Anyone help with a little ID?

aerwin said:

Hey folks! New here and I could use some pro info please from people who know!
I recently aquired a flintlock rifle that I've been trying to figure out. I dont know flintlocks at all. It has all the physical aspects of a Springfield 1816, no rifling, and no markings at all, exept for a date (1817) on the top of the butt plate. I've done some reading about these and dont see that they came in anything other than .69 cal. but my micrometer reads .713?? Does anyone know about these?
Thanks !!!

Click to expand...

stubshaft said:

Looks like an 1816 to me, however, the lock is not marked. The bore could have been "refreshed" to a larger size.

Click to expand...

Loyalist Dave said:

Didn't some rifled muskets get "converted" to smooth bore right after the ACW, to include obsolete stuff left in Southern and Northern armories ??

LD

Click to expand...

flconch53 said:

I have seen caplock muskets converted from 58 cal to twenty gauge. That 1816 was never a rifle. Bore may have been polished but for guns that old it is not terribly oversize.

Click to expand...

aerwin said:

Hey thanks....
So, this could be normal for a .69 cal?

Click to expand...

flconch53 said:

Normal wear. I would bet it is closer to size down in the bore.

Click to expand...

Clark Badgett said:

Well, what you have appears to be a parts gun. The trigger guard is from either a French 1766 or US 1795 type 1. The stock profile is of 1816 type 1 or 1812 type 3, or a heavily altered earlier style. The lock is not an Arsenal product. Don’t get wrapped around the barrel bore size. .69” was the minimum size it could be, many are up around .71” in reality. You have what a lot of people call a private purchase militia musket.

Click to expand...