I could use some help on and ID

[mlheppl]

This 69 cal has been in my family since the 60's, and I've had it for about 10 yrs now. I haven't shot it since I was around 12 or 13 yr old, but if memory serves correctly it had a considerable "push".

The gun is reported to have been carried in the civil war, however I have no documentation or proof of such claims. I cannot find any stamping that tells the manufacturer's name, model or yr of manufacture. There is not a US stamp on the rifle that I can find. I suspect that the gun is possibly french or english in origin, but those are just guesses. The musket looks very similar to the 1816 springfield and the 1795 springfield flintlock in design, but like I said it has no springfield markings on it. The barrel is rifled, not smooth. I wonder if the ole girl may have started life out as a flintlock and been converted to percussion, but not sure why I'm thinking that.

Here she is:

Here is a link to my photobucket gallery with pictures of the stampings on the barrel and stock.

Link

Any help in identifying this gun or info on it would be appreciated.

 

[mlheppl]

OOps, forgot to give a little more information on the rifle. The barrel is 40 1/2" long and the gun is 55 3/4" long overall. If I need to give more information or take more pics of specific parts or areas of the gun, let me know and I'll happily oblige,

Mike

 

[Cascade Pete]

Mike,
Looks to be one of the Belgian Contract rifles that were purchased during the Civil War. I had one Myself, in the late 80's, and actually killed an elk with the thing. They were made in the white, and aged to a nice patina....Nice piece. Have it inspected, and go shoot it, if it is safe to do so...

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Very nice. You have a Belgian-made copy of the French Fusil modèle 1842/53. The Belgian copies were very well made and sturdy arms produced on contract for the Belgian government as well as France, Holland, and other European states. They were also made on speculation for future orders from anyone that might want them. One customer for the Belgian arms that they had not counted on was the United States government who bought many of them in 1861. Some went to the Southern states as well.

Northern and Southern troops generally gave them poor marks (too heavy, inaccurate, etc.) but the complaints were largely due to the fact that they wanted and were often promised by their recruiters and officers the Springfield or Enfield Rifle Musket and felt that anything else was unacceptable. The French, Belgian and Prussian muskets were all rated as 3rd Class arms by the Union and Confederate Ordnance Departments due to their larger than standard bore sizes. But they were well made, tough weapons that could and did stand up to heavy use in Europe and, aside from ammunition problems, they would have done so here. Their inaccuracy was more due to the lack of the proper ammunition, they were .71 caliber, not a standard .69, so the ammunition issued was incapable of delivering accurate results. Both sides withdrew the Belgian and other 3rd Class arms as soon as better weapons were available.

The condition of yours is very good and if the bore is in the same condition it should make a good shooter but at 150 years old, be sure to have it inspected by a knowledgeable, experienced gunsmith who knows black powder firearms.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

I'd better add one more thing; while your gun may have been imported for our Civil War, it is just as likely that it came here after WW2 when Belgian warehouses were emptied of "useless" material. These can be seen in old adds in the gun mags of the 1950s.

 

[mlheppl]

Thank you for the information. If you don't mind, I'd like to as a few more questions. Was there any stampings given to the rifles imported after WWII that the rifles imported during the civil war would not have? Or is there any other way of distinguishing between the two?

So this gun is actually a 71 cal and not a 69 cal. Wow, this surprises me. Thanks again for the help.

 

[Zonie]

The ELG in an oval and the little tower sticking out of the double V pedestal are both Leige, Belgium proof marks.

I cannot find the other marks in my data.

 

[Cascade Pete]

May want to check that. The Prussian Guns were .71 The Belgians were .69...Don't let speculation ruin Your day...

 

[mlheppl]

Point well taken. From what I have read on the Liege M1842, it appears that many of the smooth bored rifles were 71 caliber. The rifled muskets that I've been able to find information on were 69 caliber. I'm not trying to say this is a hard and fast rule or anything, just noting an observation on what I've been able to google up on these rifles in the last days time. I will break out my dial indicators and measure the bore to find out for sure.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

May want to check that. The Prussian Guns were .71 The Belgians were .69...Don't let speculation ruin Your day...

No speculation to it, my friend. I won't argue, but all of the Belgians I have measured were .71 caliber - exactly the same as the French muskets that they copied. But Mike, by all means, measure, you may find different. :hatsoff:

As far as markings on the European arms imported after WW2? No there were no markings but many, if not most were in better condition than those that had been sitting unappreciated in closets in this country for 80 or 90 years. Most of the Civil War imported Belgian and French muskets were sold by Bannerman's or Stokes-White as cut down guns for hunting, at one time they were quite common in that condition.

 

[Cascade Pete]

Rifled percussion musket, Belgian Liege, .69cal.
The large caliber rifled Belgian muskets were manufactured before the war, and used by both sides. The musket is rifled and used the large size, .69 cal minie balls that are found with some frequency on the battlefield. Parts from these weapons are also found, often at southern sites . This musket is believed to have been manufactured by the Belgian Arsenal at Liege and exported. Musket is rifled .69 cal, iron buttplate is relatively flat, all parts are iron polished bright, three bands secured by springs, forward band serves as a sight, two strap hooks affixed to the bands, ramrod is trumpet head, lug for saber bayonet is on the bottom of the muzzle. Round arsenal cartouche appears on the stock on the right side, various other arsenal or inspector marks appear on the lock, barrel, and many of the parts. Round barrel length 40.5in.
Belgian Liege.(Pictured Musket Rifle is the exact one OP Posted, would not transfer to link)

The Drisket and Warou were the shorter of the Belgian rifles, having 2 bands and a shorter 34-36" barrel, were in fact .70-.72 caliber. The 3 band Liege Rifles were in fact all .69..I'm not going to get into a "My Rifle is Bigger than Yours Match" Here But I will stand behind well known and documented facts.
The Above information was found in the National Archives...and From My own observations of over 30 Years of Antique Rifle Collecting and Selling...

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

As I said above Pete, I will not argue the point. We'll let Mike put some accurate calipers in the bore and tell us what he has, you may be right, we'll have to wait and see. If so, there will be no hard feelings on my part, you learn something new every day. I could be confusing the Belgian caliber with the standard French caliber .71 of the 1840s and 1850s.

Must be my inexperience showing again, I have to admit that I have never heard of the Drisket or the Warou, you have me on those. The Dutch language always confuses me..... :wink:

 

[Cascade Pete]

Actually, The French were using .69 alot earlier than some of their European Counterparts. They felt the .69 ball could be carried in greater quantity than the British .75...
Also, the Austrian Lorenz in .72 was purchased in Quantity By the North. The South already had the Brits lock up with orders for their Enfields. Only one Belgian shipment is said to have made it to the Southern Troops, and a CS Belgian .69 is a rare animal indeed..

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Yes, you are correct, the French were using the .69 bore at the end of the 17th Century and continued using it until the 2nd quarter of the 19th Century when they moved up to the slightly larger .71. The increased bore at that time was due to the enlargement required to rifle their earlier smoothbores and new guns were made to the same slightly larger diameter to simplify ammunition supply.

The .64 diameter ball used by the French in their .69 caliber muskets was lighter in weight by a fair amount (395 grains) than the .69 caliber ball (495 grains) used by the British in their .75 caliber muskets. Both carried more or less the same number of cartridges so the weight was indeed less for the French soldier. Depending on the time frame, that meant as much as 1/2 pound less for the Frenchman to carry as opposed to the British line infantryman.

 

[mlheppl]

I was able to measure the muzzle end of the barrel today. In one direction I got .697 between the lands. In the other direction (perpendicular to the first reading) I got .704 between the lands. I took one measurement ontop of the rifling lands and got .687. The barrel is pretty clean and shiny inside, so I feel comfortable in saying that there was not any rust buildup in the areas that I took my measurements from.

 

[mlheppl]

I'd better add one more thing; while your gun may have been imported for our Civil War, it is just as likely that it came here after WW2 when Belgian warehouses were emptied of "useless" material. These can be seen in old adds in the gun mags of the 1950s.

Just a thought on this subject in hopes of possibly differentiating whether my gun may have come to the US during the civil war or after WWII: My rifle has the scratches and dings that I would associate with the lifestyle of a field soldier's rifle. Maybe I'm grasping at straws here but it seems to me that if a gun was stored in a warehouse for 100 yrs, then imported in the 1950's. Then primarily kept in closets from the mid to late 60's to present, that the rifle would have a lot less scratches and dings.

I know that my logic does not constitute any proof by any means, but is this a logical assumption or am I simply hoping against hope here?

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

It's possible Mike, we will never know for certain but do keep in mind that the post-War imported Belgian surplus arms were stored, used weapons from the Belgian military or others. The bright finish on yours could be a result of sitting in a humidity controlled area here in this country for 150 years or a properly ventilated armory in Europe where the arms were kept clean and in good condition.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

I was able to measure the muzzle end of the barrel today. In one direction I got .697 between the lands. In the other direction (perpendicular to the first reading) I got .704 between the lands. I took one measurement ontop of the rifling lands and got .687. The barrel is pretty clean and shiny inside, so I feel comfortable in saying that there was not any rust buildup in the areas that I took my measurements from.

With some wear from use, it is not unusual for the bore to be slightly "egged". But it does sound like this example may have been a .69 caliber as Pete said, I bow to his claim of .69 cal. over mine of .71 caliber. :v

 

[voltigeur]

some news
http://armesfrancaises.free.fr/fusil%20d%27infanterie%20Mle%201842.html

 

[mlheppl]

Thanks for all the help and information everyone. Looking at the data on the link posted above, they shot a 416 grain round ball and pushed it with nearly 139 grains of powder. What powder type would that be? It seems like a pretty hefty load to me.