Pedersoli's 1816 conversion Musket

[Cheyenne]

Hello, I did a search, but didn't come up with much on this musket.

Anybody have experience with this particular musket? How does it rate for authenticity? Is it comparable in size to the originals? What bayonet would you use for it?

One last question, Pedersoli says it uses the "Colt" conversion, is this a correct conversion for this musket?

I'd like to add a 69 to my gear, but wonder if this musket is really worth the asking prices when compared to a '42.


Harvey Lane
Co. K, 6th Texas Infantry

[Tom Ezell]

Re: Pedersoli's 1816 conversion Musket

Hello, I did a search, but didn't come up with much on this musket.

Anybody have experience with this particular musket? How does it rate for authenticity? Is it comparable in size to the originals? What bayonet would you use for it?

One last question, Pedersoli says it uses the "Colt" conversion, is this a correct conversion for this musket?

I have one of Pedersoli’s M1816 flintlock reproductions. It's a very nice weapon, is a lot of fun, has broad applications for an early-to mid-war Confederate impression, and goes way on back for pre-war impressions from the frontier army to Mex War on back to the Alamo. I have happily campaigned with mine for a about five years now.

That being said, it’s a great deal if you’re looking for something that passes for an original at say, five yards or so. If you want a repro that will match an original on close inspection, then you’ve got a lot of work to do. You may as well go get an original.

Overall, the spacing on the middle barrel band differs from originals, the metal parts, especially the lockplate, is bigger, the barrel is about an inch shorter than the originals I’ve laid mine against, you’ll need to strip the stock and apply an oil finish, sand off the modern markings from the barrel, you will probably find that original bayonets may or may not fit, the metal parts lack the little parts assembly numbers stamped on each piece, the stock isn’t quite as slender and graceful as an original… and so forth.

Here’s what the WATCHDOG had to say about them back in ’99:

Dixie Gun Works M1816/22 “Harper’s Ferry” Flintlock Musket: This is a reproduction of the earliest version of the 1816/22 U.S. flintlock musket, made at both Harper’s Ferry and Springfield, and also by various contractors. The reproduction is made in Italy by Davide Pedersoli Arms Company and is marketed by Dixie Gun Works (DGW). This is a surprisingly good reproduction, featuring a beautiful dark walnut stock with an oil finish. The fit of all the parts is acceptable, although the metal parts are generally more massive than their original counterparts. Most of the 18 16/22 characteristics are faithfully duplicated. The lockplate has correct Harper’s Ferry markings. and the barrel has proper period proof marks. Correct arsenal inspector marks appear on the stock. The modern markings are low on the barrel near the breech. a much less conspicuous location than the usual top of the barrel.

A few additions and changes can make this into a top-notch reproduction. The original frizzen spring had a curve at the rear of the top leaf, which is lacking on this reproduction. Correctly shaped reproduction springs are available from DGW and others. The lockplate and barrel are dated 1816, which was prior to actual production. An engraver can easily change these to read 1818, which was within the production period. The tail of the lockplate should have a smooth curve to a point, which can be fixed by minimal filing. The sling swivel screws should be replaced with rivets. Most Harper’s Ferry muskets had small assembly numbers on the furniture and some screws, which can be reproduced with a steel number stamp set.

The parts will not generally interchange with original parts. This is only a problem concerning the bayonet. The reproduction bayonet is incorrect — it is the style made for various late 1850s conversions. Good original bayonets are available, but will require a lot of grinding to fit over the barrel (maybe more than should be done to an antique), and since the reproduction musket’s barrel is shorter than that of originals, the socket of an original bayonet will extend forward of the muzzle when fixed. We wish the front sight was an actual brass blade like those on original muskets, instead of just an extension of the steel barrel band painted brass color.

Dixie Gun Works M1816/22 Percussion Conversion: Although flintlock versions of this musket were used to some extent very early in the Civil War, by far the most common type of 1816/22 musket used in the war was the percussion conversion. Pedersoli and DGW offer a conversion of their flintlock. All characteristics remain the same, except for removing the frizzen and spring, substituting a percussion hammer for the cock, screwing a drum bolster with musket nipple into the vent, and cutting down the brass pan to match.

We viewed a production version of this gun at DGW, but it showed some details that seemed disturbingly like those of a prototype. The bolster was blackened, not bright like the rest of the gun’s metal components. The period proof marks were missing from the barrel, and the date on the barrel tang read “MIe. 1816,” a decidedly un-American touch.

Our biggest complaint was the alteration method. Pedersoli and DGW chose the Colt drum bolster conversion. True, this is the easiest way to convert the present flintlock reproduction, but this style was not the most common used during the period. From the late 1840s into the 1850s, the arsenals converted over 370,000 of these muskets by the “Belgian,” or cone-in-barrel method. This conversion required plugging the vent and inserting a nipple into a seat made in the barrel above the old vent, with a hammer made especially to reach that nipple. This was the version earned most commonly during the Civil War (although the arsenals did not generally convert the earliest type of 1816/22). In addition to the rarity of the method, the Colt alteration involved rifling and sighting the barrel, as well as changing the markings. These characteristics are absent from the reproduction.

