Flintlock Conversions

[Feltwad]

For the history of the gun there is one part in the gun development that is seldom revered to and that is the conversion of flint to percussion using a drum and nipple .It was means of a cheap way of conversion but over the last 20 to 30 years it has abused mostly for financial gains and converted back to flint which I think is wrong new parts on an old gun is not right and certainly to not look good, For those that make regular thing of this habit are destroying our gun heritage ,lets save the drum and nipple if we do not nobody else will
Feltwad

 

[Flintlock1640]

I think it depends a lot on the gun and the parts used. I have reconverted 17th century flintlocks from percussion to flint. Certainly the majority of its uselife was as a flintlock so I do not see it damaging to the gun's history to restore it to the way it was originally utilizing the correct parts. Now if you are converting using the wrong parts it just is a monstrosity and looks nowhere close to correct but done right, it looks better, is more correct than the conversion, and is worth more. To be sure the age of the gun has a lot to do with it. I would never consider reconverting a US musket of the early 1840s because it certainly is more correct in percussion than the half dozen years it was a flintlock but for a Revolutionary War era or earlier gun I have no problems with converting it back to the way it should be. Same with converting later guns of a certain significance. Take for instance a French AN IX, made for the Napoleonic Wars, converted later for hunting or whatever. The biggest significance of its life is as a flintlock under Napoleon, no problem reconverting that (not to mention there were 9 million made, original parts are available and they are not exactly rare).

 

[Feltwad]

I think it depends a lot on the gun and the parts used. I have reconverted 17th century flintlocks from percussion to flint. Certainly the majority of its uselife was as a flintlock so I do not see it damaging to the gun's history to restore it to the way it was originally utilizing the correct parts. Now if you are converting using the wrong parts it just is a monstrosity and looks nowhere close to correct but done right, it looks better, is more correct than the conversion, and is worth more. To be sure the age of the gun has a lot to do with it. I would never consider reconverting a US musket of the early 1840s because it certainly is more correct in percussion than the half dozen years it was a flintlock but for a Revolutionary War era or earlier gun I have no problems with converting it back to the way it should be. Same with converting later guns of a certain significance. Take for instance a French AN IX, made for the Napoleonic Wars, converted later for hunting or whatever. The biggest significance of its life is as a flintlock under Napoleon, no problem reconverting that (not to mention there were 9 million made, original parts are available and they are not exactly rare).

I still do not and never agreed with this type of conversion a gun which has had this done has lost its 100 years plus heritage , also I have had almost 75 years opportunity to do just this I have lost count on the times I have been asked to convert drum and nipple because it has been in my family for years and also dealers only for financial gain To day it is quite easy to obtain a conversion kit from most casting manufacturers but for the heritage of the gun it is wrong I know plenty will not agree but I feel strongly that it is wrong
Feltwad

 

[Dusty_Traveler]

I agree with Feltwad.

I think original antiques are best left as found. Especially a percussion conversion, as it is an accumulation of points in time during the pieces history.

I'm looking for an original flintlock martial long arm, and I'm very wary of unadvertised re-conversions.

I'm also 100% for saving the nipple!

 

[Uncle Miltie]

Many of the rifles in the Kindig book were re-converted to flint.

 

[nhmoose]

I am with Feltwad on this

 

[Uncle Miltie]

How it was sometimes done in the old days, rifle by Fordney of PA.

 

[Feltwad]

How it was sometimes done in the old days, rifle by Fordney of PA.

I have seen several that were done like this in both sporting guns and military smoothbore muskets, the last one that belonged to a friend still stayed a flint lock but the the bottom jaw of the cock was made wider and thicker and the pan cover had the upright Stricker removed and the nipple was screwed into the pan cover with the pan primed just has a flintlock.
Feltwad

 

[Rudyard]

For the history of the gun there is one part in the gun development that is seldom revered to and that is the conversion of flint to percussion using a drum and nipple .It was means of a cheap way of conversion but over the last 20 to 30 years it has abused mostly for financial gains and converted back to flint which I think is wrong new parts on an old gun is not right and certainly to not look good, For those that make regular thing of this habit are destroying our gun heritage ,lets save the drum and nipple if we do not nobody else will
FeltwadView attachment 183457

Years ago I wrote a piece in the MLAGB News letter 'Lord save the drum & nipple ' , Nobody else will !' we think alike , it can sometimes be justified but oft as not it just makes a mess & ruins yet another evolved gun mostly it was done for profit but others just had to have' a flinter '. It was so rife Reg Gee auctions put up a converted gun lot as' A flintlock 'despite it being a percussion conversion I've known one donk brain take a new breached by the makers ex flint gun and ruin it just to get (And he failed ) a' Flinter' . The late Herman Benninghoff a noted Revolt war collector & student of arms, I once loaned a rifle too was particularly opposed to reconversions calling even the rudest conversion ruination of an' Evolved gun ' . His term since any family history it had & he was into such traceing of families was lost. Nowadays there are many suitable replicated offerings but at one time there wasn't, so these affronts to history persisted .Ime no Simon pure I've put guns back to flint but they where basket cases allready got at so I thought it justified .. Here endeth the Sermon for today .
Regards Rudyard

 

[Rudyard]

I have seen several that were done like this in both sporting guns and military smoothbore muskets, the last one that belonged to a friend still stayed a flint lock but the the bottom jaw of the cock was made wider and thicker and the pan cover had the upright Stricker removed and the nipple was screwed into the pan cover with the pan primed just has a flintlock.
Feltwad

This plan was one tried by Col Hawker if he notes it wasn't a long lasting cure I made just such an alteration to a new flint rifle useing a' late English' L&R lock it tended to dissemble its self as the pan flew open . I used a suitably bent piece that I could screw into as you would a flint rather than have a purpose made strengthened cock . Incidentally Old Kit Ravenshear was fascinated with such conversions along with' Roman Candle type guns' he called them a' devolving lock' & certainly numbers where made historically . '
Regards Rudyard

 

[TDM]

I agree @Feltwad. Altering a historical weapon should be avoided. Plenty of late models around to cut on and modify.