Converted Muskets

[musketman]

Are percussion converted flintlock muskets worth owning?

Imaged below is a .69 caliber US Model 1816 "Type III", converted to percussion in the early 1850's...

I have one just like the musket that is pictured, except for the brass, mine was converted in 1849...

Can we overlook the "flintlock" that it once was and be happy with the way they are?

I can...

Who else has a converted flintlock?

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

I don't have my conversion anymore, but not because I thought of it as a second class citizen. My feeling is that these conversions are every bit as valid as an historical artifact as an unaltered gun would be. It was altered in period and served as a soldier's best friend. And the history it must have seen. The only loss here is that it can't speak.
:m2c:

 

[Tumblernotch]

Sure they are! I once had to pass up on an M1816 that had been converted to the Maynard Primer by Remington. I wanted to cry. The guy just wanted $250 for it and it was almost like new. But I just didn't have the moola.

If someone wants it in original flint, I suppose he could "re-convert" it to flint if he could find the right lock, but doing so will de-value the gun. The conversion itself was a part of history. I myself can overlook it, in fact, I picture the armorers taking them from the racks one at a time and doing their work on them.

I don't have one now, but I once owned an 1854 Austrian Lorenz that had been converted to flint!

You say yours doesn't have the brass patch on the lock? Was it a bolster conversion?

:thumbsup:

 

[musketman]

You say yours doesn't have the brass patch on the lock? Was it a bolster conversion?

It has a patch where the pan was, it is just not brass...

It is the same metal as the lock plate and it is almost flawless, very hard to see the seam, the work was extraordinary...

 

[Tumblernotch]

You should post a picture. All of these that I've seen have a brass patch in the pan cutout. I'd like to see that! Do you think a contractor or individual did it? Ordnance records indicate that all of their arsenal conversions used brass, although I'm sure that there were some variations. You might have a pretty rare one.

I know it was cheaper to braze a brass patch on, but you'd think that the government would have opted to weld iron like yours. Then again, they did thousands of them and I guess the appearance didn't matter.
:thumbsup:

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

When converting the M1816 muskets with their brass pans, the pan was removed from the plate along with the frizzen and spring, the screw holes for the frizzen and frizzen spring as well as the spring stud hole were filled. The complete pan section of the M1816 also functioned as part of the lockplate's bolster so the actual pan was cut off and dressed and the remaninder was replaced on the plate. Usually the depression in the pan where the priming charge went was filled by soldering in a small plug so the top looks flat but you can usually see a variation in the color of the insert when compared to rest of the pan's remains. If you check the photo in the first post in this thread you can plainly see the "plug" in the pan.

I'm a big fan of smoothbored military muskets and am glad to hear at least some people taking the position of leaving them in their percussion form - in the past, most collectors knocked themselves out trying to get parts to "put them back" and I think that was very short sighted. Good thread guys.

 

[Tumblernotch]

That's right. You might as well use what is there to start with. That makes me think that Musketman's conversion may actually be an 1812 Model if the pan recess was replaced with an iron patch. Or possibly a completely re-worked plate. That model had an iron pan forged as part of the plate. What do you think, Musketman?

I'm enjoying this thread myself. We have a mystery here and like you, I really "dig" these old punkin' slingers.
:thumbsup:

 

[musketman]

That's right. You might as well use what is there to start with. That makes me think that Musketman's conversion may actually be an 1812 Model if the pan recess was replaced with an iron patch. Or possibly a completely re-worked plate. That model had an iron pan forged as part of the plate. What do you think, Musketman?

I'm enjoying this thread myself. We have a mystery here and like you, I really "dig" these old punkin' slingers.
:thumbsup:

My musket has "1838" stamped on it for a date, and the steel patch has been in place since the conversion, it has aged the same as the main lock...

I am wondering if the gunsmith that did the conversion just didn't reuse the same metal from the pan to forge the patch... :hmm:

I'll pull the lock off and scan the patched area tomorrow if time allowes...

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

By the date you do have an 1816. The M1816 has a fenceless, inclined brass pan so it should be brass but you may have a scarce conversion variant. :hmm: Pictures would be great!

 

[Tumblernotch]

I did a little research last night. As we know, the major changes between the M1812 and the M1816 were the lock and the reshaping of the stock in the wrist area (doing away with the comb pretty much). They completed the six Model Muskets approved in 1816 in 1817 and they incorporated those changes. In that year (1817), brass pans similiar to French Model 1777, were put in production, though iron pan locks, still in stock, were used in assembly of arms until used up in 1818. Is your lock clearly stamped 1838 or is the 3 possibly a 1 with some heavy pitting making it appear as a 3? Also, does it appear that your musket may have been browned rather than National Armory Bright ? From 1821 to 1831 this model was to be finished of a brown color, after the manner commonly used . One other thing. Is the rear swivel connected to the guard bow or to a separate stud like the M1812 and earlier muskets? If it's hung from a stud, it was made pre-1821. If it was made in 1838 it's hard to explain an iron pan unless someone found an old blank plate and used it in production or as a replacement in 1838. That could be what happened, which would make your piece all the rarer.

All of the above that I used italics on are direct quotes from "Identifying Old Muskets, Rifles and Carbines" .

You've got me really curious now, let us know what your examination turns up. :hmm:
:thumbsup:

 

[musketman]

This is my only picture of the gun right now, I will scan the lock with the patch, I was not able to do it today though...

 

[robinghewitt]

I have a few conversions. I'm planning to put my goose gun back to flint because I think it would be a hoot, but sometimes they are fun just the way they are.

It's your gun so I reckon you should do just whatever you like to it. I have very little concern for what happens to my collection after I'm dead so I plan to enjoy it now :thumbsup:

 

[Okwaho]

Squire Robin,I noticed with a great deal of interest the picture of the gun you plan to reconvert.I have seen a few guns converted to percussion by a similar method ie;a bolster placed on and either braized or welded to the barrel, I have also seen a few converted by the cone method. Some of these have been on guns with octagonal barrels while others have been on guns with round barrels.George Shumway {"Rifles of Colonial America"}Vol.I shows several Germanic guns converted to percussion in what he calls the European fashion of using a bolster.My question to you is when and/or whether the drum or side lug conversion was used in Europe and if so how early and how common was it?. I am particularly interested in guns made in France,the low countries,and in Liege.
Tom Patton

 

[robinghewitt]

My question to you is when and/or whether the drum or side lug conversion was used in Europe and if so how early and how common was it?

Hi Tom

I've never seen an unamerican drum and bolster, so I really don't know. Going by my limited experience I would say rare, but I'm no expert on German guns :hmm:

The goose gun was converted with an offset hammer and a modified patent breeching.

best regards

Squire Robin

 

[Okwaho]

Hi Squire, Thanks for the info. I have long suspected that the early use of the side lug method of conversion was pretty well limited to those conversions done in America.
Thanks again
Tom Patton :thumbsup:

 

[Tumblernotch]

Great! I enlarged the picture but couldn't see enough detail. I look forward to seeing it. That looks like a good lookin' piece.

:front:

 

[arilar]

Okwaho,
I have quite a few converted Swedish guns, civil and military. Unfortunately I am not familiar with the terms bolster, side lug and drum. Could you give me an explanation?
ARILAR :: :thumbsup:

 

[Okwaho]

ARILAR, there are three types of conversions from flint to percussion.{1} "bolster" see Squire John's first picture. this is a form of bolster used Ca.1840's through early Civil War.The bolster was merely braized over the vent hole, the breech was removed and a new breech with a bolster with a nipple made integral screwed into the barrel. This was also the way original U.S.percussion muskets were made with with the bolster made integral with the barrel when the barrel was made.{2} "Cone",The vent hole was plugged with a nipple screwed into a threaded receptacle at the top of the barrel set off center towards the lock side. This method was used by U S arsenals.{3}"side lug" or "drum and nipple",a drum type bolster holding the nipple was threaded into the enlarged touch hole.This was the type favored by country gunsmiths and was the earliest method used probably beginning in the 1830's. I don't recall seeing any European guns converted using this method.For a more lucid explanation see Norm Flayderman and look under "Conversions of U S Flintlock Muskets to Percussion Muskets by U S Arsenals Ca.1840's through late 1860's"
Tom Patton :m2c:

 

[arilar]

Thanks Tom,
Well, Swedish military flintlockmusket modell 1815 were altered 1845 by bolstermethod, and 1849 by conemethod. As an example.
Side lug or drummethod were often used,as in US,
by local gunsmiths.I found them a lot. Widely spread in Sweden. I kindof like them alot as they are. I dont know about methods used Germany.
ARILAR :::thumbsup: