Would like some Historical Help: 1824 Harper's Ferry Flintlock

[Tumblernotch]

I know what you're sayin'! It can be confusing. I know that Claud Fuller used the M1822 designation and also used M1840 for the M1835 musket. I've always gone by Col. Gluckman's versions. He based his use of M1816 and M1835 on the years the Models were adopted. Fuller seemed to go by the year a particular model had some change in it such as the 1816. I've seen the 1816 also referred to as the M1821. I believe this was due to the directive I mentioned last night when it was ordered that the barrels and bands be browned in 1821. Another thing that pops up is the use of Models 1795, 1808 and 1812. I tend to use those designations myself, yet the Ordnance Dept. mentions "Charleville Pattern" instead. I know that these dates come from directives and other correspondence ordering changes in the arms and it makes sense to use these dates as Models. I'd bet some of the ordnance officers if they were alive now would wonder what in the world we were talking about! Some would probably know right off.

Some people just use sources by one author or another and use certain designations. Some, like us, are aware of different ones and although it can be confusing at times, we learn more about the changes that were made in these weapons and in turn, why they are know by so many different models. I certainly agree that it is aggravating when terms such as "pattern I sent you" or "as heretofore made" show up in Ord. Dept. correspondence.

I hope you didn't think that I was trying to say you were wrong or anything. It was just a statement to let the questioner know that there are different designations for the same musket. If he doesn't know, it could confuse him when he runs across descriptions of his musket from different sources. Actually, we could still call the M1816/22 a "Charleville Pattern" musket since it closely follows the M1777 French musket. It never gets easy, does it?
:thumbsup:

 

[Tumblernotch]

Does your Harper's Ferry musket have a date on it? There are three specimens dated 1800, 1802 and 1803 known to exist. There is a lot of confusion as to when regular production commenced. On May 24, 1800 a letter announcing "the commencement of the fabrication of arms has been sometime made" at Harpers Herry. The use of the term "fabrication" was rather loosely used in those days and could have been used to describe assembly, to repair or to make new. Joseph Perkin, the first Superintendent wrote a letter to the Secretary of War in August 1801 that his men were still engaged "chiefly on old arms". However, the existence of muskets bearing the dates mentioned above say that at least a few new arms were being made here. Between 1804 and 1807 the output of muskets at Harpers Ferry totalled only 342. During the same period 14,811 muskets were fabricated at Springfield. The main reason for this was the fact that Harpers Ferry was concentrating it's resources on producing the M1803 rifle.

The M1795 was simply a copy of the French smoothbore musket used in the Revolutionary War. Basically the M1763 commonly known as the Charleville (although it was also made at St. Etienne and Maubeuge.) As the French made changes in their arms, sometimes the Americans adopted them. The Charleville Pattern was adopted by the U.S in 1795 and made until the Model 1816. Even it resembled the French M1777. Collectors and students of these arms know them as M1795, M1808 and M1812 though Ordnance Dept. correspondence doesn't necessarily mention them in that way. During these years changes were made, some very small, and that is why there are so many "Models". However, they are all still "Charleville Pattern" muskets.

A good book about Harpers Ferry arms production is Harpers Ferry Armory and the New TechnologyThe Challenge of Change by Merritt Roe Smith. It describes much of the work there as well as the politics involved. I bought mine at Harpers Ferry several years ago and I have seen it in public libraries in the past. I believe it can be bought online as well.

 

[ptk1126]

The date on the lock on the Harpers Ferry Model 1795 is "_813.

I also have a Charleville which I think is a model
1777 as it has a brass pan but the barrel is only
34 3/8" and the forestock is missing just past the first barrel band. The lock is marked Charleville but the barrel is stamped "St. Sou".

all the best
Paul

 

[Old40Rod]

If this information is accurate...

That's why I put in this caveat, thanks for clearing that up.

 

[farrieje]

Just for safty sake you might want to check to see if the barrel has an old load still in it. :thumbsup:

For better or worse, about 10 years ago when I first saw the gun, I went and bought the flint and leather seen in the picture. I though I'd go ahead and see if the mechanism still worked. It does! Probably not the best thing to do in hindsight, but it was fun to try.

Wow....there really is a lot of knowledge in this thread. I'm going to have to go through all of this and summarize what has been stated to see if I can digest it all and find out even more!

 

[JV Puleo]

Actually, I understood your intent and you are right about the interchangeability...I should have written "more parts were interchangeable" rather than most were. In any case, we are all agreed that it is a confusing situation which, I think, comes from our collector's desire to catagorize things. The original users of these military arms appear to have been far less interested.

When I started collecting I specialized in "M1808" muskets. It was years before I learned that there was no such thing...like you point out, they used "Charleville Pattern" more often than not.
The confusion has been added to by the early writers who, with the best intent, applied designations that made sense from a collecting point of view but weren't apparent to the original users. A friend of mine, author of "Arming & Equipping the Cavalry, 1865-1902" refers to them as "collectors terms of convenience" and studiously avoids using them. The problem is that, whether they were used in period or not, they do help understand the items.

Joe Puleo

 

[JV Puleo]

Tom,
I too have a soft spot for those early French guns and for the poorly understood composite muskets but, since its way off the topic of this thread I'll start a new one and try to post some pictures to get it going.

Joe

 

[Tumblernotch]

And you were right about the degree of interchangeability! The M1816 was a milestone when it came making the parts more near alike. I believe the word they used in some correspondence I read was "uniformity".

As for using the different models to describe these, like you said, even if it may be incorrect, it sure makes it easier to tell what somebody's talking about! I never could afford to start a real collection and have only had a couple of original pieces, one of which an Austrian rifle, was a real mystery. But I've spent a lot of time studying these babies and have gotten to handle a few and it's about my favorite thing to do. I'm far from being an expert though. And anytime someone can shed some new light on them, I'm tickled to death!