Russian Infantry Musket model 1845

the hawken shop
shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Voltigeur_de_la_Garde

Voltigeur_de_la_Garde

32 Cal
Joined
Jan 6, 2024
Messages
27
Reaction score
47
Location
Schweiz (Switzerland)
After conversion of flintlock muskets to percussion had begun one year earlier, the model of 1845 was the first purpose-built percussion firearm adopted by the Imperial Russian army. It was essentially a copy of the french musket mle.1842 with brass fittings.
Curiously, with the conversion of the old flintlocks to percussion their barrels were bored out, from .70 to .71 cal.
Apparently, I have found no official sources confirming this, because the old barrels were in a terrible state and instead of replacing them, the rusty and pitted barrels were simply bored out. This might explain why Russian muskets in Crimea had an uncanny tendency to blow up. But I digress.

The new muskets were built from the outset with .71 cal. barrels.
According to V.E. Markevic's "Handbook of Ammunition and Weapons" the musket fired a .625 round ball over a 138 grain powdercharge. It weighs 4,15kg without and 4,6kg with the bayonet.

Tsar Nicolas I. and his son Alexander personally participated in the trials of the new musket.
They each fired 30 rounds after wich the Tsar announced that: "While shooting, both of us have noticed neither strong recoil nor a tiring of the shoulder."

Test shooting with trained soldiers at targets 1 Arshin 14 Wershoks (4.36 feet) wide and 2 Arshins 12 Wershoks (6.39 feet) high have shown the following hit rates:

At 150 paces: 60%
At 200 paces: 50%
At 250 paces: 40%
At 300 paces: 30%

My Musket was built in 1849 as clearly marked on the lock plate. The letters above the year stand for
"mу́льский оруже́йный заво́д" or "Tula Arms Factory".
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    2.2 MB
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    2.3 MB
  • 3.jpg
    3.jpg
    2.1 MB
  • 4.jpg
    4.jpg
    1.3 MB
  • 5.jpg
    5.jpg
    1.5 MB
  • 6.jpg
    6.jpg
    56.4 KB
  • scale_1200.jpg
    scale_1200.jpg
    151.9 KB
Last edited:
Nice musket ! I have a rifled 1845/53 musket made in Izhevsk in 1854, found complete but in a very poor condition (but I restored it) something like 25 years ago on a flea market in Paris for a very fair price. Given the fact that old russian weapons are really hard to find and the place I discovered it, I think it's probably a rifle brought back by some french veteran from Crimea. I'd be glad to present it if you find it interesting !
 
Voltigeur_de_la_Garde said:
After conversion of flintlock muskets to percussion had begun one year earlier, the model of 1845 was the first purpose-built percussion firearm adopted by the Imperial Russian army. It was essentially a copy of the french musket mle.1842 with brass fittings.
Curiously, with the conversion of the old flintlocks to percussion their barrels were bored out, from .70 to .71 cal.
Apparently, I have found no official sources confirming this, because the old barrels were in a terrible state and instead of replacing them, the rusty and pitted barrels were simply bored out. This might explain why Russian muskets in Crimea had an uncanny tendency to blow up. But I digress.

The new muskets were built from the outset with .71 cal. barrels.
According to V.E. Markevic's "Handbook of Ammunition and Weapons" the musket fired a .625 round ball over a 138 grain powdercharge. It weighs 4,15kg without and 4,6kg with the bayonet.

Tsar Nicolas I. and his son Alexander personally participated in the trials of the new musket.
They each fired 30 rounds after wich the Tsar announced that: "While shooting, both of us have noticed neither strong recoil nor a tiring of the shoulder."

Test shooting with trained soldiers at targets 1 Arshin 14 Wershoks (4.36 feet) wide and 2 Arshins 12 Wershoks (6.39 feet) high have shown the following hit rates:

At 150 paces: 60%
At 200 paces: 50%
At 250 paces: 40%
At 300 paces: 30%

My Musket was built in 1849 as clearly marked on the lock plate. The letters above the year stand for
"mу́льский оруже́йный заво́д" or "Tula Arms Factory".
Click to expand...
Some turn up in the UK as trophies of the Crimean War if only noted converted ones '
Rudyard
 
Rudyard said:
Some turn up in the UK as trophies of the Crimean War if only noted converted ones '
Rudyard
Click to expand...
Not only in the UK... France was also highly involved in this conflict. And that's why I think it's the reason why I found my own Russian 1845 musket on a flea market in Paris. I'll introduce it later, when I understand how to do it properly...
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20241108_103015.jpg
    IMG_20241108_103015.jpg
    2.2 MB
Rudyard said:
Some turn up in the UK as trophies of the Crimean War if only noted converted ones '
Rudyard
Click to expand...
Not only in the UK... France was also highly involved in this conflict. And that's why I think it's the reason why I found my own Russian 1845 musket on a flea market in Paris. I'll introduce it later, when I understand how to do it properly...
 
Laurent Devaux said:
Not only in the UK... France was also highly involved in this conflict. And that's why I think it's the reason why I found my own Russian 1845 musket on a flea market in Paris. I'll introduce it later, when I understand how to do it properly...
Click to expand...
Wow what a beauty! I had read that some of these Muskets were rifled but I have never seen one outside of drawings, and in such nice condition! Congrats on your find.
 
Voltigeur_de_la_Garde said:
Wow what a beauty! I had read that some of these Muskets were rifled but I have never seen one outside of drawings, and in such nice condition! Congrats on your find.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your compliments ! In fact, the 1845 musket got a rifled version in 1853, hence the date of mine. I understand why you only saw one on drawings, as it seems few were made. Well, that's what I guess, as since I bought it, I never saw another one. Some "pure" 1845 like yours (beautiful too), I did see a handful on British websites, but a 1845/53, never. And here in France, even less. To tell how rare it is, until now I still didn't find its bayonet... I'll post more pics when the website will allow me and explain how I restored it.
 
Laurent Devaux said:
Thanks for your compliments ! In fact, the 1845 musket got a rifled version in 1853, hence the date of mine. I understand why you only saw one on drawings, as it seems few were made. Well, that's what I guess, as since I bought it, I never saw another one. Some "pure" 1845 like yours (beautiful too), I did see a handful on British websites, but a 1845/53, never. And here in France, even less. To tell how rare it is, until now I still didn't find its bayonet... I'll post more pics when the website will allow me and explain how I restored it.
Click to expand...
I found that a french mle.1822 bayonet fits perfectly on my 1845. Not the real thing, but certainly looks cool.
 
Voltigeur_de_la_Garde said:
I found that a french mle.1822 bayonet fits perfectly on my 1845. Not the real thing, but certainly looks cool.
Click to expand...
That's very interesting, but to tell the truth, I feel quite puzzled. Until a few weeks, I didn't seriously look after a 1822 bayonet though I posess a 1822 Tbis rifle since nearly twenty years, maybe because this bayonet is still quite common in France (but beware of Belgian versions, often mistaken for French...), and most importantly because I wanted one in a nearly perfect condition... fortunately I found one last month on a flea market in Burgundy for only 40 euros, rusted and very dirty (hence the price), but after a thorough cleaning and a light sanding, it came almost perfect, as I wanted it should be... so when I read your post, guess what ? I tried it on my Russian 1845/53, and no way, it just can be inserted "halfway"... but it fits perfectly my 1822 Tbis rifle. And that's not the first attempt with this kind of bayonet : long before, I tried with my An IX (a very early one made in Klingenthal between 1803 and 1805, by the way...), with the same result. But this An IX bayonet fits perfectly on my An IX dragoon musket...
So there are only two possibilities : either -because you managed to put a French 1822 on your Russian musket- the Russian arms plants had quite large tolerance margins, which won't be surprising given the underdevelopment of this country at these times, either the rifled version of the 1845 musket has a slightly larger caliber. That's possible, as if we take the French 1822 musket, the Tbis rifled version has indeed a higher caliber than the classic (and so rare...) flintlock 1822 musket, the difference being the French manufactures kept the original barrel when possible, and when it wasn't, made new ones, but with the same external dimensions. What is your opinion ?

