Touchholes in the breechplug on MVT Muskets?

[JGPrince]

I thought some photos might be appropriate. Here are photos from all aroud the musket. And to contradict Pete's claim about how the plug/touch hole position are based on originals, examples of an 1832 dated Springfield.
[url] http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/Tankerace/1816BlownBreechTH.jpg[/url]
This is the right seam, notice how big it is. Also note how close the touchhole is to the breech plug tang. (See original photos below)
[url] http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/Tankerace/1816BlownBreech3.jpg[/url]
This is a low quality shot, but notice how big the seam is. I know on my Civil War muskets (which as Pete reminded me are NOT flintlocks, but I disagree with his assertion that is irrelevant) I can barely see the seam. In fact, when I first got the 1842, I thought it might have been a one piece barrel.
[url] http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/Tankerace/1816BlownBreech2.jpg[/url]
Here is the right seam. Notice the oil that leaked out of the seam. This was the seam where I saw the water coming out.
[url] http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/Tankerace/1816BlownBreech1.jpg[/url]
Here is the right seam above the touchhole. When I was rolling the barrel around to get good shots, more oil bubbled out. This one is clear and distinctive.

Now the before pictures. I had fired maybe 8 or 10 blanks by the time I took these, but low 60 or 80 grain charges. Includes photos around the barrel or breech.
[url] http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/Tankerace/1816pluglength.jpg[/url]
Measurement of the touch hole to plug. Pete rambled on about how its based on originals, but a quick look at[url] http://san1.atlanta.gbhinc.com/GB/091228000/91228507/pix1739251390.jpg[/url] and[url] http://san1.atlanta.gbhinc.com/GB/091228000/91228507/pix1739251281.jpg[/url] show just how far forward the barrel/breech or how far back the lock is. Also as for the slotted breech plug or a flash channel in one here is a picture of two 1830s dated Model 1816 Breech plugs.[url] http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/Tankerace/breechplug.jpg.[/url] NOTE the lack of any flash channel or hacking. Why? The touch hole goes in front of it.
[url] http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/Tankerace/1816breechsection.jpg[/url]
Here is the rear of the breech. Notice the three dimples.
[url] http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/Tankerace/1816breech.jpg[/url]
Seam on the bottom of the breech and barrel. Also note the chip. That was there from the first day I got it. Naively I had assumed Pete had checked these things before he sold it to me. Guess I was wrong. Also, after my double blank proofing I found fouling there.
[url] http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/Tankerace/1816barrelstamping.jpg[/url]
Markings on the underside of the barrel. They read: A.H.U. UDR INDIA above C/"4 digit serial number" 25/9/79. In searching for MVT muskets on RevList I found someone with a Brown Bess barrel that had the same stamping, just his S/N was lower. I've also heard on a forum that a Loyalist Arms barrel had the same marking. So much for them using different manufacturers.
[url] http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/Tankerace/1816touchhole.jpg[/url]
Wider shot of the right seem, before double blank.
[url] http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/Tankerace/1816rammeroutofslot.jpg[/url]
How far the rammer protrudes when it is on the actual face of the breech screw.
[url] http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/Tankerace/1816rammerinslot.jpg[/url]
How far it protrudes when the threaded end of the ramrod can easily get stuck in the flash channel.

The sad thing about all of this? I've sent a EuroArms musket back, two months after I purchased it to Regimental Quartermaster as defective and they did a call tag so I wouldn't be out shipping. Not our friend Pete. I have to pay to ship a barrel that he sold me that was defective. Talk about great customer service.

 

[Mike Brooks]

Interesting date stamped on that barrel. I found the same date on the bottom of a Indian made dragoon pistol I worked on. A flash channel cut into the breech face is not unusual. The breeching on these Indian guns is unusual to say the least and I'm not quite sure why they do it. Instead of a standard breech plug the seem to machine a plug with the profile of the barrel all the way around, thus the "seam" your seeing where all the liquids are leaking out of. I'm guessing they do this as a seal instead of properly breeching the barrel on the inside. What I'd really be annoyed with is the fact that the blasted touch hole is drilled at the bottom of the pan. That ain't going to work worth a damn. It's hard to tell from the photos, but do I see a massive gap between the back of the breech plug and the stock?

 

[varsity07840]

I've never seen a breech plug like that on a musket, with that narrow section that mates up with the breech end of the barrel. It sort of looks like an abbreviated version of Nock's plug
but with the powder chamber and touch hole in the threaded portion of the plug. Certainly my original 1816 doesn't have a plug like that.

Having said that, I have to agree with Mike. You get what you pay for. It's common knowledge that Indian imports are not anyway near exact replicas, starting with the wood specie for the stock. Did MVT have pictures of the musket on their site when you ordered it? I'm not being sarcastic, but if they did,how could you, with your knowledge of the 1816, not notice how the comb differs from an original? Either way, they should replace the barrel. You're out of luck on a refund when you altered the stock.

Duane

 

[JGPrince]

Interesting date stamped on that barrel. I found the same date on the bottom of a Indian made dragoon pistol I worked on. A flash channel cut into the breech face is not unusual. The breeching on these Indian guns is unusual to say the least and I'm not quite sure why they do it. Instead of a standard breech plug the seem to machine a plug with the profile of the barrel all the way around, thus the "seam" your seeing where all the liquids are leaking out of. I'm guessing they do this as a seal instead of properly breeching the barrel on the inside. What I'd really be annoyed with is the fact that the blasted touch hole is drilled at the bottom of the pan. That ain't going to work worth a damn. It's hard to tell from the photos, but do I see a massive gap between the back of the breech plug and the stock?

Hi Mike,

Have to say if you are correct about the seam, that doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy at all. And yup, that's a big gap between the tang and stock. Also another reason why I'm less than excited to shoot the musket and that I've all but decided to sell it. When, or I should say if, Pete gives me a new barrel.

I've never seen a breech plug like that on a musket, with that narrow section that mates up with the breech end of the barrel. It sort of looks like an abbreviated version of Nock's plug
but with the powder chamber and touch hole in the threaded portion of the plug. Certainly my original 1816 doesn't have a plug like that.

Having said that, I have to agree with Mike. You get what you pay for. It's common knowledge that Indian imports are not anyway near exact replicas, starting with the wood specie for the stock. Did MVT have pictures of the musket on their site when you ordered it? I'm not being sarcastic, but if they did,how could you, with your knowledge of the 1816, not notice how the comb differs from an original? Either way, they should replace the barrel. You're out of luck on a refund when you altered the stock.

Duane

Hi Duane, glad to have an original 1816 guy comment on this. In various emails I sent to Pete with differences in this repro compared with an original, he never responded. Even when I only asked how the muzzle compared so I could buy a bayonet.

As to how it looked when I purchased it, that was my fault. He only had pictures of his prototype on his site when I ordered, and it showed the high comb. However, he captioned it "a change is being made to the comb where it blends in to the wrist." For some reason I naively assumed (again, his Besses look good, his 1777 looks good, his 1717 looks good, he brags about wanting to make authentic guns) that that meant the comb would go straight into the wrist, and in effect become a combless stock.

Add to that he didn't put dimensions on the sight. Again, I assumed that since every gun he sells is the correct dimension it didn't seem that far of a step to surmise that, especially with him bragging about how he went to Springfield NHP and "studied various originals" that he could get the damn thing the right size.

Buyer beware is what it boils down too. I screwed up and I know it. I bought a lemon, didn't return it when I should have, and now that it is proven unsafe I'm stuck with it. Hopefully I can use the $440 or so I get out of it as a base to get a good quality used repro, or maybe try to find a used but not too terribly abused original to restore.