Wickham Contract musket

[VAshooter]

I went to a gun show yesterday and found an unfired Navy Arms 1816 Wickham Contract musket for sale. The price was way below what I would need to pay for a fowler and I needed a smoothbore to compete in the SB matches they have at the larger muzzle loading matches. I put some money down on it even though I don't know a lot about these guns. The big selling point was that it fit me perfectly and I do know that is important for a gun with no rear sight. I have found that the Wickham Musket was an American copy of a French 1766-77 Charleville musket. It's 69 caliber probably made by Pederosoli for Navy Arms and seems well made. It was probably produced in the 1980's.
Does anyone have any experience with a smoothbore like this. I know everyone wants a custom made fowler but there are priorities I'm hoping that this will do the job. Let me know your ideas and opinions about this Italian import.

 

[Okwaho]

Actually the model 1795's were the virtual copies of the French 1763-1777 muskets not the 1816's which were the first muskets made with virtually no comb and a different styled lock among other features.These guns were made 1816-1840 by the Springfield Armory and 1816-1844 by the Harper's Ferry Armory and were the primary weapons of the US Army up to and including the Mexican War. They were the largest production total of flintlock muskets with over 325,000 made at Springfield and over 350,000 made at Harper's Ferry.A variation was the Model 1840 aka the model of 1835.Almost all these guns were converted to percussion and original flintlock specimens are quite rare.I had an old Pomeroy perc. musket that I used for plinking and as I recall when loaded with BB's.it shot a decent pattern at about 25 yards.The last{2000} catalogue from Dixie that I have seen showed a Pedersoli 1816 in both flint and perc. for $775.00. Falls Creek Sutlery a Civil War sutler in it's online catalogue offers the Pedersoli model 1816 for $1025.00. I don't know anything about the Navy Arms model 1816.
Good luck
Tom Patton

 

[varsity07840]

I shoot an original 1816 flint with a Hoyt relined barrel.
I use a .678 ball with .010 patch over 2 cards, a fiber cushion and 80 gr of 2F. Does very well at 50 yards, which with my eyes is plenty afar. You do have to teach yourself
about sight picture(or lack of it) Don't keep your head up and raise the muzzle to touch the target. Sighting low, down the barrel will usually make you shoot low.

Good luck,

Duane

 

[VAshooter]

Thanks for the information. The musket I bought looks exactly like the current Pedrosolli 1816 musket but has the Wickham name on the lock plate. I understand that Wickham was a maker in Philadelphia that made one of the last contract runs before they switched over to Springfield.
I'm sure that working up a load and learning to shoot it will be an adventure.

 

[musketman]

I'm sure that working up a load and learning to shoot it will be an adventure.

This is called "getting to know your gun", and as you do, your groups will get tighter...

One of the joys of muzzleloading is finding that right load and the feeling you get when it all falls into place...

 

[Tumblernotch]

Here's a short run-down of Marine T. Wickham's career:

He was a Master Armorer and while serving as U.S. Inspector of Arms, he supervised the fabrication of new model muskets to replace those recently made (in 1811) to serve as pattern arms in the public and private armories. These became the M1812 Flintlock Musket. I don't have the book in my possession now, but I have read that Wickham caused Eli Whitney, Sr. numerous headaches while inspecting muskets made by Whitney on contract. He inspected arms for the U.S. at least from 1811 through 1814. Later, he became active in the contracting business himself, first selling arms to New Jersey.

On July 19, 1822, he contracted with the U.S. Ordnance Dept. for 5,000 M1816 muskets at $12.00 per stand, deliverable at the rate of 2,000 per year from January 1, 1823. On December 6, 1823, he took another contract for 10,000 more M1816 muskets to be delivered at the rate of 2,000 stand per year from July 1, 1824. It is believed that he had an earlier contract with no record of deliveries. On a list of arms contracted for, dated December 31, 1821, 5,000 muskets are shown due by Wickham and $8,250 are shown to have been paid to him for muskets. He is also known to have sold muskets to the U.S. Navy under a contract made in 1826.

