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-Owen 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 well. In fact, this is probably a photo of the proto-type if it came from Jim Chochole. He did a review of this musket for The Watchdog.

In the end the hobby is still lacking an authentic reproduction flintlock conversion musket.

[26NCT]

On the Loyalist Arms website, they now show a more correct (not 100% correct) lockplate than the one that is pictured in Mr. Wickett's.

Jonathan Hartness

[Craig L Barry]

Yes, the one Jim Chochole has pictured is the proto-type version.

[tmdreb]

I've always thought the arm in question looked much more like a bolster conversion than the cone-in-barrel type.

[LibertyHallVols]

Here is an updated pic from the LA website:
http://www.loyalistarms.freeservers.com/1840perc.jpg

[LibertyHallVols]

Here is a pic of an original Pomeroy lockplate:
http://www.jjmilitaryantiques.com/images/sale/DSCN5322.JPG

[LibertyHallVols]

To their (LA's) credit, it looks like they're trying to better their product. I like the use of contractor markings, rather than the typical "Springfield" used by so many repro makers.

HOWEVER...
As Craig noted, they still have a long way to go. The markings look week and misaligned, as though letters were stamped one at a time. The checkering on the cocking piece looks crude and corners/edges look "washed out" like an original relic that has been overcleaned on a buffing wheel.

The original musket in the earlier photo is of an 1841 dated Springfield that I sold earlier this year.

[Craig L Barry]

Like I said, this is a noble effort but very typical of Loyalist Arms products. I am pleased that they took the feedback offered on the evaluation of the proto-type and made some of the changes that Jim Chochole's Watchdog review suggested, which by the way I do not think has been published yet.

Loyalist Arms also (bravely) tried to reproduce the M-1854 Lorenz...I respect that and they deserve some credit for trying to offer something aside from a P-53 Enfield and a US 1861 rifle musket, which we all agree are both over-represented in the hobby. And this is their second new product introduction since 2006. When exactly was the last new product introduction from either of the major Italian reproduction gun-makers? 1996? However, in the end their US 1835 is still an oddball piece and in detail not all that well conceived.

As far as the fatter or thicker bolster appearance, my understanding is that there is some hesitation on the manufacturer's part to tapping a cone right into the top of the barrel in the fashion of the Arsenal conversion without some surrounding build-up of metal. Think percussion cone as "potential projectile" in the event of a black powder overload. IIRC this was part of the dialog with Loyalist Arms as well.

[LibertyHallVols]

As far as the fatter or thicker bolster appearance, my understanding is that there is some hesitation on the manufacturer's part to tapping a cone right into the top of the barrel in the fashion of the Arsenal conversion without some surrounding build-up of metal. Think percussion cone as "potential projectile" in the event of a black powder overload. IIRC this was part of the dialog with Loyalist Arms as well.

Yep! I figure this is the type of cone conversion that would have been seen had lawyers and insurance companies been as active in the 1850's as they are today. :tounge_sm :rolleyes:

Regarding Repros by LA or anyone else:
I am perplexed by the "need for feedbacK" on reproduction arms. The process of developing a reproduction should be simple (theoretically, anyway).

Buy an original and copy it!

However, both the Lorenz and the US M1835 conversion have fundamental differences clearly visible on direct comparison to an original. It doesn't take a learned expert to point these things out. I am bewildered by this.

[Todd Watts]

I would think that they have to make concessions in the copying process with each part. While I am attempting this I have come upon the problem of getting decent quality parts to even study, much less get copied. And to keep production costs reasonable, many times parts have to be copied as good as practical, not as good as possible.

[Craig L Barry]

Wick:
Taking a single original and copying it more or less exactly is apparently how Armi-Sport went with their US 1842 reproduction back in 1996, right down to the mis-shaped trigger guard. It appears the original they used for their reproduction had been damaged at some point in its life and they copied that flaw exactly. This is one easy way to tell an original US 1842 from the Armi Sport repro at a distance. The other mistakes such as the location of the band springs require a closer inspection.

Also, truth be told, none of the current crop of reproductions are "just right". It is all a matter of the degree of mistakes, and how easy the mistakes are to fix...And don't be bewildered (to quote myself in The Civil War Musket) "in the battle between historical accuracy and economics, the safe bet is on economics". This is why there is a cottage industry that supports itself by "de-farbing" our muskets. Geoff Walden once wrote that Paolo Amali of Euroarms was planning to make corrections to their P-53 based on Geoff's Watchdog articles (and subsequent monograph) "Authenticizing Your Reproduction Enfield". This was thirteen years ago and the agreed changes have yet to be made...why is that? Because its cheaper for them than "getting it right" and we keep buying them anyway.

[LibertyHallVols]

Craig,

I had heard that was the case, but this is the first I've heard about the triggerguard! I'd wondered about that!

I think the early '42 reproductions set the bar for what we *should* expect from reproductions. I have noticed, however that the quality of even the celebrated Armi Sport '42 is not what it was in the late 1990's... though it is still head-and-shoulders above anything else currently being offered by overseas producers.

[58 lorenz]

Well, my Loyalist Arms Lorenz came today. I took a few quick photos of it next to my original Lorenz,so that others could see how it compares to at least one original.

Doug Price

[rake]

Never say never - have a gun show find that has that type of build up.

Unfortunately can't post attachments, so all can have a look.

[sharpshooter]

Doug,

Since you have them side by side, what do you think?

How long from ordering it, did it take to get the Lorenz?

[RudyN]

I just received an e-mail from Loyalist Arms answering the question of delivery time. They indicated that it would take about three weeks from the date they received the payment to get the Lorenz to me. I also am in California.

[JWNathan]

Looks pretty good and within my price range too! I do still like te Palmetto '42 smoothbore aswell. So how are LA's other bayonets, better than the India ones? I ask cause I need one for my P-53 Enfield(Euroarms)and if they are of decent manufacture then one might hope that when the Lorenz bayonet comes out that it might be of similar manufacture.

[58 lorenz]

There are a few things I am not happy with,mainly the profile of the stock cheekpiece,but other than that, I am generally pleased with my Lorenz. Too bad the stock could not be that distinctive "speckled" wood that seems so common with Austrian arms of the period,but for now,it will do. The repo is about 1 inch longer overall than the original,but the distance between the front sight and the first barrel band is such that fitting an original bayonet is seemingly not possible,unless one was to move the front sight. The repo bayonets that I have for my Euroarms M61 and Enfield slide right on to the repo Lorenz barrel, but will take some grinding to the sight channel to fit. I have no idea how long Loyalist will take for a Lorenz bayonet, so in the meantime, I will modify a repo Springfield bayonet to fit.
In answer to a question, my Lorenz took quite a while to be delivered, because I put a deposit down on it when it was first announced late last year.


Doug Price

[RudyN]

Glad you mentioned that a repro 61 Springfield bayonet will fit with modification as I have one sitting in the garage doing nothing. I was able to replace the repro with an original bayonet for my Euroarms 61 Springfield. Looks like I will be sending for my Lorenz this coming week.

[Craig L Barry]

Wick:
The US 1842 reproduction is slipping in quality, if recent examples are representative. For the "best reproduction in the hobby" it has its share of problems. The metal used for the internal parts is too soft, on some 1842s the top line of the trigger wears away where it meets the sear so that the trigger will slip off and stay jammed in the rear of the trigger guard. I noticed recently the Armi Sport engineers addressed this not by using harder metal for the trigger, but filed the top line into a point to delay the inevitable. If you have a repro 1842 of recent vintage, a real good "accuracy modification" is to replace the trigger with an original part (though some filing may be required). Dixie Gun Works has the original US 1835-42 triggers for $15 or so.

The ramrod on the repro 1842 smoothbore is two piece, too soft and an odd shape at the tip. The Dixie Gun Works replacement ramrod is much better. Around $25 or so. It needs to be cut to size and threaded at the end (or not).The band springs are slightly mis-located on the forestock. Not much you can do about that. The first two barrel bands will interchange with an original, but the double strap top band does not for some reason. Many chose to have a brass sight blade brazed to the top band. About $20 to add that.

On one recent Armi Sport US 1842 the hammer did not reach the cone (nipple). You read right...it did not make contact w/ the cone by about a quarter inch. This was not unique to the Armi Sport US 1842 model alone. There was an Armi-Sport CS Richmond exactly the same way. Todd Watts corrected these for BRI, not sure if there are others with this defect, but lightning struck at least twice with the same defect from the same manufacturer. There are probably others out there. Of course, the Armi-Sport 1842 lock will take some original parts but not others, most noteably the mainspring will not fit without some re-profiling. An original lock will not fit without some woodworking to the repro Armi Sport stock. All in all, the Armi Sport is a good reproduction that used to better before they switched to softer metal which is a move they made to extend the life of the tools and dies which are wearing. With a little patience and about $75 (incl shipping) you can make a fine musket out of the Armi Sport US 1842, but to my eye they are not as well made as they were in the 1990s.

The Armi Sport US 1842 needs less work than their P-53 Enfield to be passable, and with the most recent price increase the 1842 de-farbed with sling and bayonet would cost a bit less than their P-53. It is certainly a good alternative.

[Johan Steele]

An original Lorenz bayonet will not fit the repop Loyalist Arms; my beef is that if I do get a proprer rifled barrel I'll have to add a second bayonet... and an original at that. More $ that might be better used somewhere else. Best answer seems to be lining the barel to .54.

Then again last weekend I went sans bayonet and did just fine...

[trippcor]

Doug,
The pictures that were posted do not seem to show that big a difference between the placement of the sight and the first band. If the front site were to be moved forward a bit do you think an original bayonet would fit? I did notice the cheek piece was not as well defined as the original. Do you think that the repro stock could be sanded down like we have to do with the repro enfields to be a better match?

[Craig L Barry]

The problems with the Loyalist Arms repro stock won't be fixed by sanding. It is the dimension (length) of the wrist which throws off the placement of the cheek rest. This feature was a nice bit of human engineering on the original M-1854 Lorenz. The wrist portion of a gunstock can be extended easily enough by cutting back the comb, but not shortened again. Unfortunately, wood is easier removed than put back. The Loyalist Arms M-1854 Lorenz will require some "compromises" on the part of the end user, but not necessarily more than say that old warhorse the Euroarms P-53 Enfield, largely unchanged since the 1980s. The Lorenz details will just be harder to address, at least in the early production runs while LA bugs get ironed out.

I came to believe the reason for the coolness towards any repro Lorenz by Armi Sport or Euroarms was the fear of cannabalizing their existing Enfield sales, meaning potential Enfield buyers might be swayed by the Lorenz as an alternate rifle-musket choice, vs a smoothbore which is often an additional purchase for early war events. Just a possible theory. The price of the Loyalist Arms M-1854 is attractive, at least initially. The type corrections needed will push the price upwards for the purchaser, unless you can tolerate the details as they are. One potential upside is if there turns out to be a good sized market for the M-1854 Lorenz, the other repro gunmakers may respond with an "improved" product. Let's not hold our breath, though.

Another possibility is the bayonet lug was mis-placed to promote easier fitting of existing repro bayonets vs waiting for a new Lorenz bayonet to be produced. Loyalist Arms is famously slow about getting around to tooling up for these sorts of details. I would have been surprised if an original Lorenz bayonet would fit due to the larger .62 barrel.

[LibertyHallVols]

Just curious...
The full set of parts for a Lorenz is $670 from The Rifle Shoppe.
( http://www.therifleshoppe.com/(698).htm )

Anyone want to ball-park what the cost of assembly and finishing might be?

[Craig L Barry]

Wick:
The Rifle Shoppe parts are going to be quite rough, and ten years ago the Greg Eddington "Bridesburg Armory" Lorenz assembled from them was $1100+. I understand a grand total of one (1) was produced from that venture. It was cheaper to get an original in shootable condition, and most enthusiasts that had to have a Lorenz (like me) went that route.

This is why the initial enthusiasm for the Loyalist Arms version is what it is...the alternatives are not particularly encouraging.

[Todd Watts]

Assemblying mismatched rough parts is very time-consuming. I would suspect a gunsmith would have to pad his time to assemble all the parts at about 8 hours of labor just to fit them. Then if a barrel or stock has to be made you are looking at parts plus that labor. You'd easily hit the $1000 mark and probably climb a tad over it per gun.

Not dealing with the Lorenz, but this past weekend I began de-farbbing a new Armi Sport Enfield from Taylors. It is unlike any other Armi I have come across. The stock's comb is non-existent, not even the little rounded nub they usually have. The barrel markings are in different places as well. "Armi Sport" is now on the bottom of the barrel, hidden from view. On the surface this sounds like good news, but then where Armi Sport used to be in front of the sight, they have the Euroarms barrel stuff that says ".58 Caliber For Black Powder Only." They have new proof marks in the same place under the serial number, and the serial number has a slightly different look. The lock plate is Euroarms, meaning it has the period-correct mainspring stop ledge instead of the Armi Sport screw. Overall it appears like a good quality gun still, but they have obviously had a manufacturer change over there.

On a happier note, I got a break finally on remaking the Liege. The small parts can be reproduced here in brass locally and these parts can be fitted by me to work and then sent to India to be copied in steel. This has been an issue because we don't want to send a high-quality original set of parts to India to be never seen again. And, they tend to cast them "as is" so any rust pits are in the casting as well. But a newly fitted and polished brass part would theoretically be "perfect." My stock carving device is being built at this time and the barrels are ready to be produced. Once this project gets moving, the Lorenz (RIGHT) is next.

[LibertyHallVols]

ten years ago the Greg Eddington "Bridesburg Armory" Lorenz assembled from them was $1100+. I understand a grand total of one (1) was produced from that venture. It was cheaper to get an original in shootable condition, and most enthusiasts that had to have a Lorenz (like me) went that route.

By way of analogy...
A few years (10) ago, one could purchase a very nice WWI era Colt/Rem UMC/Springfield Model 1911 pistol with holster, belt, mag pouch, and extra mags for about $1000. Today, the same rig might cost $2000 to $3000 depending on the maker and vintage of pistola included. Colt now offers a reproduction of a 1918 Model 1911 pistol for $900 - $1200, depeding on the dealer... they couldn't have marketed the same item at the same price 5-10 years ago!

Invariably, the price of the collectable always catches up with whatever price is offered. This is why, when a collector pays above top-dollar for a good example, he says, "I didn't pay too much, I'm just ahead of my time". :cry_smile

The same can be said for repro $600 Enfields, $800 1816 Conversions, and (yes) $1000 Lorenzs (ack! How do you pluralize "Lorenz"!?)

[militiaman1835]

Back in the 1970's I took a Navy Arms Japanese made Charleville and bought an original conversion hammer, brass pan plate, and musket nipple from S & S Firearms and did a cone in barrel conversion for CW. Looking at the repro 1835 it would be easy to buy the flint version they sell and do or have done by someone a conversion yourself. Just food for thought...I may do one myself. Jim Hensley

[58 lorenz]

Mr. Corbin: Here is a rather poor photo I took to show why my original bayonet will not fit the LA Lorenz (I was holding the bayonet up to the muzzle and trying to take a pic at the same time). Either the sight has to be moved, or the end of the bayonet must be removed-Not an option.




Doug Price

[trippcor]

Doug,
First thanks for taking the time to post the information and to do the comparison. My unit, the Armory Guards, is considering a mass purchase of the LA repro but want to make sure we know what we are getting into. It looks like the front site could be moved to fit the original which is not a big deal. I guess the ultimate question is "Is the weapon worth the money?".

[Craig L Barry]

Wick:
The plural of "Lorenz" is M-1854 Austrian rifles.

Tripp:
The actual (better) question is "What are your alternatives?" If your unit was issued the m-1854 Lorenz, and there is really only this one reproduction...What are your choices? Is it better to have a more accurate reproducton (say an Enfield) of the wrong rifle-musket? Or the imperfect LA M-1854 Lorenz?

I will leave that question to the philosophers...ultimately it is a decision your unit will need to make. My recommendation would lean towards the M-1854 Lorenz such as it is and make any corrections...but it is certainly understandable to proceed in an entirely different direction. For example:

The sight problem is going to be a bit tricker than you might imagine. The Lorenz sight is offset to accomodate that twist in the bayonet socket. If you merely remove and braze the existing sight back on the barrel at an angle to accomodate the bayonet the sight blade will be pointing off at about 30 degrees left. One of the concessions you may need to make to use this reproduction is a standard US or P-53 Enfield (or no) bayonet, or have some front sights custom made. And that is just the beginning.

[Jimmayo]

Looks to me that the barrel is not extending far enough beyond the front band. The barrel on my original extends 3.25 inches beyond the front band. The socket on my original bayonet is 3.125 (approximately). Makes for a nice fit.

