"42 Springfield with pitted barrel. I still shoot

This musket has been in use it's entire life (1850). Bore is mild to medium pitted. I believe it is iron and I proof tested it about 20 yrs ago when I my Dad wanted to use it to kill armadillos. I loaded it up with about 320 FF, lots of newspaper and an entire handful of # 8 shot. With the pull of the string it blew off a healthy four inch diameter pine limb. Creaking noises then a fall. I gave him a bayonet and a giant bag of OO and he would shoot and fling the carcass. I like this gun and it throws an awsome 9 or 12 00 buck. Can't use a patch of coarse. I wan't a second opinion of wether it is safe as a new generation is is coming of age and I wan't them to enjoy. I did try to blow it up. Any of you with old iron barrels please let me know your experience.

 

[Tumblernotch]

It may be a good idea to have it X-Ray'd or have some other tests performed if there is much pitting. You really want to look for cracking around the breech area. The barrel of the M1842 was welded in mechanical rolls which made a stronger barrel with fewer failures in proof and service than the earlier hand welded barrels. Also, the quality of the iron used had greatly improved. They generally used the best iron available. Wrought iron doesn't rust as easily as steel, but will rust if not cared for properly. By the time that this gun was made, the inspection process was quite strict and the barrel will be properly marked showing that it passed proof. If there are any flaws, they will be from wear and/or abuse. I'd have it checked just to be on the safe side.

The original proof charge was two separate shots:

First: 1/18th lb. of powder (about 389 grs.), 1 Ball and 2 Wads.

Second: 1/22nd lb. of powder (about 318 grs.), 1 Ball and 2 Wads.

Note: The powder charge was, according to the Manual, supposed to be the best quality musket powder. Now this powder was coarser than most of the powder than we use now. Probably a little coarser than ffg. So, if you use fffg., it's going to be a hotter load. Also, today's powder could be a hotter powder, though I don't have any vintage powder to compare to. So, I would not use this same proof charge with modern Black Powder!

As for using a patch. Do you mean a patched round ball? You can certainly use these with a smoothbore. If the bore is so rough that it tears the patch, however, you probably shouldn't be shooting it.

 

[musketman]

It may be a good idea to have it X-Ray'd or have some other tests performed if there is much pitting. You really want to look for cracking around the breech area.

What we did in the Air Force for aircraft engine parts was to wash the part in a weak (diluted) florescent water based paint, then wipe the surface clean...

Then we would shine a black light on it, any cracks will show up where the florescent paint stayed behind after wiping...

There is no reason why this wouldn't work on gun metal...

 

[Tumblernotch]

I'd say that would work. We used the same technique on load hooks on cranes when I was in construction. Forgot about that. There is also a procedure called MagnaFluxing that did a similiar thing using a powder and magnetics. I don't know how well that would work on a barrel. It's been years since I've seen either done.
:agree:

 

Wow, I can't believe it didn't blow up in in the mid 1980's when I put that massive charge in it. I can't imagine another 60 grns. Never tried a pached roundball with it because because it has always been just a "pest" gun. Dad has been gone for years now and I still use it for snakes and such. It is not in as bad condition as I presented. A reenactor would think it is great. I use 80 FF and 9-12 OO buck. I had no idea it had a seam. The breach and bolster area do not show any undo stress, wear or such. Full original proofs are present. I am now concerned that this musket has a seam. I will keep it for myself and let kids shoot others. I wan't to be like Dad... Shoot and fling. What a sight! And the look on his face! He was on the Marine Corp. Rifle Team and one of the Chosen Few. He was "The Marine Sniper" in the Korean war. They penned these Marines up after they were evacuated. He did not like shooting men of coarse, but he really liked the musket.My Mom,( A Marine also), and by the way looks like Granny from the Beverly Hillbillys, would and still does jump up and down yelling kill it as she points at the armidillos digging in the lawn. It will be a wall hanger after I pass. :thanks:

 

[Tumblernotch]

If it is in good shape, there shouldn't be a problem using it. You can also shoot it with a bare ball and just a paper wad over it to keep it from rolling out, and it will be fairly accurate out to 50-75 yards. Use about 75-80 grs. A cloth patched ball will work fine as well.

These barrels were all seamed, even up into the M1855 and M1861's. The M1842's barrel was rolled and welded using progressive rolls and were much stronger and thicker than the earlier smoothbore barrels. If you can see the seam there may be a problem because it shouldn't be visible unless the weld has weakened and it's starting to separate.

:thumbsup:

 

[benvenuto]

that roll welding process was pretty strong if I recall right - better than any smith welded barrel thats for sure!

X ray examination or dye penetration test should work fine. if you have a local technical college with a materials science class in session, they'll probably do it for you for free!

was it remington who first started drilling barrels fom solid, then forging them out to length?

 

[dlemaster]

If I remember correctly in Claud Fuller's "The Rifled Musket" that barrels for the 1842 Model and onward were made from short iron billets that were drilled for the rough bore and subsequently put through a series of rollers to draw them out to full length. Then they were finished inside and out. This would mean there is no "seam" as we know it such as in a forge welded barrel from a skelp.

Regards, Dave

 

[Tumblernotch]

I believe you're right there, at least as far as Springfield produced muskets are concerned. I believe that as late as 1845 at least, Harper's Ferry Armory was still forging barrels with trip hammers and turning them in lathes. I need to look deeper. I do know that the HP Armory was somewhat behind Springfield and that up until 1845 was still producing the M1816. Springfield had begun production of the M1842 the year before. I know that almost all the armories (including contractors) were using drilled blanks rolled out in suceeding sizes of rolls using a mandrel by the 1860's, I just plain forgot.

Colt's factory was making barrels using both technologies. Skelps were welded then rolled using a process invented by the English barrel maker Osborne. This was used in making many Enfield barrels as well. So, if you run across a Special Model 1861 RM by Colt, it probably has a seam in the barrel although after being put through the rolling process, it wouldn't be quite the same as a seam in an early musket.

I don't have Fuller's Rifled Musket . I do have his Springfield Shoulder Arms and it doesn't mention when Springfield switched over to rolling their barrels. The musket we're talking about, being made in 1850 probably does have a seamless barrel.
:thumbsup:

 

[dlemaster]

KR
Where abouts in WV are you from? My wife was born near Welch in the Southern part of the state but grew up in Southwest Virgina at Saltville.
Fuller's book has a period illustration of the machinery used in barrel making.
I agree that Harpers Ferry ran a little behind Springfield.
I have an 1855 Model Rifle Musket made at Harpers Ferry that is dated 1857. I haven't found any records from Harpers Ferry for 1855 Models prior to 1858 and I haven't seen any rifles or rifle muskets from there dated before 1857. While I have seen several 1855 Model Rifle Muskets from Springfield dated 1855. I have always assumed the delay was caused by the time it took for tooling up after development and adoption at Springfield.
As I recall the number of Rifle Muskets produced at Harpers Ferry in 1858 was fairly low (compared to Springfield) so Rifle Muskets dated 1857 were probably even more scarce.
If anyone has information on the 1855 Models produced at Harpers Ferry in or before 1857 I would sure appreciate it if you are willing to share that information.

Regards, Dave

 

[Tumblernotch]

I'm up in Putnam County. I need to get a copy of that book. I have some books with drawings but nothing detailed.

Hang on to that M1855! I have the production tables of all of Harper's Ferry's output and they show that that Armory didn't produce any M1855 Rifle Muskets until 1857 and then only 1 in that year! The total for 1858 jumped to 8,581 then dropped to 6,489 in 1859, then back up to 7,349 in 1860, along with 190 M1842's. I'd say that most of these were destroyed when the yankees stationed there burned the Arsenal in 1861. I have no records of production in 1861 before it's capture by the Confederates, but more were produced after that time for the South before the machinery was moved to Richmond and Fayetteville.

Seriously, I'd do some checking on that gun! You may have a rarity. Look and see if it is stamped as a Model Musket. I reckon I'd better quit cause... ff:

Have a good'un! :thumbsup:

 

[varsity07840]

I shoot a flint 1816 that's been relined by Bob Hoyt. I limit it to 80 gr 2F, a fber wad and a patched .678 ball.