Wickham M1816 muskets are generally marked on the lock between the cock and frizzen spring, "M.T. WICKHAM" in a curve, over "PHILA" in a straight line. There are no other markings or date. However, later Wickham muskets have different markings. One, dated 1834, finished National Armory Bright after the armories reverted to that finish, is marked between cock and frizzen spring, "US" over "M.T. WICKHAM" in a curve and behind the cock "PHILa" and "1834" in two lines reading to the rear.

When I was in reenacting, one of the guys in my unit, named Wickham, carried a Marine Wickham M1816 converted to percussion. He said that he was a relative of M.T. Wickham. It was a good looking piece. Some of you reenactors may know him. He is better known as 'Dirty Billy", purveyor of fine Civil War period hats.

 

[varsity07840]

I just reread my post! What I meant to say was KEEP your head up off the comb. Sorry for the mistake!!

Duane

 

[crockett]

KanawhaRanger: Good stuff on Marine. I am operating out of memory but didn't Marine make some sort of slight change to the musket that later was adopted as a standard change? It could have been a thickened wrist? I think the 1808 Contract was the last clone of the Charlesville and the 1812 began with the thicker wrist( either Wickham or Eli Whitney just did it on their own). The 1812 was sort of a short run transition to the 1816? Interesting area.

 

[Tumblernotch]

I don't know a lot about the muskets made before 1816 except that there is a lot of confusion about them. Flayderman said that true M1795 and M1808 muskets don't really exist, but are simply US muskets of the Charleville Pattern and that the M1812 was the first US Pattern musket. I don't see any reference in my books about Wickham making some changes, but I remember reading something to that effect somewhere. Since he was in charge of making the Model Muskets of 1812, I wouldn't be surprised.

Flayderman said that the M1808 muskets were just Charleville Pattern/M1795 muskets made under the 1808 Contract. That may be, but there were a few differences between those made under that contract and earlier. But those differences appear to have been due to production at the different armories. Even muskets made at a single armory weren't identical to each other due to the fact that they were handmade and non-interchangeable till the 1840's.

There appears to be 3 patterns of M1812 muskets. According to the book "Harper's Ferry Armory and the New Technology" , Wickham played a prominent part in designing the M1812. It doesn't say what he did. It also says that Harper's Ferry manufactured "Charleville Pattern" muskets from 1801 to 1816 according to their records. Also, I've read that Whitney was making muskets during the 1808 contract that looked an awful lot like the M1812. And this was before it's introduction. It's obvious just by looking that our flint muskets were patterned after the French musket. The first big changes made in musket design came with the M1816, mostly in the lock design and the omission of the stock comb. Even here, French influence is noticed in the introduction of the brass flash pan found on the French M1777.

In 1821/22 it was ordered that the muskets were to be browned and many also had their bayonets brazed to the barrels permanently. In 1831, they changed back to a bright finish and standard bayonets were issued and the ones that were brazed on were removed. This explains why there are often references to M1816, M1822 and M1831 muskets. It's my opinion that M1816 is the correct designation and the other two just variations. But, you know what people say about opinions.

I guess the M1808 was supposed to be an improvement over the Charleville pattern but wasn't working out due to the contractors not following instructions or using the pattern pieces. In the 1812, they shortened the barrel and made a few small changes to make it easier to produce, but it seems that that approach didn't help, especally when the makers insisted on using up parts made for earlier models. The M1816 came out better, as did the M1835, but it wasn't until the M1842 Percussion Musket that they achieved complete interchangeability. But when you look at them, they all show the characteristics of the French musket.

It is an interesting subject, and I haven't read anything written by the "experts" that agree on everything. There's not enough documentation from the Ordnance Dept. to give a clear view of what they meant when they speak of "Models", "Patterns", etc. Most of us don't have access to original pieces or to original records and have to take what we can get and draw our own conclusions.
:thumbsup:

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

The term "Model 1795" is a modern collectors term and it never existed in period documentation. The muskets made between 1792 (yes, 1792) and 1816 are properly called "Charleville Patern" muskets as they appeared that way in period documentation. There is no such thing as a "Model 1808" musket. The Contracts of 1808 were let for muskets of the "Charleville Patern". There are many variations in these muskets since some contractors were issued French muskets to use as paterns while others were issued muskets produced at Springfield and yet others were issued paterns from the production at Harpers Ferry - all different in many ways, add to that the fact that variants were allowed by inspectors and you have what may appear to be a seperate "Model 1808" but such never existed in period documents.

Quote From KanawhaRanger:
"In 1821/22 it was ordered that the muskets were to be browned and many also had their bayonets brazed to the barrels permanently. In 1831, they changed back to a bright finish and standard bayonets were issued and the ones that were brazed on were removed."

I am sure that the above is just a bit of confusion on the part of KanawhaRanger. The M1816 musket never had a brazed-on bayonet. The US did braze bayonets to MANY of the early Springfield made Charleville patern muskets but this was stopped early on due to the fact that the braze/solder material was failing and the muskets' barrels were damaged by their removal.

The best book for studying the early US produced muskets is Volume II of the series "US Military Shoulder Arms" by George Moller. He covers not only the production of the two national armories but also gives much information on all known contractors of the flint period. There are more variations of the Charleville Patern than you can possibly imagine and this volume will clear up the head scratching. The book is out of print but is available on Amazon. Coverage of Marie T. Wickham is large since he was one of the most important of the early arms makers in the US.

 

[Okwaho]

A very good post about a subject in which I am sorely deficient.While I am not familiar with the book you cited I can recommend two others and of course interlibrary loan.The first is "Springfield Armory Shoulder Weapons 1795-1968" by Robert Ball and "United States Martial Flintlocks" by Robert M. Reilly.The latter book relies on drawings but they look good and are very helpful.What you said sounds right to me and I also have relied on Flayderman whom I respect.
Tom Patton :m2c:

 

[Tumblernotch]

:agree: The term M1795 never existed in Ordnance Dept. correspondence. Collectors use that date for the Charleville pattern musket I suppose because that was the first year of production for that musket at Springfield. There were only 245 stand made there that year. The Charleville Pattern was used up to and including the M1816, although the changes in it conformed to the M1777 and M1797 French muskets. As for the M1808, I agree as well. There were many contracts during those years between the Rev. War and Civil War, but just because a contract was let doesn't mean a model year was changed. These were all Charleville pattern muskets, with many intentional and un-intentional variations.

You caught me. I mis-read my notes. The muskets with the brazed on bayonets were the first Springfields marked with dates, made between 1799 and 1806. There were about 25,000 made during this period and about 15,000 had bayonets brazed on. Most were later removed, many by cutting off the barrels.

But, in 1822 it was ordered that the muskets have a browned finish on all parts except the lock and that the lower sling swivel be moved from a separate stud to the guard bow. Many collectors call this the M1822, including Claud Fuller. In 1831, they reverted back to the bright finish, and again some call this the M1831. This confusion was caused by the Ordnance correspondence pertaining to the classification of muskets for the purpose of altering to percussion, holding "as is" for emergencies and sale. I'm sure you're familiar with that letter. I'll stick with M1816.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

"I'll stick with M1816."
You are absolutely correct. The confusion on the so-called M1821 was caused by a mistake in Ordnance records and was even repeated in later manuals.

"You caught me. I mis-read my notes. The muskets with the brazed on bayonets were the first Springfields marked with dates, made between 1799 and 1806. There were about 25,000 made during this period and about 15,000 had bayonets brazed on. Most were later removed, many by cutting off the barrels."
No, I didn't catch you at all, the early history of US military weapons is often so confusing that everyone who collects them will get a headache eventually. There are literally thousands of pages of information out there that were once thought to be "the" information and they will confuse us all until the end of time. Good work in their day but now supersceded by better in many, but not all, cases. The Reilly book mentioned above is excellent but George D Moller's "American Military Shoulder Arms: From the 1790s to the End of the Flintlock Period" (Volume II of a soon to be completed 3 Volume series) is the final word - so far. Volumes I and II have been out of print and comercially unavailable for years but do show up occasionally on[url] Amazon.com[/url]. Be aware that the listed used price will run between $150 - $850 per volume. :what: And they do sell as collecting early US military longarms is dicey without them.