[Jimmayo]

Looks to me that the barrel is not extending far enough beyond the front band. The barrel on my original extends 3.25 inches beyond the front band. The socket on my original bayonet is 3.125 (approximately). Makes for a nice fit.

Here is a picture. The barrel protrudes just a skosh bit from the end of the bayonet

[ACo.]

I started out being a fan of the efforts by Loyalist Arms and am still in favor of their attempts but there are a number of serious problems shown in the side-by-side photos posted by Lorenz58:

(1) The wrist of the stock is too long, this also means that there is a problem with the comb of the stock and the cheekpiece (see #2) - fixable.

(2) The cheekpiece is completely wrong, the current effort, both in shape and form, looks like a cheekpiece used on a modern hunting rifle. Unacceptable. - also fixable.

(3) The side plate is close but the lock bolts are all wrong - easily fixable.

(4) The hammer and bolster are both way off - fixable with some expense but both need to be done.

(5) They need to move the front band back the proper distance from the muzzle. This will also require moving the middle band back the same distance since the current spacing looks good. This is absolutely required and doable with minor expense.

(7) The ramrod needs tweaking but it is getting better.

(8) Make a good copy of the bayonet and get it over with. That or reconfigure the barrel's outside dimension to accept the original bayonet - that may well be the best option from a long term production standpoint. At any rate, the use of a Springfield or Enfield bayonet is totally unacceptable and no serious reenactor should allow that option. Why should the user have to modify the relatively correct front sight to fit a bayonet that was not meant to be used with the gun and probably never was in actual fact during the period? It would be a serious hole in the impression being attempted.

Of the above, 1, 2, 3 and 5 are easily done with reasonably little expense. Numbers 4, 7 and 8 will require more work and expense but need to be done so that the reproduction will come up to the standards that should be required by the reenacting community

In the photographs the bands do look reasonably good. There are no comparison pictures of the triggerguard and buttplate but by what is shown they appear to look acceptable? Here is my question: Are they using an original gun to make the reproduction or are they trying to go by pictures and the whim of the makers in India who may not be at all familiar with the Lorenz? If the latter is the case this could be the problem. There is nothing like having an original in hand to make the job easier and the results would be far better; a reproduction should not even be attempted without using a good pattern.

[LibertyHallVols]

Here is my question: Are they using an original gun to make the reproduction or are they trying to go by pictures and the whim of the makers in India who may not be at all familiar with the Lorenz? If the latter is the case this could be the problem. There is nothing like having an original in hand to make the job easier and the results would be far better; a reproduction should not even be attempted without using a good pattern.

To the above statement:
Hallelujah and Amen!!!!!!!!! My point precisely on this or any other reproduction widget. Well stated, Reverend Hern!!

To the rest of your post: Very well-stated and I concur on each point.

[Craig L Barry]

We all concur, but it is really a matter of cost. Let's look at this "lock, stock and barrel". There are no service providers who currently "de-farb" the Loyalist Arms Lorenz. It would need to be a do-it-yourself project. Items # 1 and # 2 you will find are easier said than done. For example, what kind of wood was used in period gunstocks? The Loyalist Arms gunstock is not American walnut. It is not even European walnut or beechwood. It is something called Spanish Cedar. The wood is soft. A good repro Lorenz really needs a walnut or beechwood stock, like the original. I asked a professional gun-maker about this. He recommended another gunstock to do this right, or at least the back half of one. Then you can address the necessary changes to the cheekrest as well. I would recommend the whole stock if you are going to do this since the bands need to be relocated on the forestock, too. It is about $250 for a walnut stock blank, unfinished.

The Loyalist Arms smoothbore .62 barrel...what can be done with it? Not much. So figure replace the barrel with a re-lined original? Okay so now you have replaced the stock (at $250), and the barrel ($300). You are now in this project for over $1000, including the cost of the reproduction out of the box, and the hardware (hammer, lock, side plate) still needs some attention. Finally, will an original bayonet fit now? It might or might not. The original M-1854s were often part numbered to match rifles with corresponding bayonets. Period accounts indicate soldiers would sometimes use a mallet to hammer a mis-matched bayonet onto the barrel of their Lorenz.

We can agree on the standards of the community, and I don't mean to be discouraging but if you want that sort of weapon you would be hard pressed to create it out of one of the Loyalist Arms products. It is important to be realistic about the potential afforded by the reproduction such as it is. What are you getting that is useable if you want to try to "get it right"? A buttplate, a couple barrel bands and maybe some lock internals. When you get into the kind of total cost for really de-farbing the LA M-1854 Lorenz, one would be well advised to consider a "put together" of mostly original disassociated parts with repro parts to fill in. You would be time and money ahead, and end up with a better weapon.

[LibertyHallVols]

OK...
I think this horse has been beaten enough. The evidence is in and has been discussed. What say you: Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down?

Me: Thumb Down

The effort is worthy of praise and may not yet be over. However, the shortcomings are significant and well-stated by Messrs Hern and Barry.

As Messr Barry pointed out in his most recent post, one would spend less money, stress, and time having a custom rifle crafted than to correct the shortcomings of the LA reproduction. (Remember: The parts from the Rifle Shoppe are $670. Assembly might be another $500 or so, versus $1000 and work still to-be-done to correct the LA Lorenz)

[ACo.]

OK...
I think this horse has been beaten enough. The evidence is in and has been discussed. What say you: Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down?

Me: Thumb Down

The effort is worthy of praise and may not yet be over. However, the shortcomings are significant and well-stated by Messrs Hern and Barry.

As Messr Barry pointed out in his most recent post, one would spend less money, stress, and time having a custom rifle crafted than to correct the shortcomings of the LA reproduction. (Remember: The parts from the Rifle Shoppe are $670. Assembly might be another $500 or so, versus $1000 and work still to-be-done to correct the LA Lorenz)





I have to agree on all counts. I did consider at one time getting the Rifle Shoppe parts, they are excellent and the work is well within my ability but another project took precedent - also using TRS parts. :D At any rate, if the work of making a Lorenz from the TRS parts were done by me for someone else, I would not consider selling it for less than $1200, possibly more. Oh, and the prices have risen in their new catalogue, BTW. I'm sure they will update their website soon... Anyway, makes an original sound more attractive all the time doesn't it?

As far as the work I suggested, that could/should be done in the production by the maker, I was not suggesting the work be done by a purchaser though I can see where it may have sounded like I was saying that. The project by Loyalist is a good one and I applaud their efforts so far but it can be better - it may drive the price up a little, but they would sell more to happy purchasers. I hope they will consider it but they may not and I can't see as how I would blame them since they do sell a lot of similar quality reproduction guns to reenactors (and shooters) already.

[Rebbeh]

I agree that the gun needs some work, but what i'm curious about is why so many people see this gun as almost sacrilige to have? i've noticed a few people who have said "I applaud the effort", and i agree. it's about time. but there is so much scrutiny about this particular repop. just curious as to why? from the posts i've read, and how i come out of the readings of such, it looks to me like everyone is tearing apart this gun, before they even give it a chance. i know it's constructive critisism, but sheesh! i don't see a whole lot of threads about how bad the Enfields are in this hobby. everyone just takes those for granted. but since this is the Austrian Lorenz, people have been scrutinizing it almost non-stop. it's almost maddening to see. if ya don't like it, and you think it's wrong, then don't buy it. simple. i'm not trying to start arguments with anyone, but seriously.... enough is enough. please, contact Armisport and Euroarms and tell them to get on the ball and fix those Enfields!

[Jimmayo]

I agree that the gun needs some work, but what i'm curious about is why so many people see this gun as almost sacrilige to have? i've noticed a few people who have said "I applaud the effort", and i agree. it's about time. but there is so much scrutiny about this particular repop. just curious as to why? from the posts i've read, and how i come out of the readings of such, it looks to me like everyone is tearing apart this gun, before they even give it a chance. i know it's constructive critisism, but sheesh! i don't see a whole lot of threads about how bad the Enfields are in this hobby. everyone just takes those for granted. but since this is the Austrian Lorenz, people have been scrutinizing it almost non-stop. it's almost maddening to see. if ya don't like it, and you think it's wrong, then don't buy it. simple. i'm not trying to start arguments with anyone, but seriously.... enough is enough. please, contact Armisport and Euroarms and tell them to get on the ball and fix those Enfields!

