US 1860 FLINTLOCK MUSKET

[Parzifal]

I am curious
Is the American 1840 military musket "flint lock" Just a francaise 1777 with steel furniture?

Or does it have aspects that are uniquely "American"

 

[Tumblernotch]

The US Model 1840 (or if you prefer Model 1835) Flintlock Musket was patterned after the French Model 1822 musket. There were some minor changes, such as retaining the barrel length at 42" and the omission of the finger ridges on the guard tang. Other changes were a shorter mainspring and a narrower lock bridle and those had the effect of shortening the lock plate. It also has a more horizontal brass pan than the previous models with a very high fence. The barrel was .03" thicker at the muzzle than on the M1816.

The US Model 1816 (1822) was more closely patterned after the French M1777. In fact, all of the muskets produced at the National Armories and by contractors were once known as "Charleville Pattern" muskets. It wasn't until the M1816 came about that the Ordnance Office actually used the dates that we are familiar with to designate the different models.

Getting back to the M1840 (I prefer to use Col. Gluckman's dating and call it the M1835), there were only 30,421 of this model made at Springfield. None were made at Harper's Ferry except for the Pattern Models. Two contractors are known to have delivered this model to the government. They are:

Daniel Nippes, Mill Creek, PA, 5,600 stands delivered between Jan. 24, 1842 and Nov. 4, 1848.(Under 2 contracts). In 1848, Nippes contracted to convert 2,000 of these to the Maynard percussion system.

Lemuel Pomeroy, Pittsfield, Mass. 7,000 stands delivered under 2 contracts; 6,000 under contract of February 26, 1835 and 1,000 under contract of Mar. 18, 1842.

Another contractor, Edwards and Goodrich, of New Haven, Conn. signed on to make 7,500 muskets and appendages on Jan. 2, 1840. There is no record of deliveries.

Very, very few of these arms exist in their original form today. 26,841 of the 30,421 arms on hand at the armories were altered to percussion by June 30, 1851 and most likely so were most of the contracted arms. A quote from Claud E. Fuller may help explain why a weapon modeled in 1835 is often called the M1840:

The models for this arm were probably made in 1835, but it is of course hard to explain the lapse of time in adopting it, except for the fact that the percussion system was being rapidly developed; and it was a question as to whether a new model of flint arm was justified, and this was finally decided upon the basis that the new model could readily be changed to the new system.

In 1842, the Ordnance Dept. rifled some of these weapons and put a large rear leaf sight on them for experimental purposes. I would say that these are veryrare. The experiment worked apparently, for many thousand of the later M1842 percussion muskets as well as altered M1816's were later rifled and sighted.

As a last item, although the quality of this model was very good, It still wasn't built on the complete interchangeable plan. However, the workmanship and quality control was so good that all the parts would interchange with very little hand fitting. The M1842 was the first model to be built on the complete interchangeable manufacturing system.

Sorry this was so long, but I thought it would be good to elaborate a little on such a fine weapon that is so little known.
:yakyak:

 

[benvenuto]

excellent explanation! thankyou! :hatsoff:

 

[Parzifal]

:applause:

Thanks very much sir!

 

[marty_01]

Nice post KanawhaRanger. Thanks for sharing this information.

Regarding the 1860 smoothbore, I came across th following shot groups for tests conducted by the US Army in 1860. 50-balls fired at a 10'x10' screen at a range of 100-yards.



I scanned this from "The Rifled Musket" by Claud Fuller. Fuller provides shot groups for a number of weapons at a number of different ranges.

I wonder if you or anyone else has come across similar information for either the 1816 Smoothbore or the Charleville, or even Brown Bess for that matter.

Thanks again.

Marty

 

[marty_01]

Sorry -- 50-balls fired, 37 struck the target.

 

[rickystl]

Thanks for the information. I new some of it, but now know the history. Thanks again. :hatsoff:

 

[benvenuto]

I have some info for the bess from 1812...just have to remember which book its in! :hmm:

 

[Tumblernotch]

You're welcome. And thanks for your picture of that target! Purty bad shootin' compared to a rifle, huh?

The only thing I could find easily of results of shooting smoothbores was some notes from Reports of Experiments with Small Arms which was published by the Ordnance Dept. in 1856. There is an extract there taken from a British Treatise on Naval Gunnery in 1855, which includes a table showing the comparisons between the common musket of 1842 (British) and the Pattern 1851 Rifle Musket.

The P1842 Smoothbore musket was .75 cal. and the P1851 Rifle Musket was .702 cal.
The smoothbore was shooting a spherical bullet (ball) and the rifle was shooting a cylindro-conical bullet (Minie).

Twenty men fired 10 rounds each, 5 in file and 5 volley firing against a target 6 ft. high and 20 ft. broad, equal in front to 11 files of infantry or 22 men. The muskets were 4 ft. 6 in. from the ground. I'll try to make a table here to show the results. Unfortunately there is no picture of the targets in the book.


Percussion Smoothbore Musket, 1842

Bulleye Center Outer Total Percent

At 100yds: 7 48 94 149 74.5

At 200yds: 3 20 62 85 42.5

At 300yds: 4 9 17 32 16.0

At 400yds 2 -- 7 9 4.9


Minie Rifle Musket, 1851

At 100yds: 10 68 111 189 94.5

At 200yds: 9 47 104 160 80.0

At 300yds: 6 32 72 110 55.0

At 400yds: 5 29 71 105 52.5

One remark was that the shots from the common musket which missed the target fell from 20 to 50 feet wide of it. We must also remember that all of these shots were fired off-hand from a battle line formation and not from a fixed rest which most muskets were tested on. And it wasn't noted how big the bullseye was, but the results from both guns to me are far from impressive, especially at the 100 yard mark.

I've been able to hit a 12 inch gong at 90 yds with a .69 cal Charleville using both a patched ball and a bare ball with some consistancy on some days and not so good on others. A friend of mine has had the same results with a Bess. I think some time on the bench with some posterboard backing the target may be in order.
:thumbsup:

I've noticed since posting this that the numbers are kinda scrunched up. Sorry! Just line the numbers up under the headings at the top eg; Bullseye, Center, Outer, etc. It looked good when I typed it. :redface:

 

[marty_01]

Thanks again KanawhaRanger. Have a good Christmas.

Marty

 

[Tumblernotch]

You're welcome Marty. Sorry the numbers didn't line up good but I had good intentions.

You and yours have a very Merry Christmas too!

Bob