 

[Tumblernotch]

It is tough trying to keep up with the research on these things. My library is very limited and some of my books have glaring mistakes in them, such as "Civil War Guns" by Wm. Edwards, though it is a very good read and still has very valuable information in it. Fuller's "Springfield Shoulder Arms" is another good reference and has much of the Ordnance Dept. correspondence in it, but he was one of those who insisted on calling the M1816 the M1821 and M1831. Also he liked to call the M1835 the M1840. Gluckman used the same terms in naming the models as I do. The model year was supposed to be based on the year of adoption by the Ord. Dept. and approval by the Secretary of War, not when manufactured or every time a minor change was made, such as when they changed the location of the lower sling swivel in 1822. Some early M1816's are known to have had iron flashpans due to the use of leftover locks from M1812 production. This was supposed to have gone on until 1818. (Gluckman) On another thread on the Forum, a subscriber describes an M1816 that was altered that still had traces of the iron pan on the lock. I've heard many describe their muskets by the date on the lock rather than by the correct year. But if they don't know any better, I can't blame them. I did the same thing before I understood it.

I would love to increase my library but simply can't afford it. I have seen several books that would cover everything, but I'd have to win the lottery to get them. Our local libraries used to have good reference books and I used to check them out, but some "collectors" have requistioned them for their own "permanent" use.

I have made some mistakes and mis-quoted or mis-read info and posted on here and I hate when that happens. Like you said, there is so much info out there, and some of what I have available to me is outdated and found to be wrong. It is very easy to write the wrong thing. Sometimes, I have to write from memory when a book or notes are not available and that can really get you into trouble. Thanks for catching that about the bayonets. I'd rather be called on a mistake than to spread the wrong information on to others.
:thumbsup:

 

[crockett]

Just a few other thoughts. First, everyone is correct about the Charlesville. One always reads, "based on the Charlesville Pattern" etc. There was an endless assortment of minor changes that seem insignificant. The barrel band springs were changed, some pointing forward, some to the rear. The contour of the lockplate and hammer changed. Today our lock plates are mostly flat but some of the originals were rounded or beveled. Then there was a lot of work on the flash pan, the material(steel or brass) and the configuration to catch sparks-keep out water. I think the 1816 was the real significant change where this musket really began to take off in a purely American direction. We also have to remember that throughout this time the French kept updating their muskets and I think a few of our changes were simply keeping up with the French( oh no- tell me it ain't so)

 

[Tumblernotch]

Well old boy, I'm afraid it is. But it also worked the other way as well. Our ordnance officers spent a lot of time in England and France studying the latest trends in arms manufacture and of course the British and French came over here. An interesting little story about visiting an American arms plant in Vermont proves this. You Moderators please forgive me for veering off-topic for a moment, OK?

The "Enfield Commission" visited Springfield Armory as well as other northern factories in the 1850's. One plant that they were very interested in was the Robbins & Lawrence works in Windsor. They are believed to have completed a contract with Enfield for 20,000 M1851 Tower Minie Rifles. The English were impressed enough to give them another contract for 25,000 P/53 Long Enfields which, I believe was also completed. They then made plans and tooled up to make 300,000 more, apparently because the English encouraged them. Here's where they made their mistake. They sold a BIG batch of Enfield rifle-musket machinery to the Royal Armory at Enfield, supposedly because the English were greatly impressed by the modern machinery used at Windsor. Enfield could make muskets at a much cheaper rate than Robbins & Lawrence and they went bust. Their plant was later bought by Lamson, Goodnough & Yale who later made the 1861 Colt Special Model Rifle-musket which was based somewhat on the Enfield.

Also, James Burton, who improved the design of the Minie bullet into what we know today, worked as Chief Engineer at Enfield. The British engineers that toured Springfield were very impressed by his abilities as well as a half dozen of the top workers at Springfield and hired them. Burton had been at Harper's Ferry. Burton apparently was impressed by the Enfield because he ordered a complete suite of Enfield machinery to be set up at the Macon Armory. It was last seen in Bermuda.

I guess the US and the countries in Europe have been copying methods and designs off of each other since the beginning. The French musket was a superior design over the others and since they and the US were allies most of the time, it made sense to copy it. From what I have seen however, the US made muskets quickly surpassed the French after the M1816 was introduced. By the turn of this past century we started copying the German weapons, such as the Mauser.

Reckon they had quite an arms race back in the 1840's-1860's! ::