 

Thanks Guys, I have Fuller's "The Rifled Musket". If I open this book I can't put it down for hours. I even gave a copy to my Dad. He most likely never read it. However, for guys like us it is so very interesting. Again, Thanks. The discussion on Barrel Manufacture and its relation to when and where and so on was very interesting. I really mean that, it's the kind of stuff I like to read. :thanks:

 

[dlemaster]

KW
Would you mind giving me your source for the data for Harpers Ferry? Part of me wanted to jump up and down when I read in your post about 1 Rifle Musket for 1857, but I've been in this game so long I am also a skeptic.
The rifle musket I own is marked just like every other 1855 Model I've seen, nothing special, both the lock and barrel are dated 1857. I have owned this gun for 32 years. It came into a gun shop where I worked in central Ohio. It had been in a fire and needed some restoration. I traded the shop owner a .45/70 rifle cut down to a carbine for it. I carried it for several years while I was in a Civil War reenactment group. It always drew lots of comments you never saw a Model 1855 in the field in those days. I used it in drills and marches, my "battle" rifle was an Austrian Lorenz, didn't want to damage the 1855 Model.

G. W. Gill
I know what you mean about Fuller's book. I got my first copy at Waldon's Books for $6.00 in a closeout sale 32 years ago a 4 or 5th edition. Then about 5 years ago I walked into a little book shop and found an original first edition with the dust jacket for $15.00 just couldn't pass it up.

All my best, Dave

 

[Tumblernotch]

Why not at all! I got it from "Harper's Ferry Armory and the New Technology; The Challenge of Change" by Merritt Roe Smith , published by Cornell University Press, 1977.

This is a heavily researched book with many sources, but as with any book, it is possible that the entry was a typo or there was a mistake in the original records. The table is highly detailed and quite complete covering the years from 1801 to 1860. It includes figures for each year the following applicable items:

Flintlock Muskets, Percussion Muskets (M1842), Rifled Muskets (M1855), Flintlock Rifles (M1803/14), Percussion Rifles (M1841,M1855), Pistols, Pattern Arms, Verifying Instruments, Miscellaneous Products, Accoutrements, appendages and extra parts, Alterations and Repairs, Output in Musket Equivalents, Number of Production Workers, Output (musket equivalents) per production worker, Ordnance Dept. estimate per musket and Writer's estimate of cost per musket in Dollars at Harper's Ferry. It appears that the table was compiled by the writer from data gathered from three primary sources. Those sources are:

American State Papers: Military Affairs (2:481; 5:913-923)

Ordnance Reports , Stephen Benet (2:230)

Annual Reports of the Secretary of War in the Congressional Serial Set.

He said in the footnote that where possible, the figures were checked and verified with the appropriate archival records of the Office of the Chief of Ordnance (OCO, entries 5, 21 and 1003).

I know that is a lot of stuff, but if you want to research the history of your musket, you need all the info you can get. I'm not sure how to get in touch with the proper people to read those sources.

I know how you feel about getting hopeful that you have something rare or special and getting let down. Been there. All I can say is, the table in the book shows only one M1855 RM made in 1857 along with 10 M1855 rifles and 1 Pattern rifle. If I find any new info I will let you know. I personally would think that more than 1 rifle musket would have been made that year and that possibly records showing that may have been lost when the arsenal was burned. Regardless of that, I feel that there wouldn't be very many of them in existence because the number made was probably small to start with and a good number may have been among those destroyed in 1861. I hope you get good news about your musket and you get to enjoy it for a long time.
:thumbsup:

 

[dlemaster]

G. W. Gill
This thread reminded me that many years ago (about the time I got the 1855 Model) I went to friends gun shop who knew I was really into Civil War guns at the time. He told me he had some thing to show me and brought out an absolutely mint condition 1842 Model musket marked 1846 or 47 (I can't remember which) Harpers Ferry. It was so good I thought it was a reproduction! If I remember right he wanted $500.00, but I was newly married and money was tight. Even though I have always regretted not getting it, it was probably for the best I didn't get it, I probably could not have kept myself from shooting it.

Regards, Dave

 

Thanks Guys, I am interested in the manufacture of barells and such. Continue here as interested parties are following. Thanks. G. W. ( PS. It is a good old rough barelled musket. I will retire it at the end of this generation.) :thanks: