Remington musket w. Maynard (1856) - questions on story and authenticity

[juhu]

Greetings to all,

Being a new member here, I would like to ask for the help with answering several questions related to the gun. I hope I have chosen the right forum section, also pardon me, if not all my wording is fully correct, am no muzzle load expert and English is not my first language.

Interested in history, I wanted to have an original long rifle gun with some story behind it and still working too. I have got a chance to try this Remington’s musket of 1816 converted to percussion using Maynard prime lock. I have of course searched through the web already, found some historical notes, number of conversion made, also some nice pics from gun auctions. So I have at least some basic info what is this gun about. Also very helpful was the neighboring thread here.

The gun is fully functional, i.e. I had a chance to do some target shooting with it, pretty accurate as far as beginner can say. Also Maynard lock seems to be working nicely – tongues move with the lever and trigger action. Of course, no Maynard tape was used, I only see the movement of the mechanism, that looks right.

Still I understand each piece has its own story and I have several questions/ doubts that I cannot answer by myself.

• It is supposed to be very well preserved original gun, without any replaced parts.
• I was surprised to see the overall very nice state of the gun. Particularly the barrel looks very nice, maybe it was polished somehow? Of course many dark spots and other things, still in a very good state. The wood is rather dark and battered to its age I would say. Still, would you say this could be the finish of the authentic piece?
• When I compare it with the web pictures, this particular rifle is rather “conservative” with respect to various markings and signs, particularly when the barrel is considered. From the marks found or rather from those missing, would it be possible to find something more from the story? Like whether it was some surplus piece or really used in action. What could be the meaning of those few markings found? What could be the explanation of not being more of them?
• The date on the lock is apparent, but could it be said when/where was originally the musket produced? Some technical specs, any observation that I could not detect?

Thank you very much in advance!




As seen here, 1856 is the year present on Maynard plate:


No markings on rear sights or around:


Only some tiny marks like "o" , "0" , "4" around, plus some unreadable lettering



No special marks on barrel side plate or top.


Some "T" lettering inside the Maynard

More interesting things in the next post...

 

[Okie Hog]

Thanks for the informative and interesting post. The rifle is in outstanding condition.

 

[juhu]

Well known "US" mark

Some signs on the stock - seems like two letters or digits, first is something oval, maybe "G" or "0", second might be "5" ?





Metal bands are pretty clean from outside, but inner side on the contrary is quite "aged"



The only visible marks on the barrel I was able to find at the bottom: something like "I" and "18" below it?


No other lettering, but at least from the bottom the joining line between the lock part and the rest of the barrel, created during the Maynard installation is visible. This cannot be seen on the barrel top at all I think.


Here is some interesting emblem, cannot recognize the letters inside, seems like "M" or "R" overprinted with "P" or "B" ?


more details in the next post...

 

[juhu]

More details on disassembled barrel



What could these three cuts mean? Personal subscription? Kill marks?


and finally two more details on that emblem. With slightly more readable lettering. Additionally, there seems to be something more inscribed next to it, some numbering starting "13...." ?



That's all what I have got so far, any feedback / technical or historical info greatly welcome! Thank you

 

[hrt4me]

it looks good, thank you for sharing

 

[Grayrock Volunteer]

Your musket is one of 21,952 muskets altered in this manner at the Frankfort Arsenal near Philadelphia between 1856 and 1859. The locks and chambered breech pieces were manufactured by Remington, but they did not perform any work on the guns themselves. Additionally, the guns were rifled, though only 14,989 of the guns were fitted with rear sights. Included in these figures are 1,300 muskets altered for New Jersey, of which 200 were sighted.

Your musket is a Model 1822, based on the location of the rear sling swivel. Collectors often refer to this model as the M1816 type II. As your surmised, the gun has been pretty heavily cleaned. There should be a date on the barrel's tang, and likely a smattering of small mating marks or numbers on the other metal pieces. The stock was likewise sanded, removing the cartouches that would have been present on the stock flat opposite the lock. Usually, these cartouches are the easiest way of determining the original manufacturer since the locks were replaced and and the section of the barrels marked with the original proofs were removed.
I would go out on a limb and say that, based on the locations of the marred areas on the stock flat, that the gun was probably a Harpers Ferry product.
The only other issue I can see is that the tall 400 yard shoulders on the rear sight have been filed down some.

These muskets were the best of the percussion altered muskets available to either side at the onset of the Civil War, so you can be fairly sure that it was issued.

 

[juhu]

Thank you for the replies and provided information. The note on filed down sight is helpful, till now I did not realized that! Maybe a question to that point: I have found nice pics of other piece on the web with well preserved rear sights. Could you help me to determine, how was this actually used? I mean according the web, effective range for this weapon was some 300 yrds. What would be then the longest range? The scale goes up to "8" + top notch (would correspond to "9" ?). 900yrds looks to me like too much?
Thank you

 

[juhu]

Hi all,
if interesting to anybody, I have been digging through the internet a bit more. I wanted to find out more about that "sanded down" rear sight, where 400 yrds step seems to be missing. The reason is, that the sight really does not look like some home made adaptation - the top surface is pretty even and smooth, like factory made. Also if you check the sight closely, there are other subtle diffs in long range moveable part design compared to the "usual" sight- see my post just above.

I have found at least 2 other muskets of the same type (as you see it is not one and the same gun), where exactly the same rear sight is applied. It is extremely improbable that somebody would sand it down on three different guns in the same way. To me it seems, that on some pieces for whatever reason the different sight was used, featuring different setup and steps just to 300yrds, not 400 in "basic" , i.e. not extended use. And this "300yrds" rear sight seems to be much rare occurance? What would you think?