Muskets Rifled For Hunting Use

[nkbj]

Does anyone know of muskets being after market* rifled for hunting use as governments later did for extending the effective range?

* For lack of a better term.

 

[varsity07840]

Does anyone know of muskets being after market* rifled for hunting use as governments later did for extending the effective range?

* For lack of a better term.

I built a flint 1816 with original parts and a sighted rifled barrel from Whitacre.

Duane

 

[nkbj]

Hi Duane, thought about you when I typed it. Can't help but wonder if folks got muskets rifled after the unpleasantness was over.

 

[Wes/Tex]

You have to remember that as the war ran down and later, the military was getting rid of lots of surplus and this went on for decades. Many thousands of imports were also tossed into the mix, plus the availability of cartridge guns on the market. Doubt it was worth rifling smoothbores in any particular numbers to have made it worth while, financially. Individual examples may exist but I wouldn't think there were many.

 

[Stumpkiller]

The Bess, Charleville or Contract Muskets from the Revolutionary War or War of 1812 don't lend themselves well to rifling - and would make a potentially accurate (if thin walled) rifle without good sights.

Most Civil War muskets were rifled to begin with.

 

[excess650]

The Bess, Charleville or Contract Muskets from the Revolutionary War or War of 1812 don't lend themselves well to rifling - and would make a potentially accurate (if thin walled) rifle without good sights.

Most Civil War muskets were rifled to begin with.

A little later time period, but some civil war rifles were relined to smaller bore diameter when converted to 50/70.

 

[nwtradegun]

the only ones would be the 1803 harpers ferry and its successor.

 

[Dphar]

Does anyone know of muskets being after market* rifled for hunting use as governments later did for extending the effective range?

* For lack of a better term.

You are far more likely to find CW era Rifle Muskets bored for shot. I don't know why anyone, other than the Gov't would bother rifling a 69 caliber musket.
If you find a musket rifled with 7 grooves you might have a case. Those that were rifled for the CW are 3 groove as far as I know this was the Gov'ts bore design for the Minie.
Also the Minie Ball is about as useless as a hunting projectile can get. This is, along with the bore size, why the Rifle Muskets were often bored smooth.
A rifle shooting a 69 caliber ball is grossly over sized for almost anything short of a Gbear. A 50-54 will kill anything else. Thought bigger bores might be nice for Elk or Moose our forefathers were not into shooting 3X as much lead and twice the powder they needed. Thus most American rifles were under 54 caliber, rifles in the "40s" were common even in the 1770s.
Dan

 

[nkbj]

We know the cutting of rifling in smooth bore muskets was done by governments during the interim upgrades prior to adopting arms specifically designed for elongated bullets, in the time frame after the alterations of existing flintlocks to percussion. Whether examples were known of the alteration by adding rifling to muskets as a civilian conversion was what I was wondering about. Certainly it would be a common sense approach (as was pursued by militaries) if one wished to add longer range potential to surplus muskets and it occurred to me to ask if anyone had seen such (besides those done by governments, that is).

 

[Grumpa]

When Lewis and Clark were ready to set out, the 1803 Harper's Ferry rifle was not ready. Its big advantage, especially for such an expedition, was interchangeability of parts. Only the locks were available, so Harper's Ferry took .50 cal smoothbores that had been made in PA for use in fighting in Florida, and rifled them, making them into .54 cal. The 1803 locks were then fitted to the rifles, allowing for the interchangeability of the most crucial parts, and this was the rifle carried on the expedition. Of course, the most important rifle they had was the air rifle, a powerful repeater that was exhibited to great effect in dissuading hostile Indians from attacking the party.

 

[Grumpa]

I no sooner wrote this, than I came upon another thread,"1792 Contract Rifles", with the following link http://www.westernexplorers.us/Lewis-and-Clark-Expedition-fi...
I got my information from the American Rifleman, and from a visit to Harper's Ferry a few years back, so I will stand by it :hatsoff: .

 

[Loyalist Dave]

so Harper's Ferry took .50 cal smoothbores that had been made in PA for use in fighting in Florida, and rifled them, making them into .54 cal. The 1803 locks were then fitted to the rifles, allowing for the interchangeability of the most crucial parts, and this was the rifle carried on the expedition.

Um ..., I think perhaps the sources for the is information are outdated. The American Rifleman may not be the best source, and the NPS is often woefully inaccurate in its information.

You might want to check the thread in rifle section on the 1792 Contract Rifle.