Mr. Gladden:
The Lorenz is a relatively new reproduction weapon on the scene which is dominated by bad repros. Everyone already knows how bad the Enfields are and there is not much that can be done to change that.

Some have waited years with high hopes for a repro Lorenz and have never had the opportunity to examine an original. Wouldn't it be nice to know how the reproduction compares to an original before buying one?

What is going on in this thread is called "discussion". It is what we do on this forum, sometimes in nauseating detail but there is always something to be learned.

[Craig L Barry]

Oh, there are many threads on the AC Forum, as well as monographs (by Geoff Walden) and fairly significant content in a recent book (The Civil War Musket) on the sad state of reproduction "Enfields". Interestingly I actually contacted representatives from both EOA and Armi Chiappa (Armi Sport) about their products, including their Enfield, while researching material for The Civil War Musket. This is a story for another day...

The real issue is not whether any one "likes it" or not, but rather how close the Loyalist Arms Lorenz repro is to an original M-1854 (it is ballpark), and what exactly can be done to correct the main flaws?(not much) The importance of any of this discussion is not do I want one (I don't), or the enthusiast for whom close is close enough, but rather the exchange of information from various subject matter experts that own or are familiar with original M-1854s as to how well this particular reproduction would meet the needs of different levels of enthusiasts. If someone is a "Get It Right to the n-th degree" enthusiast (ie: Watchdog or Civil War Historian reader), they would be very frustrated with this particular product. Somebody wanting a reproduction Lorenz that is "in the ballpark", well here it is. The Italian Enfields out of the box are not particularly good reproductions of the kind of P-53 used here by both sides during the Civil War-era, but they have walnut stocks, rifled barrels of roughly the same caliber and can be accuracy modified into a reasonable facsimile of a US Civil War P-53. The point is you can not really do the same thing with the Loyalist Arms Lorenz, except at very great expense. This is good information (I think) for someone contemplating a purchase.

What I have found is that for most readers on the A-C Forum, "ballpark" won't cut it. There are more what will it take to "Get It Right" types posting here. This is not judgmental, and like anything else what musket you carry is a subjective and a purely individual decision based on unit guidelines and what your unit was originally issued. "Thumbs up" for some of us, "thumbs down" for others. The nauseating detail Jim Mayo mentions is actually the thing I like best...a student of the hobby can learn a lot posting and reading posts on this site. Others are going to find aspects of these discussions are a soporific, chloroform in an electronic media format.

[TKlas]

Hi gents,

I just wanted to express my support of the sharing of information on this thread which has been excellent. Mr. Barry has a good grasp of the AC view of this project. I think through detailed suggestions to Loyalist and with patience, perhaps in a few years they will have some of the kinks worked out so enthuaists like myself would take a peek at their offering. No one here is making fun of Loyalist and they are trying something no other manufacturer has been able to do on a consistant basis. I personally wish them well and hope the changes that have been pointed out can be improved and worked on.

I still would recommend sticking to an original at this time given all the information for those whom are detailed orinated. :) It all depends where your comfort level is with the accuracy of your reproduction and replica uniform & equipage. For many of us, we would be grinding our teeth at this time as an owner of the current offering.

Best Regards,

[csuniforms]

Hello Mr. Klas and my brothers in arms! I dont know why and I cannot understand the reasons why the reenactment-or better yet living historians dont buy and use original Civil War firearms. I have been doing Civil War for a very long time and I use my original pieces, and I do not own any foreign made reproductions.

The biggest argument stated is price. Well, a new Enfield defarbed is $600 to $700 and dont forget the bayonet and sling and all the appendages. An original Enfield if you look at gun shows or Civil War Shows or just put feelers out there can run from as little as $800 and a nice one is $1200 to $1400. You buy an orginal piece and you can sell it for what you put into it and in some cases sell it for more than you paid! You can also start your own collection.

Another argument I hear is that taking an original piece out into the field will ruin it!!! Duh, they were maufactured to withstand the weather and battlefield conditions 14o years plus ago!!!! Part of any soldiers training is the care and preservation of his firearm. If it rains and your original piece gets wet, you oil the crap out of it-- for preservation sake use a product called Ballistol and just coat the gun and it cuts the threat of rust by 95%. If your repro. Italian firearm gets wet over the weekend you better coat that one too!! If you scratch the original stock that is what boiled linseed oil is for and use a little walnut stain.

The new Lorenz "looks" like an Austrian, but is in my opinion, a poor substitute for an original. I just heard from one of the people who post on the AC he just picked up and original Lorenz for only $400!! They are out there and you have to look!!

The internal lock parts on original Enfields, Springfields, and Lornenz rifled muskets and rifles are case hardend, and if maintained will last another 140 years. USE Boiled linseed oil for the stock-- the firearm if wet, take apart and oil, and store it in a dry open area out of the gun case.. Hang it on the wall--

Buy an original if you can. Was at the Mansfield Civil War show last month and across the table from me was a gentleman selling an orginal OHIO stamped Lorenz for only $700!!

You can have the barrels checked or relined by gunsmiths in Virginia or buy a new barrel for $300 to $400, nipples can be redone and rethreaded if need be and guns can be restored--parts are available.

Will have a chapter on this in the new Wearing the Gray Confederate Conpendium.

Tom Arliskas
CADET GRAY AND BUTTERNUT BROWN

[trippcor]

Tom,
For me it has never been a case of cost. You are correct you can use an original and yes they were designed for field use. Yes you can have barrels inspected and parts replaced. However it is still 140 plus years old and a piece of history, as such it is not replaceable if it is damaged or destroyed. I personally am not willing to risk that by using an original in the field for anything more than a LH program.

The other issue, and this has been discussed here before, is when these weapons were issued during the war they were not 140 plus years old. They did not have the patina of a 140 year old weapon. So unless you are willing to make your original look like it is not 140 years old and thus destroying the patina and much of the value, then is it really any more accurate to carry an original?

I think originals are great for LH programs or static display. I am not in favor of using them in the field at reenactments or immersive type events. The risk of damaging or destroying a piece of non-replaceable history is to great.

[Craig L Barry]

My WTG comrade Tom Arliskas makes a valid point as there is no reproduction as "authentic" as the original and Tripp's point about originals looking 145 years old vs as issued and destroying a piece of history is also valid. This is probably a subject for another thread, and a good one. To summarize, I have to say that no de-farbed musket or rifle-musket currently available (and I have evaluated most of them in The Civil War Musket) comes very close to the originals in terms of performance, except in a superficial cosmetic sense...meaning it may look like one from a few feet away but the mystery is over once you pick it up.

Here is what I consider the "best possible solution"; a mostly original "put together" from parts. The "put together" does not look 145 years old because (this is the key) it was produced from disassociated parts hence no "piece of history" or historical significance was lost by refurbishing those separate parts. And it more closely resembles how a Civil War-era weapon looked when issued than an original in shooting condition. Best of both worlds. The downside is it took a while to find all the parts and a "put together" project would not be recommended for those who are lacking a degree of patience. I was surprised how much better the original locks are than the reproductions. The whole thing was fun to do, though.

[csuniforms]

Hello, You are correct in stating that you dont want to ruin the firearm. They are replaceable and can be fixed if needed. The only thing that could happen is that someone walks off with it. I have carried mine in four or five of the big reenactments of the mid-eighties and have never had any trouble. I do get the "is that an original?" As to the argument that they have a patina and cant be polished-- well I see a lot of polished originals at gun shows. What you cant do is polish off the markings--

Tom Arliskas

[pipthelimey]

Question regarding Lorenz Bayonets:
Does anyone have an original scabbard for one? I imagine that when they were imported they came with the issue scabbard, but I have never seen one.

Someone posted an available "CS manufactured Scabbard" as a reproduction alternative, but an original letter from the director of the Columbus Laboratories states that the Depot "never has, and has no plans to manufacture a bayonet scabbard for the Austrian rifle." If Columbus didn't manufacture them, and since they were the largest depot in proximity to the AOT, who used the most Lorenz's, I am wondering if the bayonets weren't either used until the issue scabbards wore out and then discarded, or if there was a different pattern of scabbard for another bayonet which served the same purpose.

Let's not go gung ho with tarred scabbards until we can document one. I'll try and find the full text of that letter and post it in a day or so.

Andrew Jerram

[roundshot]

Or they simply made use of whatever scabbard they were issued, as this Yank did.

[3alabama]

Question regarding Lorenz Bayonets:
Does anyone have an original scabbard for one? I imagine that when they were imported they came with the issue scabbard, but I have never seen one.


Are you talking about the original Austrian made leather covered wood scabbard? Or the 2 rivit Gaylord parttern US scabbard? I have seen 1 Austrian made scabbard a while ago and own an original 2 rivit Gaylord pattern one for the Austrian bayonet

[sharpshooter]

here is link from Wambaugh and White that might be useful

http://www.wwandcompany.com/usleathers.html

[Jimmayo]

US issue Austrian scabbard ID to Oliver Godfrey of the 14th NH. It came with a M-1855 Springfield bayonet.

[JWNathan]

I for one have found this whole thread quite enlightening and VERY interesting. The back and forth of this disscussion is exactly what should be done, Im just glad its not a one sided look at this musket; either this thing sucks or, this rifle is great. Thank you guys.
-Jesse

[pipthelimey]

I'm sorry, I should have specified the question I was asking a little bit better. I was trying to ask if anyone had ever seen a Lorenz bayonet scabbard of Confederate manufacture. I saw a post regarding a painted cloth scabbard with a lead finial, and I was wondering if we had any knowledge of a CS manufactured one. I don't doubt that they came with scabbards, and that Gaylord pattern scabbards were manufactured as well, but we also know that scabbards didn't last forever in the field, (I have copies of requisitions that include bayonet scabbards) so what recourse were the troops left with if there wasn't a CS manufactured alternative?

Kind Regards,


Hopefully that's clearer

[Craig L Barry]

Andrew:
To my knowledge the Confederacy did not make or contract for a cloth or leather scabbard specifically for the Austrian Lorenz bayonet.

[pipthelimey]

As a side note, one of my pards sent me some pictures of an original Lorenz import scabbard.
http://www.sharpsburg-arsenal.com/Rifles___Muskets/Untitled964/untitled964.html
http://www.sharpsburg-arsenal.com/Rifles___Muskets/rifles___muskets.html (Homepage)

[rogue]

Is there any historical documentation that the Austrian scabbard, SCABBARD, was ever used in the American Civil War? I have seen many documented Lorenz muskets and bayonets, but scabbards?
It is my understanding that the scabbards, as pictured in above posted photo, came to these shores after the fall of the Soviet Bloc when a great number were discovered in an eastern European warehouse.
Steve Sullivan
CWPT
Co. Mil. Hist.

[Todd Watts]

I personally would not use an original musket simply because it will be virtually impossible to look "authentic" with a 140+ year old gun. Think about it, those guns were new back then and thus looked that way. If you have in your possession a like-new original musket, you'd be a fool to take it out and shoot it no matter what it is.:eek: You can polish and restore an original to look fairly correct, but great care must be taken when doing this or faint markings will be ruined in the restoration process.

It is in the same vein as the "to polish or not" debate on our brass. It was polished back then. The uniforms were new. Guys were told to repair torn uniforms, sew back on lost buttons, polish brass, clean muskets, etc. The officers and more importantly sargeants had to keep the men occupied somehow, and the military then as well as now loves busy work.:rolleyes: If you look 140+ years old, you look more farbby in many respects that then newbie that shows up with 100% new gear (unless of course his trousers have a crease). Just my opinion.

[ACo.]

Is there any historical documentation that the Austrian scabbard, SCABBARD, was ever used in the American Civil War? I have seen many documented Lorenz muskets and bayonets, but scabbards?
It is my understanding that the scabbards, as pictured in above posted photo, came to these shores after the fall of the Soviet Bloc when a great number were discovered in an eastern European warehouse.
Steve Sullivan
CWPT
Co. Mil. Hist.




As a kid in the 1950s I remember seeing a wooden scabbard with remnants of the leather covering on a Lorenz bayonet in an old collection dating from the late 19th Century. I also have an Austrian scabbard tip (metal) that was dug near Fredericksburg, Va. I will try to get a usable photo posted. Dug Austrian scabbard throats also show up occasionally. So yes, in my opinion, they were used, I don't think there is any doubt about it and have never seen a collector that doubted it but we do seem to be lacking in photographic documentation. Has anyone ever seen a period image of a Lorenz scabbard being worn?

Now, as far as the urban legend that these came out of a warehouse in the nebulous "Eastern Europe", I doubt it but I suppose some could be coming out of sections of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Lorenz bayonet was in use as late as WW1 when the M1854/67 Wanzl (a trapdoor conversion of the M1854 Lorenz) saw its last use in the hands of rear echelon troops of the A-H Empire. Even Imperial Germany used some of the scabbards when they did ersatz conversions of of the 54 bayonet during the Great War for their own use (see "German Bayonets, Vol. III" by Anthony Carter) and some from one of these sources could be around in small quantities but to say that all showing up now were recently found is probably stretching it a bit.

[militiaman1835]

I am wondering how rare are the nipple wrench/musket tools issued with the Lorenz? Only ones I have seen are dug examples? Are they as rare and expensive as the bayonets? JIM HENSLEY

[58 lorenz]

I found the combination tool for the Lorenz (in decent,undug condition) on eBay a few years ago for a reasonable amount-I can't remember, but it was somewhere around $25. I paid more for the bayonet than I paid for my Lorenz-$250, in good condition, in a nice,solid US pattern scabbard. I bought the Lorenz about 4 years ago at a local gunshow for $200. The seller was off in a corner, and no one was bothering to see what he had.



Doug Price

[rebelfirefighter07]

Are there any quality reproductions made of the combination tool??

Don't forget to sign your name to your posts. - CH

[Kevin Hall]

Re: Loyalist Arms 1854 Lorenz Is here!

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

I found the combination tool for the Lorenz (in decent,undug condition) on eBay a few years ago for a reasonable amount-I can't remember, but it was somewhere around $25. I paid more for the bayonet than I paid for my Lorenz-$250, in good condition, in a nice,solid US pattern scabbard. I bought the Lorenz about 4 years ago at a local gunshow for $200. The seller was off in a corner, and no one was bothering to see what he had.



Doug Price



I have found this to be true with most musket / rifle tools especially here in the west. It pays to look in those old coffee cans at the antique and gun shows. I picked up a hand full of original worms for a quarter a piece two years ago.

Kevin Hall

[csuniforms]

Hello,
Last time I was in Lodgewood Mfg. in Whitewater Wisconsin they had both the Austrian wooden scabbard and the tool. I dont know how many wooden scabbards came in with the rifles, but I do know they modified convential scabbards to take the Austrian Bayonet.

As to the gun not looking new for a 2007 reenacatment. When they received the firearms they were already 7 years old and many were used on campaign in Italy-- So I am sure they looked used, not new-- all bright and shiny-- and needed a little polishing and stock treatment.-- Same goes for the Enfields-- England shipped out the older models not the new ones-- These were used also and not bright and shiny when issued.-- Lots of notes on this in the WTG coming out. {Wearing the Gray}.

Tom Arliskas
Cadet Gray and Butternut Brown.

[Craig L Barry]

Tom is right, a number of Lorenz M-1854s were "seasoned" by participation in various European campaigns, refurbished and sold off as excess by the Austrian government when the replacement M-1862s were produced (for the Austrian Army). They would look like seven year old refurbished arms. Not new, but not 150 years old either. Other M-1854s were produced "new" on commercial contract. These would look "new". Wearing the Gray will have a section in it that does the Civil War-era Lorenz, which was produced in several versions and other CS used weapons justice. The folks involved in producing those chapters recognize the issuance of Confederate infantry arms went well beyond the three band rifle-muskets that are available as reproductions for our hobby.

To summarize for the use of the current "Lorenz" the Watchdog standard is a sensible one. Seek the "best possible solution", as of this writing, that would be a "put together". In other words, a rifle-musket produced from original disassociated parts, filling in with as few quality reproduction parts as possible. You could produce a very decent Lorenz for enactment of Civil War battles and LHs that way vs de-farbing the Loyalist Arms version. You would have a better weapon and be money ahead.

Lodgewood Mfg is of course a good source for Lorenz bayonets, scabbards and other parts if you have deep pockets.

[militiaman1835]

I have located a decent condition lorenz but it is missing the following parts: middle band & swivel, lock plate screw, rear sight, one band spring. I know rifle shoppe has repro parts, S & S firearms, Dixie Gun Works, Lodgewood, and ebay..but does anyone know of a dealer who might have original parts? Would a Good/VG condition lorenz missing these parts be worth $750? JIM HENSLEY

[Craig L Barry]

Jim
Is it a M-1854 Lorenz? If so, depends on the condition of the stock and the barrel. Any riflling remaining in the bore? External or internal pitting around the bolster? Does the lock hold at half cock and function crisply? How is the wood? The Lorenz was prone to crack through the wrist near the comb. Will the cone come out of the bolster? Any bend in the barrel? Use a bore light and look for dark spots. The "Yankee Trash" Lorenz made up of junked musket parts and later (non-US Civil War provenance) M-1862s often pop up in this price range. You don't want one of those.

Lodgewood and S & S often have original parts and Dixie does "sometimes", if not you can order Rifle Shoppe repros which are very rough castings, and expect a six week to six month delay at that. And don't be surprised if quite a bit of fitting may be required. Patience may be needed because the Austrian M-1854s were handmade rifles with some variation in the parts.

Its not a "steal" but for the useable parts you are getting, $750 seems reasonable, especially if the stock, remaining hardware and barrel are G to VG. This kind of find has the makings of a nice "put together". I like this kind of project myself, it can keep you happily amused for many moons, or if you are lucky come together fairly fast.

[ACo.]

Hello,
"... Same goes for the Enfields-- England shipped out the older models not the new ones-- These were used also and not bright and shiny when issued.-- Lots of notes on this in the WTG coming out. {Wearing the Gray}.

Tom Arliskas
Cadet Gray and Butternut Brown.





Tom, I agree with most of what you say about the Lorenz, many, if not most were used to one extent or another but I'm sure that they may have been recondition by Austro-Hungarian armorers when put in storage after issue and before sale, some however may not have been and went out in used but fully functioning condition.

The .577 Enfield family of arms, however, are another story. Enfields (to use the generic term) sold to the CS, US or state governments or speculators were new guns were they not? The British government did not sell to either party in our squabble, to have done so would have put the British nation in an uncomfortable spot, giving the appearance of taking sides which they were careful not to do in any hard and firm way. So, no guns with government property marks ,whether made by the government or contractors in London, Birmingham, Belgium or even Windsor, Vermont ever made it to our shores before the end of the War, they had plenty of other places throughout the British Empire to send their used equipment, not to mention storage for war reserves. All American used British pattern rifle muskets were made by Birmingham or London contractors with a smattering of Belgian and some of the Windsor made guns that the British did not take when the contract was cancelled. So, while the London Armory did make interchangeable guns equal to the Enfield product on contract for the British Government, they were able, after completing those contracts, to make guns for use here. All that being said, some obsolete pattern muskets (P39 and P42) as well as early rifle muskets (P51) may have been sent here after being declared surplus and sold to "the trade" who then moved them to interested parties anywhere. Sorry to ramble, I am interested to know if I may have missed something.

[Craig L Barry]

Some (small number) of commercial P-53 with British government markings definitely have US Civil War provenance. Post Crimean War-era (type II) Enfields with government marks were refurbished and sold off into the gun trade as updated P-53 models were produced. See previous post by Tim Prince titled "Never Say Never about Enfields" for a good example of one of those type IIs with a Sinclair Hamilton inspection mark.

In The Civil War Musket, (Watchdog Publications 2006 p. 28 footnote # 9) it mentions that there are several LACs existing with Brit government markings, including the V.R under the crown that all LACs seem to have and govt barrel proofs, broad arrow, etc with confirmed Confederate Civil War provenance. One was closely inspected doing the research for the book. It was issued to a soldier in Georgia, and the rack numbers match up with invoices from one of the first blockade runners to land in Savannah back in 1861.

These are, of course, exceptions to the rule.

[Charles Heath]

Jim,

The Lorenzes were running $575-650 just eight or nine years ago in slightly better condition. Craig's suggestion about Lodgewood is excellent, and to take it one step further -- if you can get to a CW show or other venue where they are set up with parts and minor tools to get the job done, you can enjoy picking through a few items, and working on the spot with them to get the piece back in order. Should it prove to be less than desirable for firing, then you still have a nice wallhanger.

[trippcor]

You might want to contact Tim Prince with College Hill Arsenal. Look in the Approved Vendors link for his contact info.

[James Brenner]

In the for what it's worth column ... The 104th OVI received 940 Lorenz muskets when they mustered in at Camp Massillon in August 1862. Records in the NA suggest that the muskets were real beaters. It may be that they had previously been issued to a lower numbered regiment earlier in the war and were being reissued, and were that much worse for wear. Regardless, COL Reilly petitioned General Q.A.Gilmore in October 1862 to go to Ohio to exchange the muskets. Gilmore endorsed Reilly's request with the following comment, "I have carefully inspected the arms within referred to and have found them of inferior quality, many of them being damaged by loss of sights, cocks, etc., also deficient on account of the weakness of the main springs and an imperfect connection from the tube (cone?) to the bore, to such an extent that about 33 per cent are unfit for service. I believe Colonel Reilly can procure the exchange desired if permitted to make application in person."

Reilly did not get to go. His request was denied with this notation: "Respectfully returned with the information that there are no arms at Columbus, Ohio; that the Commanding General will furnish the first that are to be had; and that the leave of absence cannot be granted."

It all worked out, though. The 104th received Enfields in mid-November.

[militiaman1835]

The Rifle Shoppe has the repro worms, musket tool, bayonet, cleaning jag, and ball puller listed in their parts list for sale. Jim Hensley

[Craig L Barry]

James
I am familiar with the anecdote you reference and I have always wondered from the description of the 104th OVIs weapons if those could have been old Austrian smoothbore tubelock muskets from the 1840s...the use of the word "tube" rather than "cone" is an odd choice of words. There is a picture of an Austrian tubelock in "Echoes of Glory" and those were big old junkers. I could easily see those being decrepit. Also the Lorenz was often referred to as an "Austrian rifle", rather than as a "musket". The term "musket" was understood at the time to mean "smoothbore musket". Not always in a soldier's diary or letter, but in an officer's descriptive account of issued ordnance...anyway, it is just a thought. The M-1854s weren't cream puffs but they weren't likely to be 1/3 of the lot defective.

Leander Stillwell of the 61st Illinois was delighted with his M-1854 Lorenz which he termed "a wicked (meaning real good) shooter", but opinions seem to have varied on the Lorenz. Overall, I find them to be on the crude side, an older mostly obsolete European design that does not hold a candle to the P-53. The lock function is especially crude. It has the old style "hook" type lock (no tumbler link), a long hammer throw, an old style lock plate etc. However, the M-1854 Lorenz clearly has its fans...look at the enthusiasm for them in the posts here. Soldiers were well known to drop the Lorenz and pick up US rifle-muskets or Enfields on the battlefield, and I can understand it.

[James Brenner]

Craig,

Thanks for your comments. I wondered about the "tube" remark, too. The only thing that didn't quite click (pun intended) was the caliber. According to the 1862 Ohio QM general's report, Ohio issued only .54 and .58 caliber Austrian rifle muskets. Weren't earlier Austrians of larger caliber?

[ACo.]

Some (small number) of commercial P-53 with British government markings definitely have US Civil War provenance. Post Crimean War-era (type II) Enfields with government marks were refurbished and sold off into the gun trade as updated P-53 models were produced. See previous post by Tim Prince titled "Never Say Never about Enfields" for a good example of one of those type IIs with a Sinclair Hamilton inspection mark.

In The Civil War Musket, (Watchdog Publications 2006 p. 28 footnote # 9) it mentions that there are several LACs existing with Brit government markings, including the V.R under the crown that all LACs seem to have and govt barrel proofs, broad arrow, etc with confirmed Confederate Civil War provenance. One was closely inspected doing the research for the book. It was issued to a soldier in Georgia, and the rack numbers match up with invoices from one of the first blockade runners to land in Savannah back in 1861.

These are, of course, exceptions to the rule.




Thanks, you are correct and as the previous thread said "Never Say Never...." I have to remember that.... :o

[Craig L Barry]

James
The 1842 Austrian tubelocks were big bore (.72). It would've been the M-1854 Lorenz if the bore was in the vicinity of .54 to .58. The M-1854 was 13.9 mm (actually .556), which was one reason for their reputation for poor shooting accuracy. Austrian ammo was not imported along with the Lorenz. US 1841 (Mississippi) rifle .535 balls were usually issued, and these rounds were the wrong size for the Lorenz.

It still seems odd...Not that the Austrians fobbed off obsolete arms on the US Army, but that fully 1/3 of the M-1854s issued to those Ohio troops could actually be that bad...however, that is what we are left to conclude.

[benjaminmcgee]

Hello all,

On the subject of the Lorenz, does anyone have an original hammer laying around that they would be willing to sell?

Benjamin McGee

[58 lorenz]

If you hurry, here is a more-or-less complete Lorenz in sad shape on eBay: #300120186712



Doug Price

[rogue]

Benjamin,
Be very careful in your quest for a missing Lorenz hammer.
There are several distinctive "types" of Lorenz hammer/locks. One resembles a model 1853 Enfield and one does not.
Also these are hand made weapons, not mass produced from a single model, so one part is not totally interchangable with all as in the case of the US Springfield.
Be prepared to lug your hammerless Lorenz to parts sources, or be prepared for a lot of back and forth postage unless you luck into a correct hammer the first time out.
Steve Sullivan
CWPT
Co. Mil. Hist.
Owner of several Lorenz', none of which have interchangable parts!

[tomp40]

Interesting piece.. For some reason I want to say that some NJ units were issued the Lorenz.. I'll have to check my regimental history books. Is anyone else in the states selling this gun?

[militiaman1835]

I was bidding on a lorenz musket tool in vg condition on an on line auction. It sold for $107.55!! Value of it was rated $40 and people have said on here they find them for $25 or $30. Keep your eyes peeled for these!! Jim Hensley

[Johan Steele]

I paid $7 for mine, they are not uncommon. I believe I've seen a half dozen in the last year at various gunshows running about $25.

[Charles Heath]

Jim,

Have you contacted Tim Prince?

[Jimmayo]

Came across this image in the LOC of a group of Federal Soldiers at Centerville. Notice they are carrying Lorenze's and the bayonet is held by the standard US scabbard which is too short. I like photos showing make do configurations such as this.

[tsgalloway]

Very neat photo and observation.

[Shockoe Hill Cats]

Well, I'll be! I was just looking at the same photograph and noticing that too. I need some kudos too. :mad: :rolleyes:

[Johnny Lloyd]

Oh my gosh... gaiters on Federals! :p

Great photo -Johnny

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

The Hall of Valor at New Market has on display a Federal Scabbard with a lorenze bayonet sticking out in this manner. While I have long been critical about this, the image Jim has posted shows that it is not out of the realm of possibility.

The scabbard/bayonet is preported to have been carried into Battle of New Market by VMI Cadet Francis L. Smith. It is attached to a folded leather belt with a Virginia Spoon and Wreath Buckle. Cadet Smith's Cassimere uniform is on display at New Market and his jacket of English Broadcloth is in the VMI collection and was the basis for the reproduction by Scott Hanes' of the Richmond Depot.

Paul B. Boulden Jr.

RAH VA MIL '04
23rd VA Vol. Regt.

[Bob 125th NYSVI]

If the weapons were purchased but 'leathers' weren't wouldn't it be logical that the depot would just issue whatever the QM had in stock?

I guess the question would be does anybody have either QM returns on what was issued with the Lorenz or maybe even shipping manifests to show what arrived in the same cargo the weapons did?

Frankly I have a hard time envisioning them coming from the warehouse with/in the scabbards since the items would have been provided by two different manufacturers in Austria and not mated up until issued form stores.

[DougCooper]

Jim - great photo. Does it mention the regiment (note the jackets)? Are those perhaps wooden grave markers at their feet?

[Jimmayo]

Here is most of the original picture. Some observations and questions:

Were there Quaker guns at Centerville? If not, could this have been taken near Williamsburg except for all the barracks in the background.

All of the Lorenz's have slings. Could this indicate the arms were shipped with slings and bayonets but no other leather accouterments? The scabbards are the two rivet type which are early to mid war.

These troops seem to have dark blue shell jackets and trousers. Were they early war volunteers in a state supplied uniform or some semi-zouve unit?

What in the world is on the top of this cap? I can see the regiment number and the top part looks like a Jeff Davis hat pin. What is in the middle?

If you do a search on the LOC using the word "soldier" this picture shows up on the 2nd or third page. I believe it is titled something like Federal soldiers at Centerville.

[Slouch]

funny you should post that. Im in the very beginning stages of researching the issue of scabbards for non-Springfield bayonets (model 55). There were thoudands of Enfields in the Federal Army, and the number of Enfield scabbards issued to the army doesnt seem to compare to the number of muskets (again, just beginning to do research..this statement is based soley on the number of surviving, identified to Federal use, Enfield scabbards and on photographs). This research is difficult, as records seldom descibe the type of scabbard being issued.

Ive often wondered about reproduction scabbards being made by molding it to the actual bayonet it is being ordered for, except for understanding that repro and originals are diferent.

At this stage in my research, I have a thesis that soldiers had to make do with Springfield-type scabbards regardless of the bayonet they had. This is just a working thesis. Perhaps the correct bayonet was issued with the musket, but replacement scabbards were most likely Springfield types.

As for Confederate issue, thousands of Enfield accouterments were run through the blockade. I have read that Enfield musket purchase prices included the bayonet and scabbard, yet cargo manifests often have different numbers of scabbards and muskets listed. It could be that IF the muskets actually came with bayonets and scabbards, they were crated together, and the number of scabbards listed were in addition to those that came with the muskets.

Then one has to consider CS produced scabbards, and were they sized in a manner to accept both Springfield type and Enfield type bayonets?

In the OR's, I have found a reference to scabbards "from Vienna" being part of the inventory of a captured blockade runner.

If anyone can help, please chime in. Im also trying to figure out what the Fed's did with captured blcokade runner inventory. I know the ship and cargo went to court for adjudication, but havent found any records concerning the fate of the inventories. Seems to me it would have made sense (which means they probably didnt do this) to keep accouterments and muskets for issue to the army.

[rogue]

If the Lorenz's shown had been issued with full Austrian accoutrements the bayonet scabbards would not have been popular, nor practical. Instead of a leather loop to slip on the waist belt the Austrian scabbard came with a hook like device similat to what is found on a NCO/musician sword scabbard.
Note also to the left, two men from the "invisible man" there is a full outfitted soldier who seems to be holding a 1816 or similar weapon, much longer than a Lorenz.
Steve Sullivan

[DougCooper]

Ya know what, I think this might be the 95th Pennsylvania, Gosline's Zoauves. The jackets are correct but they are standard forage caps - not unusual for these guys. they wore issue trowsers and were issed gaiters. Looks a 95 and a D on the one cap.

[Slouch]

If the Lorenz's shown had been issued with full Austrian accoutrements the bayonet scabbards would not have been popular, nor practical. Instead of a leather loop to slip on the waist belt the Austrian scabbard came with a hook like device similat to what is found on a NCO/musician sword scabbard...

Steve Sullivan

Why do you think the Confederates allowed that ship to be captured? The captain reported hearing cheers from the troops in Willmington:D

[rogue]

Humor, har-har!
Going back to the initial posting, Mr. Mayo, in your extensive battlefield archaeology, have you ever found any remains of the very distinctive Lorenz scabbard? Aside from the hook, the mouth of the scabbard has the "X" configuration or opening to hold the blade. It would be hard to pass a Lorenz scabbard part off as anything else.
It is my understanding (unresearched) that within the last decade a warehouse in eastern Europe was found with Lorenz baynots/scabbards aplenty, and many have made it across the Atlantic, and not on a blockade runner either. Were these scabbards seen stateside before that hoard was discovered? Aside from diggers recovery, are these scabbards seen in stateside museum collections?
I bought one from Lodgewood, they had several, and the warehouse story was told to me then.
Steve Sullivan

[Joe Walker]

I have owned a few Lorenz muskets and several bayonets and scabbards of leather-covered wood over the years. It has been apparent to me that the bayonets were fitted to the gun and bayonets made to accomodate the scabbard. I have noted the lower ends of the bayonet blades being "trimed" to make this happen. As you know, the "throat" of a wooden Lorenz is made of metal with a "+" cut in it for the bayonet to go through. Although I am not speaking as an authority, I also believe the bayonets were matched with the guns since they are not always interchangeble. Years ago, Chris Schreiber of Long Island made for me a US style leather bayonet scabbard from an original. Obviously, this made fitting the bayonet in the scabbard easy without modifying it.

Joe Walker

[Jimmayo]

I have never found a Austrian Lorenze bayonet but saw one dug in CS lines at Burmuda Hundred. Have never seen any scabbard parts. I have also heard of the Lorenze scabbards being found in Europe and then shipped over here in I believe in the 1960s or early 70s.

