1842 hardware on an 1816 conversion?

[Asher]

Hi gentlemen - just purchased a "relic condition" musket that is supposedly an excavated specimen from around the Prairie Grove battlefield in Arkansas. This story seems plausible to me for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the area around the front sight where the bayonet would go (which comes with it!) is obviously better preserved than the rest of the barrel, indicating to me that it must have been left submerged with the bayonet fixed. I haven't received it yet, but I'm already rather perplexed by it. It appears to be an 1816 conversion lock with a Belgian conversion. The perplexing part is that it appears to have mostly 1842 model metal parts on it (left side plate, front band, trigger guard, ramrod, stock). I'm confused as to how this would even happen, unless there was just a surplus of random 1842 parts lying around when they put it together. The wear and pitting on all the metal parts, 1816 and 1842 alike, is consistent.

One amazing point is that the stock is in extremely good condition for having been submerged in mud for who knows how long, while the metal is quite pitted, but still distinguishable.

Any thoughts on how this odd combination could have happened?

 

[KABAR2]

Photos will help ID it.... there are BOTH M1842 Flint lock muskets and Percussion muskets and percussion conversion muskets..... The M1842 Flint lock uses the same furniture as the M1842 percussion musket.... stock should look like a 42 not a 16 with low comb.... hope this helps.....

 

[Asher]

Yes, I will post pictures when I can (can't do it from this computer). It does have a high comb '42 stock, it appears. But the lock plate does not have a rounded rear like the '42 lock plate, it is pointed like a '16 should be, and slightly "mounded" overall, as the earlier ones were.

 

[Trot]

I believe all 1842's were made in percussion, it was the model 1840 that was a flintlock.

 

[Asher]

You may have hit on something there - I've heard of the 1840, and just looked at some pictures of some. That just may fit the bill! Here are some pictures. These are not my pictures, I'm just posting the ones the guy sent me, I will definitely try to get some better pics when it actually arrives.

Pretty rough, but when you consider that this is an excavated example, sitting in the mud for who-knows-how-long, it's actually not that bad. It'll make a good display, which is what I'd like it for, as a part of a timeline of firearms.

 

[pathfinder Ted]

I am in no way an expert on excavated item's,but I do have a rather extensive background in wood restoration(furniture)but that wood look's AWFULLY good as compared to the extensivly cleaned metal. Extremlly tight inlettingand no real discoloration from the meatal to the wood. But then the pictures are not that telling anyway. Interested to see more pic's after you get them.

 

[Many Klatch]

That metal surely looks like metal that has been boiled in a bucket of bleach. It is awfully even, I hope there isn't a lot of money involved in this.

Many Klatch

 

[varsity07840]

It's definitely an 1840. AKA 1835

 

[Tumblernotch]

Model 1835 Springfield Musket. Some writers refer to it as the M1840. 30,421 of this model were made at Springfield between 1840 and 1844. None were made at Harpers Ferry. Two contractors are known to have made the M1835; Lemuel Pomeroy and Daniel Nippes. Nippes produced these until 1847, 3 years after the M1842 went into production at Springfield.

In 1842, an unknown number of M1835's were rifled and equipped with a large version of the sight used on the early M1855 rifle-muskets for experimental purposes. It is referred to as the Flintlock Rifled Musket Model 1842.

 

[Asher]

Great info, thanks y'all! Many Klatch, what do you mean by boiled in bleach? Are you suggesting that it could have been artificially pitted to sell it as an "excavated relic"? Considering the battlefield it is reported to have been found on/near, it seems rather unlikely, I'd think. Plus, a nice example certainly goes for more than a relic.

But no, I don't have much in it yet. I paid $316 including shipping, and I'll probably try to put some of the missing parts into her.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

It's definitely an 1840. AKA 1835

That is exactly right.

 

[Many Klatch]

Asher, I have seen knives that were artificially aged by dipping them into a solution of boiling bleach. The rust pattern on this gun sure seems similar.

I hope I'm wrong, I guess I'm just the suspicious sort.

Many Klatch

 

[pathfinder Ted]

Wood looks too nice to me. And the overall eveness to the piting as well. But as I get older,I'm getting used to being wrong!

 

[Tumblernotch]

The pitting is typical of wrought iron that has been exposed to certain soils. I've got a buttplate here that is in the same condition. Somebody has gone over this musket good with a angle grinder with a wire brush on it though. In some soil conditions, wood can be well preserved. Look at some relics dug in Europe. I'm not sure the same conditions exist in Arkansas.