1822 1..jpg
 
Laurent Devaux said:
That's very interesting, but to tell the truth, I feel quite puzzled. Until a few weeks, I didn't seriously look after a 1822 bayonet though I posess a 1822 Tbis rifle since nearly twenty years, maybe because this bayonet is still quite common in France (but beware of Belgian versions, often mistaken for French...), and most importantly because I wanted one in a nearly perfect condition... fortunately I found one last month on a flea market in Burgundy for only 40 euros, rusted and very dirty (hence the price), but after a thorough cleaning and a light sanding, it came almost perfect, as I wanted it should be... so when I read your post, guess what ? I tried it on my Russian 1845/53, and no way, it just can be inserted "halfway"... but it fits perfectly my 1822 Tbis rifle. And that's not the first attempt with this kind of bayonet : long before, I tried with my An IX (a very early one made in Klingenthal between 1803 and 1805, by the way...), with the same result. But this An IX bayonet fits perfectly on my An IX dragoon musket...
So there are only two possibilities : either -because you managed to put a French 1822 on your Russian musket- the Russian arms plants had quite large tolerance margins, which won't be surprising given the underdevelopment of this country at these times, either the rifled version of the 1845 musket has a slightly larger caliber. That's possible, as if we take the French 1822 musket, the Tbis rifled version has indeed a higher caliber than the classic (and so rare...) flintlock 1822 musket, the difference being the French manufactures kept the original barrel when possible, and when it wasn't, made new ones, but with the same external dimensions. What is your opinion ?

View attachment 364565
Click to expand...

I think the answer is a lot simpler.
My Musket is quite worn out. I guess the half millimeter of steel that prevents you from fitting the 1822 bayonet has simply rusted away on my gun
20241129_134835.jpg
 
Voltigeur_de_la_Garde said:
I think the answer is a lot simpler.
My Musket is quite worn out. I guess the half millimeter of steel that prevents you from fitting the 1822 bayonet has simply rusted away on my gunView attachment 365072
Click to expand...
Not that simple, I'm afraid... indeed your musket has seen a heavy service, but I think it may not be the main reason. Russian muskets were notoriously poorly maintained (not to mention that the iron and steel used were far from having the quality of their French and British counterparts...), but at the same time, they were frequently and energetically polished to keep a good appearance, resulting sometimes in terrible barrel burstings as they got thinner and thinner (I saw some pics of such damaged 1845 muskets, better not ask what was the fate of the poor soldier who fired it...). I guess that's what happened to your musket, who fortunately didn't explode before it was captured... as mine, made in 1854, was surely captured too during the Crimean war, it didn't have time to have this kind of problem, and even after I re-polished the very slightly pitted barrel (beginning with metal files, and finishing it with sand paper of different grits, but I'll show that later, it seems as I'm quite new here, I still can't post my own contributions), there was still no way to fix my bayonets, whether An IX or 1822.
By the way, I have a doubt about your bayonet, as, like I said before, many other countries copied the French model, and I'm not sure yours is French, just because the number stamped on the socket, a thing French army never did. There was indeed an identification number stamped from 1826 on in the French army, but it was always at a very specific place (look at the pic I posted, you can see it very clearly). Such numbering was typical of Swiss army however, so maybe yours has been made there. Anyway, Swiss or not, a very interesting and not that common bayonet !
 

Similar threads

Voltigeur_de_la_Garde
Russian M1856 Marksman’s Rifle
Replies
5
Views
761
rickystl
R
BigSkyRambler
  • Locked
WITHDRAWN Norwegian Model 1774/41/51 Rifled Musket
Replies
4
Views
733
Rudyard
R

Latest posts

Back
Top