Attachment 38830 Attachment 38829
Attachment 38831
Can anyone tell me exactly which type it is? I have a suspicion, but do not wish to influence you all with my preconceived ideas.
Printable View
Attachment 38830 Attachment 38829
Attachment 38831
Can anyone tell me exactly which type it is? I have a suspicion, but do not wish to influence you all with my preconceived ideas.
No clue!
Look at the bayonet lug, the band springs, and the trigger bow. And although you can't see it clearly, the butt has a cheek piece molding. The lock plate is flat, with bevelled edges, but behind the cock it is heavily convex.
Is it French?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
French style, but not French made. But it is based on the 1777 AN IX.
That is why I listed the "unique selling points", which are slightly different on a French AN IX.
More info:
Lock plate 6 1/4! x 1 1/4"
Barrel length 41 1/4" (the muzzle may have been trimmed a bit)
Caliber now a tight .72, but the previous owner honed the barrel to remove rust, so it was probably originally a nominal .69 or .70.***
If anyone out there has "American Military Shoulder Arms, Volume II" by George D. Moller, please take a look - I do not have this book, but have received a tip that the answer may be in there somewhere.
***Correction: I doubt he honed it out that much. Maybe the original caliber was .71"
Of course! But my copy of Mollers books are in storage 680 miles away!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The visual clues surely seem French/US, but the brass fittings, esp. the crazy front band/ramrod guide thingie aren't like anything I've seen. But if it's pre-1800 that's not a surprise. First suspicision would be Naval issue. Some early USMC musket? All wags at this point. No books handy for a few days.
OK, I think it's time for me to publish my guess. Which will have to do until someone digs out more books!
Based on information in "United States Martial Flintlocks" by Rober M. Reilly, plus comments from musketologists, I observe the following.
1) The long combined foresight/front band extending to middle band is, up to now, only know from Dutch muskets.
2) The bayonet stud on top of the barrel appears to be a specifically American feature.
3) Many early muskets (and presumably compents) in the pre-revolutionary America (not yet USA!) were of Dutch origin.
4) The following features match a Springfield Model 1816, of which there were 3 major types. Reilly points out that, together with the contract muskets, there is a wide variation is detail configuration, and there is no single "all correct" version. This was NOT modern standarized factory production!
a) Bayonet stud on top of barrel - all types.
b) Lockplate flat with bevelled edges at front, bulbous/convex behind the cock - all types.
c) Lower sling swivel in front arm of trigger bow - Type 2.
d) Detachable brass pan - all types.
e) Middle and rear band spring in front of bands. Front spring with stud - all types.
So that sounds like a Springfield Model 1816, Type 2 - apart from the front band construction
However, the butt, with a comb and molded cheek-piece recess is pure French, in fact 1777 AnIX. But the basic French design was taken up by many countries, so this does not provide a clear origin, merely an earliest date of roughly 1801.
My present guess is:
A Springfield 1816 contract musket made up using Dutch parts, maybe recycled from an earlier musket.
I would be grateful for comments from anyone with better information, and above all - pictures!
Does it have any proof marks? I know Belgium made arms for just about everybody. Have you handled the musket, or just these three piccies?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsimmons
Don't worry, I have handled it. In fact I have dismantled it and gone over every piece with an eyeglass. All I can find in the way of markings are:
A clearly stamped "BWS 39" on the back end of the barrel, about 1" from the tang.
A dubious TT high on the lockplate, between the cock and the back of the pan (only visible when the lock is cocked) in the position where many US muskets are stamped "US".
A "2" inside the lockplate.
And that is it!
Ah! BWS39 is surely a WaffenAmt. It was made in a concentration camp for the guards.
Definitely no cigar, Patrick!
Stock is of what type wood?
Definitely a fine close-grained walnut. I will try to make some better photos in the next days.
Can´t be expected to get them all right
An interesting musket.I believe it is somewhat earlier than what you think.The lock is very similar to the French M1774 pattern,the furniture seems to indicate Dutch manufacture.That long top band,Dragoon musket?Many of the German States of that period purchased guns from the Dutch.
Thanks for those tips, I will investigate further and make some pics. There were two major periods - in America from the revolution up to around 1820, and in Prussia around 1808-1815 - when muskets were put together from whatever went bang in order to make something usable, both for the regular and the militia forces. In both cases it was urgent military need because an adequate standardized arsenal production simply did not exist, not Bubba!
So the point that really bothers me is not the stylistic mix - but the bayonet lug on top of the barrel. Lug - not foresight!
At present, I can only find this feature on American muskets. So unless someone can provide examples of this orientation on muskets from other countries, I can only see America as the origin. There is a number 65 impressed on the butt, which makes me think of a miitia rifle.
Here are some detail photos:
First a general view
Attachment 38931
The Dutch-style front band
Attachment 38934
The number on the barrel
Attachment 38930
The number on the butt
Attachment 38929
The lock area, on the left.
Attachment 38932
Note the screw-headed pins for the tang on the trigger guard and the trigger itself.
And finally, the lock.
Attachment 38933
The simple butt number, without further subdivision to indicate a regiment or company, suggests a militia rifle. The bayonet stud on top of the barrel is very American. All Dutch muskets seem to have the bayonet stud at the bottom.
The position of the bayonet stud has not been altered. Together with the style mix it all suggests an American militia musket made up on the basis of a pre-1800 Dutch musket - the only musket that I have been able to discover with a front band arrangement like this is Firearm Exhibit No. 355 from the Leger Museum in Delft, described as late 18th century, and that has a single strap for the foresight, not a double strap.
http://www.collectie.legermuseum.nl/...n/i006816.html
Any help in identifying this musket will be most welcome.
The markings look much more European to me. And the square corner at the lower rear corner of the flashpan and lockplate is somewhat disturbing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoore
Well spotted jmoore! The musket was converted to percussion at some stage and then converted back to flintlock. Still with the original lockplate, but of course this means that I cannot assume that the cock, frizzen, pan and frizzen spring are off the original musket (although they seem to be original components). The hole for the percussion drum has been plugged with a threaded insert.
But the point that no-one has answered up to now is: was the USA the only country to regularly use bayonet studs/lugs on top of the barrel? As I have not yet found examples from any other country, my tentative judgement is "yes".
And the reason - speculative, I admit, but it will have to do until someone turns up better information - is that the British Brown Bess musket was differently constructed from those in the rest of Europe (most of which followed a French Charleville-type layout) in using the foresight block as a bayonet stud.
So the revolutionary Americans would have acquired not only considerable numbers of British muskets, but probably even more British bayonets. In fact, they would have been the only type of bayonet generally available "off the shelf"! I guess that the urgent requirement to use what was available resulted in American muskets generally having the bayonet stud on top, in the position where the Brown Bess had the foresight block.
Yes, it's just my theory. Anyone who knows better should simply speak up!
Nothing in Flaydermans' that is described similarly. Not an exhaustive search, but went through several chapters so far.
Patrick, that is a fascinating example of late 18th - early 19th Century musketry, thanks for sharing it with us. I have to admit that I am at a loss as to what exactly is. It has French styling, even the front band is very close to that of the French M1763 (the US copied the French M1766 for all of our "Charleville Pattern muskets") but the furniture is of course brass rather than the iron used on all of their standard infantry arms though the French did use brass furniture on some special purpose muskets. I did once own a French M1842 Voltigeurs Musket made with brass bands, butt plate and trigger guard bow but this musket is earlier and shows no French proof marks or acceptance/inspection marks so where did come from? Hmmmm.....
The close-grained walnut stock indicates that it is European made, not American. What can we look at from the various arms producing nations?
It is not Belgian, there are no Belgian proof marks on the barrel or inspectors marks and I can find no evidence of Belgian makers producing this specific pattern arm for any of their client states. The Belgians were rigorous in their inspection and proofing of arms for their own military and for export to other military users.
It is not Swedish or Norwegian, they did not make this pattern arm either.
The Dutch did produce large numbers of arms for their own military and for others as well, not at the level that the Belgians did but there are many examples of Dutch military arms used by nations from Europe to North Africa and the Western Hemisphere, including the United States but the US used no Dutch arms for front line troops after 1783 except in some isolated forts on the frontier and they did not last long, being produced with British and French arms after the Revolution.
Now, as to whether this musket may be American produced? Certainly not. There are no American proof marks on the barrel - all American military arms produced by the two national armories and all contractors were required to proof their arms under government supervision. This also held true for state purchased militia arms whether New York, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Virginia or any other state. Virginia in particular had it's own successful arms manufacturing facility in Richmond, The Virginia Manufactory of Arms which produced all of the arms needed by the Commonwealth's military forces from 1802 until 1823 when it closed down because the needs of the state militia were fulfilled for the foreseeable future. The building was maintained and became the Richmond Armory in 1861 using the machinery taken from Harpers Ferry after it's destruction by the Virginia Militia in the opening days of "The Late Unpleasantness". But I am wandering off topic.....:red face:
Suffice it to say, if you are giving this musket a connection to the US based only on the position of it's bayonet lug, you are mistaken. The US made muskets with bottom lugs early in production at Harpers Ferry and Springfield as well as several of the contractors who made what we collectors call the M1795 First Pattern musket. The 2nd and 3rd Pattern M1795 muskets as ell as the Standard Musket of 1815 and all patterns of the M1816 had the ug on top however the bayonet lug changed from top to bottom for both the US M1840 (our last flintlock musket) and the M1842 percussion musket. All of that being said, the lug's location here means very little. And it is not at all similar to the M1816 musket made at either National Armory or by any of the contractors of that pattern. Also, there is no record that I am aware of that points to this being a small, limited edition contract musket for any of the various states for use by their militias, such a gun would have been too expensive and their needs were more than adequately met by the Militia Act of 1808 whereby the Federal Government was required to provide arms for the various states to keep their militias adequately armed and equipped.
The style of the musket points decisively to it's production in Europe in the 1790 to 1810 period. My own impression is that it was likely made for one of the smaller German states or possibly Italy but my sources for the German States are practically non-existent and my Italian resources only date back to 1814. However, the use of the French pattern furniture and lock do make Italy a possibility though I am far from certain on the Italians. Maybe you can find something about it's use in Germany?