 

[Asher]

I received the musket today, and have good news and bad news. Good news is, the pitting isn't as bad as I'd expected from the photos, or at least not as deep. Bad news is, some of these parts, in particular the butt plate, rear band, front band, and bayonet, have all been painted silver. In the pictures, I thought it was simply a good job of stripping the rust off. I haven't had much time to inspect or take pictures yet, but the stock is confusing me a little. There is a small gap on the top and bottom of the lock plate towards the rear that made me think this was actually an 1842 stock that someone cut a notch out of to fit the M1835/40 lock into, but after taking the lock out, it looks almost like the lock inletting may just be boogered up some. All internal parts are missing, as expected, as are the middle band with the swivel, the tang screw, the nipple, and the hammer screw.

Interesting thoughts on the stock and metal deterioration, thanks for the inputs. I'm still not sure what to think of it, but for now it's at least a restoration candidate. I'll post pictures as soon as I can take them along with more details... got more pressing things on my schedule, I'm afraid!

 

[Asher]

I'm afraid I don't know much about the interoperability of the parts between the 1835/40 and the 1842... would internals from the latter work in the former? And the other parts previously mentioned?

 

[varsity07840]

I'm afraid I don't know much about the interoperability of the parts between the 1835/40 and the 1842... would internals from the latter work in the former? And the other parts previously mentioned?

Call S&S Firearms and ask them. 718-497-1100

 

[Tumblernotch]

I received the musket today, and have good news and bad news. Good news is, the pitting isn't as bad as I'd expected from the photos, or at least not as deep. Bad news is, some of these parts, in particular the butt plate, rear band, front band, and bayonet, have all been painted silver. In the pictures, I thought it was simply a good job of stripping the rust off. I haven't had much time to inspect or take pictures yet, but the stock is confusing me a little. There is a small gap on the top and bottom of the lock plate towards the rear that made me think this was actually an 1842 stock that someone cut a notch out of to fit the M1835/40 lock into, but after taking the lock out, it looks almost like the lock inletting may just be boogered up some. All internal parts are missing, as expected, as are the middle band with the swivel, the tang screw, the nipple, and the hammer screw.

Interesting thoughts on the stock and metal deterioration, thanks for the inputs. I'm still not sure what to think of it, but for now it's at least a restoration candidate. I'll post pictures as soon as I can take them along with more details... got more pressing things on my schedule, I'm afraid!

If the gap between the lock and stock was more uniform, I would attribute it to wood shrinkage. A lot of old muskets have this problem. Being in a small area, it could still be shrinkage but more likely at some point, somebody used a screwdriver or knife to pry the lock loose if it was stuck in the mortise. Any kind of accident could cause damage around the mortise. The locks are different in shape. As you can see the '35 has a rounded rear face with a pointed tail. The '42 is a flat faced beveled plate with the tail being more rounded. The dimensions are close. The '35 plate is 6-1/4" long and 1-3/16" wide at its widest point which would be just behind the pan fence. The '42 plate is 6-1/8" long and 1-1/4" wide at its widest point, just behind the bolster which is about the same place as the pan fence on the '35. So if this lock was put on a '42 stock, there should be at least a gap of 1/16" between the lock and lock panel in the stock plus possible shrinkage. If the lock centers in the wood, that would be 1/32" at the top and the same at the bottom. The '35 plate is longer than the '42 by 1/8", so to make it fit, someone would have to remove a little wood on one or both ends to fit the '42 stock. Again, shrinkage may play a small part. Remove the lock and look for any signs of recent wood removal in these areas. The internals are similiar, but not exactly the same. Most old muskets, especially those in relic condition have mortises that look like beavers had lived in them.

I just looked again at your pictures. Should've before I answered. The lock/stock fitting is correct. That is just damage at the rear of the lock. Top and bottom fit looks fine except for maybe a little shrinkage at the bottom.

 

[Asher]

Thanks Kanawha, those dimensions help a lot. I have managed to identify the markings on the lock face as "L. Pomeroy" below the eagle (mostly gone from pitting) and the US below an 1844 date to the rear of the hammer. Pictures of another original example of a contract 1835/40 seem to match the cartouches on the left side of the stock as well (at least one of them matches, I'll post pictures of those too, maybe some of y'all have a better idea of the inspector's initials). Will take better pictures, hopefully tonight. Still an odd duck, but more of the pieces of the puzzle are coming together! Thanks again for y'alls inputs...

http://www.tortugatrading.com/engine/inspect.asp?Item=563&Filter=Archive

 

[Tumblernotch]

Glad to be of some service. Interesting piece for sure. If you're careful, you may be able to remove the paint without messing up the finish underneath. It'll still be pitted but at least the bare iron will be exposed. That paint looked like somebody went after it hard with a cup brush on an angle grinder.