Sounds like a bad angle on the flint?TFLeader said:
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Old gun - No spark
- Thread starter TFLeader
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
first, are we sure this is a rifle? looks like a trade gun or a cut down musket. what sort of rifling does it have if any?
the flash hole looks huge! can you measure the diameter?
a pic of the whole gun would be nice aswell.
-matt
the flash hole looks huge! can you measure the diameter?
a pic of the whole gun would be nice aswell.
-matt
I'd bet $1 that cock/hammer is not original to the lock. Way too far forward on the pan (looks too long) and covers the scroll of the sideplate engraving.
as i suspected, its not a rifle at all, its a musket. that lock doesnt look right at all on the gun. that lock is useless, ya would have to replace it. replacing the lock could range from difficult to impossible depending on the wood inletting.
i vote you hang it above your fireplace and leave it as decoration. if you want a musket to play with i suggest you buy a modern repro.
-matt
i vote you hang it above your fireplace and leave it as decoration. if you want a musket to play with i suggest you buy a modern repro.
-matt
mtmshieldshotmail.com
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2008
- Messages
- 132
- Reaction score
- 1
As I posted earlier, the gun is an Eli Whitney 1798 Contract Musket. It's been cut significantly; the original had 3 barrel bands, and it looks like this one's been cut just past the 2nd barrel band.
The lock goes with this gun.
There's an original in very good condition at the NRA museum...the pics are here: http://www.nramuseum.org/the-museu...ney-model-1798-contract-flintlock-musket.aspx
Regards,
Mike
The lock goes with this gun.
There's an original in very good condition at the NRA museum...the pics are here: http://www.nramuseum.org/the-museu...ney-model-1798-contract-flintlock-musket.aspx
Regards,
Mike
Last edited by a moderator:
mtmshieldshotmail.com
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2008
- Messages
- 132
- Reaction score
- 1
Also, it looks like the cock was filed to reduce (considerable) thickness where it screws into the lock. My guess is the original bolt was lost, and someone reduced the thickness so they could use a shorter bolt that they had on hand.
Regards,
Mike
Regards,
Mike
Ike Godsey
45 Cal.
thank you for the pictures.
and yes, it is a re-conversion to flint, poorly done. but thet does not mean tah this couldn't be done right!
first thing to do is, go to a gunsmith and let him carefully check the barrel if it is OK, does not have any demage or bellys or...
if that is OK, and you still want to get this little thing to "talk" you might ask the gunsmith to reduce the dia of the touchhole (normally done with a ventscrew).
then i would contact S&S firearms and/or the rifleshoppe for the correct replacementparts (hammer, frizzen and frizzen spring). not sure about the mainspring, but would buy a spare one either.
with those investments plus the correct screws, you can instal the parts to the lock and make them mechanically work. than give the frizzen zu a gunsmith for hardening.
when this is done, take the new parts and try to give them the same finish as the old parts - if done properly, you could have a very good useable gun.
:2
ike
and yes, it is a re-conversion to flint, poorly done. but thet does not mean tah this couldn't be done right!
first thing to do is, go to a gunsmith and let him carefully check the barrel if it is OK, does not have any demage or bellys or...
if that is OK, and you still want to get this little thing to "talk" you might ask the gunsmith to reduce the dia of the touchhole (normally done with a ventscrew).
then i would contact S&S firearms and/or the rifleshoppe for the correct replacementparts (hammer, frizzen and frizzen spring). not sure about the mainspring, but would buy a spare one either.
with those investments plus the correct screws, you can instal the parts to the lock and make them mechanically work. than give the frizzen zu a gunsmith for hardening.
when this is done, take the new parts and try to give them the same finish as the old parts - if done properly, you could have a very good useable gun.
:2
ike
flyfisher76544
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2005
- Messages
- 508
- Reaction score
- 3
Hang it over the fireplace, anything you do to the gun will drop the value and/or damage the weapon. Or find a museum that would appreciate having it.
Va.Manuf.06
58 Cal.
Thanks for posting the pictures of your Whitney contract musket, they help a lot. Your musket is not a musket from the 1798 Contract, however, it is one of the later contracts fulfilled by Eli Whitney, probably what collectors call the 1812 conract.
The NRA site shows a Whitney 1798 Contract Musket but also threw in a couple of images of a M1861 Navy Contract Plymouth Rifle which confuses the issue, they are photos number 4 and 5.