Don't forget the Feds made scabbards for the Lorenze bayonets. Two types of two rivet scabbards as far as I have seen. The throat determines the type. One has an oval opening and the other a more square corner type looking sort of like a third corps badge.

[rogue]

Ah Bermuda Hundred. I know the place, hunted there in the early 60's with a fellow from Henrico County named Sam McClaren.
I have several of the US made scabbards, which had to be made to fit the Lorenz bayonet as their shape was not that of either the Springfield nor Enfield bayonet.
I too had not seen a Lorenz scabbard part come out of the soil of the US of A. I was hoping that someone else had.
No great historic puzzle this, just curious. For all the Lorenz rifled muskets issued by the north alone, a large number of scabbards must have been fabricated by someone to fit the foreign imports. Not all would have been happy to wear the long bayonets in the short scabbards as shown in the photo at the head of this thread.
Thank you.
Steve Sullivan

[Secesh]

These men appear to be wearing chasseur style uniforms. Best regards.

[Tim Prince]

In general the US issued one of two special types of 2-rivet scabbard for use with the quadrangle Lorenz bayonet. The oval throat one was designed for use with all of the various 4-sided Austrian socket bayonets (M1799/28, M1842 & M1854) as well as the M1809 & M1839 Prussian (Potsdam) bayonets, and a variety of other imported bayonets that were too long (or too wide) for use in the standard issue scabbards. The diamond throat scabbard was specifically for the Austrian bayonets.

Until recently I was of the opinion that the Austrian made scabbards did not come over here in any great numbers, however I have recently come to the conclusion that they did come over in at least some quantity. Austrian scabbards are listed on blockade-runner manifests, showing that the Confederacy was buying them. Also, in Mr. Kindred's nice research on Mass troop issues, he came across a listing for a regiment that was issued "Austrian Rifles" and "Enfield scabbards". Obviously the Austrian bayonet would not fit in an Enfield scabbard, so this is likely a reference to the use of Austrian scabbards, as they resemble the Enfield scabbard with a mounting hook designed to mate with a frog (as previously noted in this thread).

This would be a great picture for Paul Johnson to use in his upcoming book on bayonet scabbards. I'm sure most of you are familiar with Paul's ground breaking work on US cartridge boxes, and the bayonet scabbard book (possibly books....) will again give students of material culture much to ponder.

[Tim Prince]

Other cool things to note in the picture:


#1- The guns are what collectors term Type II Lorenz's and have both the cheek rest and the long range rear site.

#2-Big (and I mean "farby" big) cups, on the outside of their haversacks, attached by the closure strap!

#3-The haversacks (in general) are bulging full!

#4-At least one soldier has a tompion in his Lorenz- it looks to be a standard US style turned wood plug.

#5-The smooth side canteens and lack of leather covers on the knapsack strap hardware (along with the previously mentioned two rivet scabbards) all encourage dating the image to sometime in 1862.

#6-This may be a result of overall image quality, but I cannot see either a brass hook or adjustment holes in the slings- ruling out the standard US issue. I do see leather loops, but that does not rule any particular type of sling out. They do not appear to be either type of English sling, since neither a buckle nor ties are visible.

[LeatherHead]

Excavated sheet iron throats with hook and sheet iron tips with ball ends from Austrian-made leather-covered Lorenz socket bayonets scabbards do show up from time to time on eBay. Presumeably they were recovered from American Civil War sites but only the digger knows for sure and from where. More and more European finds are making their way to the United States and the provenances of those items usually get lost or misrepresented.

The blades and scabbards generally do not interchange. I bought a Lodgewood Austrian scabbard, probably from the warehouse cache, and walked it around a gun show or two to find a blade that would go in it (length and width) also with a socket diameter that would fit on the Lorenz rifle they were joining.

The Austrian infantry of the 1850s carried the scabbards on white buff shoulder belts, as is illustrated in period photos in the monograph on the Austrian army put out in the series produced in England (Osprey?). I have not yet seen a surviving Austrian scabbard attributed to CW use with a waistbelt frog still with it, but am very eager to hear of one. A collector/shooter friend conjectured that the Confederates may not have used one, simply sliding the scabbard behind the waistbelt with the hook keeping it in place. Original US-made Lorenz scabbards, in at least 2 styles, are encountered with some regularity out there today.

Dean Nelson
1st MD Infantry, CSA, N-SSA

[Dignann]

The photo is titled "Group of Federal soldiers in Confederate fort on heights of Centreville with Quaker guns" and is believed to have been taken in March 1862. It can be found on the LOC website - LC-B811- 334A.

Here's another one these same fellows, with Lorenz. This is from an image, same series, titled "Centreville, Va. Fort on the heights, with Quaker guns" - LC-B811- 334.

Doug - I do believe you're right and that they are members of the 95th Penn. "Gosline's Zouaves." I'm pretty sure I can make out "95" and "F" on this fellows cap.

Eric

[DougCooper]

The photo is titled "Group of Federal soldiers in Confederate fort on heights of Centreville with Quaker guns" and is believed to have been taken in March 1862. It can be found on the LOC website - LC-B811- 334A.

Here's another one these same fellows, with Lorenz. This is from an image, same series, titled "Centreville, Va. Fort on the heights, with Quaker guns" - LC-B811- 334.

Doug - I do believe you're right and that they are members of the 95th Penn. "Gosline's Zouaves." I'm pretty sure I can make out "95" and "F" on this fellows cap.

Eric

What a fabulous photo. The 95th did get dark blue trousers and gaiters with the jackets and these guys appear to still have them. They replaced the Lorenz rifles with 1861 Springfields in April 1862. In March they were camped in this vicinity before departing for the Peninsula with the AoP. This soldier also has the dark gray shirt with buttons, but none of them appear to have the distinctive hepi issued 6 months prior - perhaps they wore out or this company did not get them.

But best of all - note the rope tie arrangement on the blanket roll inside the ground cloth. Many of us have done this over the years. Now we have some documentation. Also, is that some kind of round mess tin or a canteen?

[cpinkhaminsc]

The seated guy definately has a Lorenz too. Note the snail like projection behind the bolster/nipple, similar to an Enfield.

[LeatherHead]

Two dug Austrian Lorenz socket bayonet scabbard tips were eBay listing #160137830301. It might not yet be erased though the auction closed a few weeks ago. For your reference......

Dean Nelson
1st MD Infantry, CSA, N-SSA

[Bill]

In the large photo, I noticed that at least two of the soldiers had their rifles slung muzzle down. In one case, it looks like the soldier has the sling over his opposite shoulder.

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

Attached you will find pics of the iron tips Bill reffered to.

Ebay Listing #160137830301.

[Charles Heath]

Speaking of makers of yore, during the Lorenz craze of 1998-1999, Tom Czechanski* made a small number of scabbards for Lorenz bayonets. IIRC, they were of the US pattern. A few of those may still be out there in reenactorland.

*Yes, I too have to look in the 3MHB to spell check Tom's last name every time.

[Tim Prince]

For a look at a potentially CS frog for a Lorenz scabbard, check out this one on my web site. Not an add for the item, just a way to show some pics of the subject.

http://www.collegehillarsenal.com/shop/product.php?productid=16427&cat=268&page=2

The frog has been examined by a number of true experts in the field and they all agree that it is period and totally correct in construction, tannage, etc, but none can say that there is any particular feature that makes them say it is surely of CS origin. By the same token, none said there was any feature that made them sure it was not......

By the way, I know that Don Smith makes a very good US pattern Lorenz scabbard (he copied one in my collection), as does David Jarnagin. For all of trash that is talked about the products from C&D Jarnagin on the various forums, David makes truly exceptional handmade leather items and is truly an expert in the field and probably the most knowledgeable material culture researcher regarding period tannage. His personal collection of original CW era accouterments is stunning and rivals any major museum collection.

Enjoy the pictures.

[James A. Page]

I see Loyalist Arms now offers its much commented upon reproduction Lorenz in rifled .54 caliber. A reproduction cruciform bayonet is also offered.

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

Does this development refresh interest in this product, or appreciably affect discussion of its authenticity?

Jim Page

"Boys, Follow Me!"--Colonel William Bowen Campbell
1st Regiment of Tennesse Volunteers (1846-1847)

"Weeping in solitude for the fallen brave is better than the presence of men too timid to strike for their country"--Motto embroidered on the flag of the 1st Regiment of Tennessee Volunteers as presented by the Nashville Female Academy.