"The specifications of what became the 1803 rifle were first detailed in a letter to the superintendent at Harpers Ferry from the Secretary of War in Washington D.C., in May 1803,.... Lewis had selected his supplies and had them "in a state of preparation" at Harper's Ferry by April 1803, and had them shipped west in early July 1803..... During his [Lewis'] visit to Harper's Ferry he could well have considered firearm improvements, and had discussions with the staff there who would have been interested and knowledgeable..... But there is no evidence for him having new rifles made at Harpers Ferry, or obtaining new rifles there .

from: Firearms of the Lewis and Clark Expedition: a Summary
by S. K. Wier

Nor is there any evidence that Lewis had smoothbore guns upgraded at the armory. The only thing that was noted was the phrase that he had his supplies "in a state of preparation", whatever that means. Conjecture that the because the new locks were available then they must have been used on the older guns seems to be that... mere conjecture.

As for the "interchangeable parts" idea and hence the motivation for the use of the available 1803 lock...,

In May 1798, Congress voted for legislation that would use eight hundred thousand dollars in order to pay for small arms and cannons in case war with France erupted. They offered a 5,000 dollar incentive with an additional 5,000 dollars once that money was exhausted for the person that was able to accurately produce arms for the government. Because the cotton gin had not brought Whitney the rewards he believed he would get, he accepted the contract. Although the contract was for one year, Whitney did not deliver the arms until eight years later in 1809 using multiple excuses for the delay of such. Recently, historians have found that during 1801”“1806, Whitney took the money and headed into South Carolina in order to profit from the cotton gin.

Although Whitney's demonstration of 1801 appeared to show the ingenuity of interchangeable parts, Merritt Roe Smith concludes that Whitney's demonstration was "staged" and "duped government authorities" into believing that he had created interchangeable parts. The charade was only useful in order to gain more time and resources for the project but not to create interchangeable parts.
From "Eli Whitney's Other Talent" by Peter Baida in the May/June issue of "American Heritage" 1987

So Whitney's interchangeable parts didn't enter the American arsenal until 1809, and he is credited with the idea in 1801... and I am not certain that the specifications for the 1803 lock included interchangeability. If they had they would have infringed on Whitney's patent... and thus would have had to pay Whitney...

LD

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

A patent? Well, maybe but Eli Whitney never achieved parts interchangeability on a production level, only on a hand fitting level, certainly not cost effective or reliable. His presentation was staged. True full interchangeability was achieved by John H. Hall at Harpers Ferry Armory and all others, including Whitney, followed his methods. Harpers Ferry and Springfield began full production of interchangeable arms with the M1842 percussion musket. After that, all US standard arms, made at the National Armories or by contractors had to be fully interchangeable in all their parts, no matter where made.

See:

http://www.nps.gov/hafe/historyculture/john-h-hall.htm

 

[nkbj]

Here's one of the alterations of older smooth bores during the transition to smaller rifles. What a brute it must have been on both ends.
http://museumvictoria.com.au/collections/items/382706/rifle-altered-pattern-1842-musket

 

[Grumpa]

Thank you, LD, and I will agree with your critique. So, what I am learning (which is why I joined this Forum), is that 1)we may never know what rifle the expedition took from Harper's ferry, 2) It may have been the US Model 1792-94 Contract Rifle, and/or 3) It may have been a Short US Model 1792-94 Contract Rifle modified according to Lewis' specifications (maybe barrel shortened, rifling re-cut to .54 cal., stock cut to half stock, barrel rounded in forward section to reduce weight, rib added under barrel to protect ramrod, etc. i.e. prototype 1803) ( more NPS conjecture.)

I'm having fun, and learning.

:hatsoff:

 

[DUSTY 14]

lewis took a gun smith who had a small forge and several times they stopped for more than one day so the smith could "make all the weapons right"

 

[satx78247]

At least in AR, LA & TX, evidently rifling "smoothies" was commonplace. = At least 2 blacksmiths in Nacogdoches were doing that work by 1830 as well as "gun-tinkerers" in Little Rock & at Captain Shreve's Port (Now SHREVEPORT, LA) about the same time.
(As I've said elsewhere, Harriet Anne Potter, wife of The TX Secretary of Navy, had a
"rifld muskit"(sic) made in Nacogdoches in 1837-38 & won many shooting matches & "kilt many beares, wildecates & deeres" (sic) with it, out of the parts of 2 Escoptetas.)

yours, satx