---------- Post added at 11:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 AM ----------
And I might add that neither Moller's American Military Shoulder Arms, Vol.2 nor Schmidt's US Military Flintlock Muskets and their bayonets; The Early Years, 1790 - 1815 show anything even remotely resembling your example. I wish I could be of more assistance.:dunno:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gew8805
Thanks for a well-reasoned commentary. I realize that the US connection is geographically improbable, but I pointed out that - up to now - I have been unable to find examples of top bayonet studs from any other country. That is the major problem in locating the origin.
And the barrel fittings are most certainly not today's highly malleable yellow brass, but a much tougher material that seems to be a kind of bronze. It is slightly reddish, more so than "domestic" brass, but you need natural light to see the difference. The whole long front band (upper band) was made from one piece of this material and the joints are brazed. The lower band does not fit the barrel very snugly, so I thought I could improve matters by forming the reverse curve between barrel and shaft to be a bit tighter. Hammer blows on the form piece that would have easily formed yellow brass just bounced of the stuff, and I gave up the idea for fear of starting stress fractures. But I repeat, the bands are not cast, they are formed from sheets of the hard material that looks and feels like a bronze or naval brass.
Since the front end that comes stylistically closest is Expo 355 from the Leger Museum in Delft:
http://www.collectie.legermuseum.nl/...n/i006816.html
I think my next task is to send them the photos and ask if anyone in the museum has an idea - they seem to have a couple of hundred flintlocks!
Saw a very similar musket last month, except for the elongated front band business. Maubeuge marked lock, IIRC.
In the meantime, the Dutch curator has replied. He was flummoxed too, and could only confirm that it "...certainly looks Dutch, or at least Germanic".
I have come to the conclusion that what I previously thought was some kind of rust pit is possibly a stamp in the form of a heraldic shield. As you move the barrel around in various lighting conditions it flashes into view, and then vanishes. If I succeed in making a usable photo I shall post it here.
The barrel is no longer a rough .72", but a reamed .725". Still not perfect, but now there is at least more shine than pits and it should be usable. The lockwork also requires some tuning. Or is a 10 kilogram :yikes:trigger pressure acceptable for the vintage?
Well, I tried to make photos. This is the best I can do without a better setup.
First, there are two marks on the barrel that I first thought were rust pits/handling marks.
Attachment 39970
The one in front could be from vice jaws - I am not sure. It certainly has a pattern, and is not a random rust pit.
The one at the back is IMOH not a handling mark, and not a rust pit either. In the horizontal view, it doesn't make much sense. What got me thinking was the area at top left (in this view) that looks like a portcullis. So I rotated the view through 90 degrees...
Attachment 39969---------------Attachment 39972
... and now I think it is a shield mark.
Any comments - especially from experts in heraldry:) - would be most welcome.
Finally, where typical long guns of this vintage use pins*, this musket has what can only be described as "pin-screws". The photo is better than any description.
Attachment 39971
Has anyone seen this trick anywhere else?
* For the trigger suspension and the fixing lug at the front of the trigger guard
Surprise, surprise! A contact on another board has found a "brother" to this rifle. Same trick with the tucked-in tail to the front double-strap and "pin-screws" for the trigger suspension and trigger guard lug.
SWISS, would you believe!!!
Now I need an expert on Swiss heraldry!
Congratulations Patrick! I will take the liberty of showing Adrian's link from the other board here, I hope you don't mind:
AUGUSTUS FINE ANTIQUITIES
The musket he suggested is found under "Antique Firearms I"
It is similar to yours though it has a bottom lug for the bayonet and brass furniture, still it is possible that yours is from the Swiss province of Bern or one of the others. I do feel that yours is earlier.
The most telling Swiss features, aside from the bands are the trigger and trigger guard screw pins that you pointed out earlier. I know of no other arms that feature.
The Swiss released their antiques for sale after the Second World War and found willing buyers in the US, particularly a gentleman by the name of Ken Lane who sold the Swiss muskets in full page adds in "Gun Report" magazine in the 1950 and early '60s. Sadly, they disappeared into collections in the US and have never been very well documented. For the last 20 or so years, some have gone back to Switzerland where they were purchased by willing collectors there. You are very lucky to have found this one.
That's OK gew8805. BTW, I found another in the military museum of Morges, near Lausanne, and had a chat with the curator, who is going to study the photos to see if he can recognize it.
Isn't the Internet marvellous for digging out obscure info!
Oh, it most certainly does! I wish we had had internet resources when I started in all of this 40 years ago but we certainly enjoyed the thrill of the hunt. And we learned a lot the hard way, occasionally having to "unlearn" it soon after.:rolleyes:
Plus, you got to meet some fascinating people in interesting places.
Thanks to the Canton Museum of Morges, near Lausanne, and a Swiss expert, the musket has now been identified as:
an 1804 Canton of Bern Ordnance Musket, taken over (and thus overstamped) by the Canton of Aargau.
If I can get that banging away in competition, the word "unique" springs to mind.