It might be better to "de-farb" the Loyalist Arms M-1854 Lorenz, like you do with the Italian made repro Enfields, at least in terms of the final cost. The smoothbore barrel is the main point of contention on the current repro Lorenz, the other parts can be re-shaped or re-contoured to be very close to originals.

[Todd Watts]

Yes, I really have a bug to do a pre-defarbed Liege. I'll do it smooth bore at least at first, but the one Jerry has is rifled so I might try those just for kicks. I want to do a real top-quality Lorenz of course but also have my eye on an .80" Pottsdam. Something about .80" just tickles my fancy!:D
Todd

[J.H.Berger]

Comrades has anyone ever examined one of those muskets and compared to an original?
I do not have a chance to do this here in Germany so I need to ask you fellows;-)

[Craig L Barry]

I am not sure comparing the Loyalist Arms US 1835 to an original US 1835 exactly makes the point. Perhaps a better question would be "Is a smoothbore musket appropriate for your US Civil War impression?" And if so, "Which are the best?" It is the same musket as the Loyalist Arms US 1842 (essentially) except for the hammer and bolster. Loyalist Arms begins with their US 1835 flintlock that shares the stock and most of the hardware with their US 1842 and converts it to percussion via the common "Arsenal" cone in barrel method. The Loyalist Arms US 1835 is just about as accurate to an original as their US 1842, that is to say it is a marginal reproduction lacking some important details. En toto, not nearly as good as the Armi-Sport US 1842, both of these models are reviewed in The Civil War Musket: A Handbook for Historical Accuracy (Watchdog Publications 2006).

The problem is that the historical accuracy gained by using the most common conversion method is lost by putting it on the least common US military flintlock ever produced. It is the same "mistake" (conversely) for which D. Pedersoli has been excoriated over the years by converting their reproduction of the common (500,000+) US 1816 flintlock to percussion via the relatively rare drum & cone method (some call it the "Colt style" conversion but Pedersoli neither rifled or sighted the barrel as Colt usually did). In other words, Pedersoli takes the most common US military musket used for conversion to percussion and reproduces it w/ the least common method of conversion, while Loyalist Arms takes the least common US model flintlock and offers it in the most common form of conversion.

On the other hand, Loyalist Arms earns some brownie points by attempting to provide a much needed product in an under-served niche. Flintlock conversion muskets are woefully under-represented at most Civil War battle enactments. If only they had used the US 1816 instead...

When questioned on this key point, Blair Higgins (Loyalist Arms) stated that the decision to use the US Model 1835 flintlock as a basis for their cone in barrel conversion was two-fold. First, they already had all the hardware from their US 1842 so it was cheaper than re-tooling to make a reproduction US 1816 flintlock from scratch. Meaning, you have to start with a flintlock to end up with a flintlock conversion. Using the Pedersoli US 1816 flintlock would be cost prohibitive. And second, since Loyalist Arms as a retailer sells the D. Pedersoli line of muskets, they did not want to get on Pedersoli's "turf" by producing the very same model (albeit w/ another form of conversion).

The order of desirability for a US Civil War reproduction smoothbore musket:

1. Armi Sport US 1842; followed closely by
2. D. Pedersoli US 1816 Flintlock Conversion; and last by a wide margin,
3. Loyalist Arms US 1835 Flintlock Conversion

[LibertyHallVols]

Have a look. Judge for yourself.

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5123&stc=1&d=1179859208

Thanks to Jim Chocole for the pic of the LA conversion!

[Craig L Barry]

Yes, not all that good is it? A picture tells a thousand words. Note the difference in the bolster and the lack of the ground down brass pan, the difference in the lock plate, trigger, hammer and so on. This is how the proto-type was as we