my new Pedersoli 1795 Springfield

[adski]

Hello Forumites,

I've enjoyed reading alot of the posts here. They have been quite helpful in motivating me to go buy a smoothbore Pedersoli 1795 Springfield. It arrived today. What a beautiful and very solid firearm. I've never owned a muzzleloader other than a cap and ball revolver. This 1795 Springfield will be alot of fun to shoot as soon as I buy some of the accoutrements I'll need.

 

[whitetrash078]

Congratulations on your new lead slinger! Welcome to smoothbores anonymous. You are now infected with the full blown strain of the smoothie bug. Now to buy the stuff and shoot

 

[Redleg130th]

PICTURES!

I really want to see this musket, I am thinking of getting one. How much did it end up costing? Did you get the one on sale at DGW?

 

[SquirrelsaurusR]

Click on the picture to see an enlargement:

1795 Springfield

 

[adski]

It ended up costing $878 with shipping.

 

[adski]

Yes, I got the one on sale at DGW.

 

[davidthered]

Sweeeeeet!

 

[Musketeer]

I believe that the 1795 Springy was the first "officially" made U.S. musket based on the French "Charleville" design. There's also speculation (according to DGW) that either Lewis or Clark (can't recall which) may have carried one of these instead of the issued 1803 Harper's Ferry rifle. In any case, an interesting piece of American history. Have fun! :thumbsup:

P.S. I just found my Dixie catalog, and here's the skinny: The Model 1795 was produced at Springfield Armory, from 1795-1814. Total production was 80,000-85,000. It was the first standardized and official musket made for the U.S. government, the first made by a U.S. arsenal, and the first firearm ever made by Springfield Armory! Also, it was Meriwether Lewis who may have carried one as a leader of the Corps of Discovery. :thumbsup:

 

These muskets were the workhorse guns of the expidition, along with the reworked rifles Lewis designed. Since they were lying about constantly during the early part of the expidition everyone probably shot one on occasion.

In the latter phase of the expidition there were only 15 men. Since there were 15 of the specially built rifles it seems that they were intent that each man have a rifle.

Clark did carry his own personal rifle (.36 cal) on this last phase, so they may have had extra muskets along too. They carried extra locks and parts, why not an extra musket or two!

Keep in mind that both Lewis and Clark were fringe backwoods VA planters and they prefered the rifle when available. Both had battlefield leadership experience and knew the limitations and capabilities of the musket. That's why they gave everyone a rifle!

 

[Wes/Tex]

The current thought runs that the M.1803 wasn't produced for use till after Msrs. Lewis & Clark left for the boonies. Is so, it's probable they took some of the shortened M.1796 contract rifles still "in stores". Too bad neither said, "We made off with some of the BRAND NEW model", this would have been a help since the contract guns were .54's like the new M.1803's and the existing remarks about that caliber in the Journals may have been either.

 

[BCarp]

Adam,
Good choice! .69's are a pleasure to shoot, and lots of accoutrements and accessories are available for them. I suggest .662 balls and 20 ga. fiber wads rolled up in a miltary-style paper cartridge...!

 

[adski]

Thanks everyone for your very helpful postings. I think I'll have a real blast.

Adam

 

[Rat]

Man those 1785's are NICE! Good score. If I ever get ANOTHER musket, that would be it.

Seems like for defensive use, a mix of rifles and muskets would be better than either or...as rifles are slow loading, and muskets short-ranged. Even with only fifteen men, five or six musket men could make it hard for someone to overrun your position, while the rifles caused a lot of damage further out...? Well that's what I would do if it had been the Lewis and Rat expedition.

Rat

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

I use .675 balls and.010 patches in my 1842 musket. It shoots like a rifle out to a hundred yards. Loaded with various weights of shot, it makes a fine scatter gun. No reason why a firelock shouldn't be just as versatile. If you think about it, a musket is really nothing more than a heavy duty fowler.

 

[Rat]

Wow Russ that's good shooting. I'm about out to 75 yards, as far as confidently hitting the kill zone on a deer, with my Brown Bess carbine. (under perfect conditions with a good rest)

Yes...a fowler with an ATTITUDE!

Rat

 

[Deadeye]

I have an original made in 1810. I use .690 balls and .015 patches, bore is 70. Still shoots good with ball or shot. Use 12 ga. wads for the shot.
Never had a missfire or hangfire. A little long and heavy
but a great gun.

 

[crockett]

I thought that the military muskets used a paper cartridge, you opened the cartridge, put a little powder in the pan, the rest down the bore, the ball, and then the remaining paper as wadding to hold the ball in place. Have you tried this and what is the accuracy? It seems it would be far less than a patched ball.
This is just an insight; I had no idea a muskett would be that accurate out to seventyfive to one hundred yards. In the Eastern half of the Country a musket seems like a do-it-all choice. It also seems the army would have first used a patched ball, to be effective at 100 yards and then go to the paper cartridges. I have heard that a infantryman was expected to fire 4 or 5 rounds a minute. Is a musket that much faster to reload than a rifle? What about using a patched ball?

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

I've tried this in the past. The accuracy is about what you would ecpect. It was probably fine when large groups of men faced each other in battle and fired in volley. This may be where the term "close enough for government work" came from. It is fun to roll up some cartridges and bang away at a large target thirty yards away, but for real accuracy, go with the patch and ball and a carefully worked up load. It does show just how versatile these big smoothbores are,though.

 

[Stumpkiller]

I thought that the military muskets used a paper cartridge . . . Have you tried this and what is the accuracy? It seems it would be far less than a patched ball.

I found it to be only slightly less accurate, but I used a LOT tighter of a ball than would have been issued (.648 or .650 in a 0.662" bore.) I could harass a man-sized target at 100 yards so that he would be uncomfortable, but for deer it would be 60 yards MAXIMUM range.

As far as being a one-gun-for-all I believe that to be overrated for smooth-bored muskets, at least with today's game laws (no buck-n-ball loads allowed here). A squirrel at 25 yards or a bunny at 15 is a different requirement than a deer at 80 yards. If you load with shot, a deer appears. If you load with ball, a bunny sits looking at you from across a path. An accurate rifle can pot little critters with head-shots or the biggest of critters with heart/lung shots, and with less lead.

The smooth-rifles (buck & ball guns of medium sized bore) were much better at putting a ball on target downrange than a smooth musket lacking a rear sight.

 

[crockett]

Thanks stumpy,been thinking about getting a smooth bore and still kicking around what I want. That ball does sound tight. I think the US settled on .640 and really big charges of powder(165 plus?) but I think the powder wasn't as effective as today's black powder. I didn't realize the kind of accuracy that could be obtained going to the patched ball.