The musket you have, as has already been stated has been shortened. My best guess is that it as a unit was never converted to percussion since the barrel does not show any evidence of a civilian drum and nipple conversion. The lock was damaged by someone who wanted the parts for reconverting a complete Whitney and took the original hammer, frizzen and pan from the lesser condition one to do the work. Later someone attempted the restoration using the cheap cast iron pan and frizzen (both of the incorrect pattern) and a modified, possibly original to some other gun, hammer.
Can it be restored to shooting condition? Well, close-to-correct reproduction parts for the M1816 musket lock are available from The Rifle Shoppe and they can be fitted by someone with experience in doing the work. After hardening and tempering and correct screws installed where needed the lock will function, the vent of the barrel can have a liner installed and drilled and the gun will function. But will it be safe? One thing to keep in mind; Whitney's barrels had a poor reputation often showing to be "sloppily breeched" in the words of one proof master.
See a professional gunsmith for an opinion as to whether he feels it is safe, then proof carefully, don't overdo it, after all it is 200 years old. You can have the lock work done by a willing, very experienced person who has successfully done the work before, any other option will be a frustrating and expensive waste of time. Despite the hoopla over Whitney's supposedly interchangeable parts, he never achieved that goal and the parts are not drop in replacements.
Like others, I think that it looks good over the mantel. It has the possibility of being a money pit with very little reward and certainly no profit.
The NRA site shows a Whitney 1798 Contract Musket but also threw in a couple of images of a M1861 Navy Contract Plymouth Rifle which confuses the issue, they are photos number 4 and 5.
The musket you have, as has already been stated has been shortened. My best guess is that it as a unit was never converted to percussion since the barrel does not show any evidence of a civilian drum and nipple conversion. The lock was damaged by someone who wanted the parts for reconverting a complete Whitney and took the original hammer, frizzen and pan from the lesser condition one to do the work. Later someone attempted the restoration using the cheap cast iron pan and frizzen (both of the incorrect pattern) and a modified, possibly original to some other gun, hammer.
Can it be restored to shooting condition? Well, close-to-correct reproduction parts for the M1816 musket lock are available from The Rifle Shoppe and they can be fitted by someone with experience in doing the work. After hardening and tempering and correct screws installed where needed the lock will function, the vent of the barrel can have a liner installed and drilled and the gun will function. But will it be safe? One thing to keep in mind; Whitney's barrels had a poor reputation often showing to be "sloppily breeched" in the words of one proof master.
See a professional gunsmith for an opinion as to whether he feels it is safe, then proof carefully, don't overdo it, after all it is 200 years old. You can have the lock work done by a willing, very experienced person who has successfully done the work before, any other option will be a frustrating and expensive waste of time. Despite the hoopla over Whitney's supposedly interchangeable parts, he never achieved that goal and the parts are not drop in replacements.
Like others, I think that it looks good over the mantel. It has the possibility of being a money pit with very little reward and certainly no profit.
I agree with the rest. The lock is all wrong. Replacements have been replaced, lots of wear.
Interesting historical wall hanger.
Thanks for posting though. We always enjoy seeing old guns. Fancy or not, we learn something from them.
That touchhole is ginormous :shocked2: . If all else were right, that alone would keep me from shooting it.
Interesting historical wall hanger.
Thanks for posting though. We always enjoy seeing old guns. Fancy or not, we learn something from them.
That touchhole is ginormous :shocked2: . If all else were right, that alone would keep me from shooting it.
Va.Manuf.06
58 Cal.
Thank you for showing it to us. :thumbsup:
In looking at the "touch hole" I believe the lack of wear and the possible presence of threads may indicate that whoever did the probable reconversion left the drum hole "as is"rather than welding it and redrilling a touch hole. This is the second gun we have seen with this treatment recently.
As always I welcome responsible opposing comment. :v :hmm:
Tom Patton
As always I welcome responsible opposing comment. :v :hmm:
Tom Patton
Va.Manuf.06
58 Cal.
rubincam said:
Possible but I don't see any evidence of the installation of a drum, that is the remnants of the threaded section or evidence of a liner placed in the hole for the drum's threaded section. Certainly the locks re-conversion to flint would indicate that, if the lock is original to this stock, that there should be evidence of one. However, the flat has been heavily filled and considering that the barrel was made of relatively soft iron (not steel) this could have upset iron in the process, obscuring evidence of the threads.
Keep in mind also that touch holes in original muskets often show evidence in increased diameter from heavy use - TFLeader said it is has a ".108 flash hole" and that is not terribly large for a military vent in a heavily used barrel.