Beyond that, I like mine, it's an educational experience packing and fighting with one of these thins during a weekend's event (especially when it rains!) and it makes a good demonstrator at living histories and similar events. Just be aware what the differences are…

Tom

[Cheyenne]

Re: Pedersoli's 1816 conversion Musket

Tom,

What Bayonet do you use? Seems as though the musket is nice, as are most Pedersoli products, and though I'd like an early weapon, right now it seems hard to justify the extra exspense of the Pedersoli over the Armi Sport 1842.


One thought I had was that the conversion method used by DGW may allow you to convert the musket back to Flintlock, there by giving you two muskets in one. Though this could also be done with the 1842, the 1835 Flintlock musket would be a bit late for Alamo useage, and this would require a complete barrel and lock to accomplish.

Harvey Lane
Co.K, 6th Texas Infantry

[BrianHicks]

Re: Pedersoli's 1816 conversion Musket

It is my understanding, that the choice of the Colt conversion method over the more common (for the period) cone in barrel method, has to do with safety and liabilty issues.

i.e. drilling the hole in the barrel to place the cone can cause microscopic stress lines that might be attributed to a catastrophic rupture of the barrel as a result of the hole being drilled in the barrel, and this is why modern gunsmiths will not use the cone in barrel method to convert a flintlock to percussion.

Discalimor... I'm not a gunsmith.. nor a metallurgist, therfore I can not speak for the voracity of what I have stated above... but, it's what I have been told, and it makes sense to me... has anyone else out there ever heard of anything similar?

[James Masson]

Re: Pedersoli's 1816 conversion Musket

I'm not trying to start a war here but I have seen originals with Belgian conversions used and fired without a blow-out, nor have I ever heard of someone complain of having had or seen a blow-out. I have also never read a period account of a soldier experiencing a blow-out. I think the safety issue is more of a liability issue. Gunsmiths are looking to cover the @ss in case something like this ever happens.

[BrianHicks]

Re: Pedersoli's 1816 conversion Musket

I'm not trying to start a war here but I have seen originals with Belgian conversions used and fired without a blow-out, nor have I ever heard of someone complain of having had or seen a blow-out. I have also never read a period account of a soldier experiencing a blow-out. I think the safety issue is more of a liability issue. Gunsmiths are looking to cover the @ss in case something like this ever happens.

James, your response echoes what mine was, when I first heard the what I stated in my post.

It is unfortunate if fear of liability is the reason for the repro conversions to not be the Belgium Conversions which were much more common on the originals. :(

[48Sarge]

Re: Pedersoli's 1816 conversion Musket

I've spoken to some gunsmith's and gun dealers who have told me that you can have an original in good working condition for only a few hundred more. They are apparently not all that hard to come across either. (Although I've never really went looking for one.) In fact there is one on gunbroker.com now. So if the differences are too much, why not get an original and no that you have the right one?

[Tom Ezell]

Re: Pedersoli's 1816 conversion Musket

Tom,

What Bayonet do you use? Seems as though the musket is nice, as are most Pedersoli products, and though I'd like an early weapon, right now it seems hard to justify the extra expense of the Pedersoli over the Armi Sport 1842.

Probably the wrong one... I forget exactly which model bayonet I ordered from Dixie, but it is an 1840s style that eventually cost about as much as one of those nice Italian bayonets for the '42. I don't use it all that much, and it typically just sort of rides along in the scabbard.

In selecting between the M1816/11822 and an M1842, you need to take a hard look at the impression you are trying to re-create. In my case, it was early-war Arkansas State Troops, with the ability to also portray Missouri State Guard. The weapons that the State Troops drew from the captured Federal Arsenal in Little Rock were flintlock M1822s, and they still had these weapons a year and a half later at Shiloh... where they were noted in three or four different accounts as "bravely striving" to fight in those damp conditions with their old flint-and-steel guns. So for me, at least, it was easy... go get a flintlock M1816. The little relics feller just outside the gate at Stones River NBP had a very nice original for around $1800, but I wound up taking advantage of a winter sale that Dixie offered at that time. The musket, along with a dozen English gunflints (not included wit the Pedersoli gun, btw...) was $646, dropped off at the door by the friendly folks from UPS.

The M1816 is pretty much a specialty gun, and I usually bring it out only for specific events. I also have an M1842 smoothbore tht I use quite a bit for both Confederate and early-war Federal, as well as the all-purpose Enfield to provide a bit of choice in meeting the standards for watever event. If you're looking for one gun to fit the widest variety of needs and want a .69 smoothbore, you are probably better off selecting the M1842.

One thought I had was that the conversion method used by DGW may allow you to convert the musket back to Flintlock, there by giving you two muskets in one. Though this could also be done with the 1842, the 1835 Flintlock musket would be a bit late for Alamo useage, and this would require a complete barrel and lock to accomplish.

That's not quite true... because when you do the percussion conversion you wind up grinding off the pan, filling in the holes with a brass billet, and setting up the hardware to support the conversion parts. Somebody told me back at the time that there was some feller in Texas who could basically set up a rig with two lockplates where you could swap out between the flintlock and Colt conversion models, but in looking into this a little further, I felt that what I would wind up with would be sort of a half-azzed version of each. Plus, the cost of the conversion would pretty much match the cost of just going ahead and getting an M1842 (which I already had). I left the flintlock for what it was, and when I need a percussion-operated pumpkin slinger, then I pack the '42.

Mileage and convenience for other folks, might vary, though...

Tom

[Cheyenne]

Re: Pedersoli's 1816 conversion Musket

Hey Tom,

Right now I'm torn between the two, in a perfect world, I'd get both, one Flinter, and t'other a '42. Right now I'm leaning more towards the '42, but still have not ruled out the 1816/22.....when I mentioned the switching back and forth in ignition methods, I had taken into account the altterations done to the Flint plate when converted and had taken for granted it would require a second lock in Flint.....and my experience with pedersoli is such that the lock plates would be very close and fitting them wouldn't be too much of a chore....with the Bostler scewed out, and a flash hole plug put in, you could use the same barrel....much as DGW did with their "Mountain Rifles".

It has been noted that the bostler style conversion was not very common, but Collector's Firearms in Houston has a pretty nice 1816 conversion that almost mirrors the Pedersoli.

Being somewhat limited in the way of funds, this was viewed as a way to have two serviceable muskets in one, to cover early war and pre-war functions, such as Texas Revolution. The Bostler conversion would lend itself to this, where as the Belgian conversion would not, with out a complete barrel.

I may just go ahead and get the 1842, as I can get the Musket, bayonet, box, and other small 'needful' things, and still have money left over....then at some point, get parts from Lodgewood, the Rifle Shoppe, and elsewhere and build a good 1816 flinter. It would be exspensive, but buying parts over time will take some of the bite out of it, and make it easier to explain to the wife!

http://www.auctionarms.com/search/displayitem.cfm?itemnum=5940970

This is what appears to be a very nice conversion in very good shape. One thing that is noticeable, is that the stock, particularly from the tang back, appear to be much more slender than the Pedersoli......granted I have not had the opportunity to personally examine a Pedersoli, so I do not know if it is considerably larger in these areas, but the few photographs I do see lead me to believe it is.

I appreciate your taking the time to discuss this with me, as it is hard to make an educated decision when you cannot handle the weapon in question until it is delivered, and then it may be too late.

Still undecided as to the exact model, but I am going to get a 69.

YOBS,

Harvey Lane
Co.K, 6th Texas Infantry

[BrianHicks]

Re: Pedersoli's 1816 conversion Musket

Previous discussions here have talked about how prevelent the converted model 1816's were, compared to how many 1842s were manufactured.

I don't recall the exact figures, but I recall that the 1816 conversions outnumbered the 1842s made, by about a 3:1 ratio.

If you do a quick search here on these forums, you may find the numbers...

By the way... I have an M1816 conversion (Colt method) done by Zimmerman on a Pedresoli Flintlock. I've had it for about two years now.

I am very pleased with it, and it has seen good service at early war events.

[Tom Ezell]

Re: Pedersoli's 1816 conversion Musket

Rough numbers are something like 250,000 M1842s manufactured, as compared to a little over a million M1816 models and clones still lying around the various state and federal arsenals at the beginning of 1861. In terms of numbers, the M1816 conversions are the PEC choice. That being said, there's a big difference in the availability of decent 1816 conversions available in the market today.

Tom

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Pedersoli's 1816 conversion Musket

Hallo Kameraden!

I suspect the discussions on this arm can still be found in the archives here and on Szabo's Board?

The Italian "conversion" is not really a "Colt" conversion. Granted, it uses a Colt style bolster (without the Colt stampings on its face), but it does NOT use a Colt conversion hammer.
As such, it is something of "fiction," the fiction being that it resembles some of the "local" gunsmith produced conversions done by/for the Confederacy using a "Colt" style bolster but a "civillian" style hammer.

IMHO, this makes it too rare/limited for most impressions, and "out of the ballpark" for any Federal impression.

Its other problems are obviously "Italian Repro Concept;" the larger one stemming from the fact that the Italians did not "tool up" by using an M1816- but rather appear to have taken the expedient short cut of taking their M1763/66 "Charleville" repro and making a few changes here and there. :-(

As with all Italian repro's, IMHO, they are "decent" and "safe." However, the serve better in a less discerning and demanding market in the first place in general- and fare far better in appearance when NOT compared to or placed next to the originals they are suppposed to copy. (Not reflecting negatively upon anyone's choices, impression, or application. And not making a political statement or looking to repeat or reprise old discussions.)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
We Teach The Italians How To Treat Us Mess

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt