Is This a Civil War Era Austrian Lorenz?

[TexasCheesehead]

In a word, no.

Apologies if this comes across as offensive - but what makes you think that it is a) an Austrian M1854 "Lorenz" rifle? b) that it has anything whatsoever to do with the Civil War?

I think it is a "home-brew" built around a carved-up original stock and trigger guard from a Lorenz M/54 "Jaeger". Considering what is obviously wrong for a Lorenz - lock (unidentifiable), hammer (French style), nipple bolster (village blacksmith), backsight.... someone tell me what's right!

The Lorenz had a 13.9mm (.547) bore. Old ex-service BP rifles were often reamed out to make smoothbores for use as shotguns. In which case, one would expect a smooth-bore of around 0.6". Never 0.75 - that would be an enormous waste of effort, and in most cases the original barrel would not be thick enough to permit reaming to 12-gauge. This was probably always a 12-gauge shotgun barrel - it is indeed marked with a 12.

And the XXXX \ / III marking is typical cold-chisel marking for a set of components, to stop sets getting mixed up, in 19th century small-scale (hand) batch production. These were placed where they would not be visible on the finished gun, and were nothing to do with regiments etc, just in case anybody's thinking that!

No offense taken, seriously. I have the grand sum of $50 invested in this. But if you did a little research, you'd see that the model or year numbers on Austrian rifles were marked on the underside of the barrel, in Roman Numerals. This was would have been manufactured in 1848. Another point: The number "12" you see in the pictures, is stamped into the breech plug, not the barrel. It is probably not a number "12", as it looks like there is a third number. And thirdly, why would there be a bayonet lug on a shotgun barrel?

Now the rear sight was of my own making. It was missing when I got it, having only a dovetail slot. I'm guessing that the barrel was probably bored out to be used as a shotgun. As for the barrel not being thick enough to ream, look at the bore of a Brown Bess musket: It takes a 0.71" ball, is smoothbore, and the barrel has very thin walls. You're saying they could ream out a barrel in the early 1700's but couldn't do the same thing in the mid 1800's?

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Patrick Chadwick]

But if you did a little research ...

Oh I do! And spend hours presenting the results.

..., you'd see that the model or year numbers on Austrian rifles were marked on the underside of the barrel, in Roman Numerals. This was would have been manufactured in 1848.

- Which would prove that it is NOT an 1854 model !
And an arsenal date marking would surely have been stamped, not chisel-cut?

You're saying they could ream out a barrel in the early 1700's but couldn't do the same thing in the mid 1800's?

Not at all. I am saying that the barrel on a 13.9mm calibre rifle would hardly have been thick enough at the muzzle end to ream it out for a 0.756" smoothbore. That is 19.2mm.

In the book "Militärgewehre und Pistolen der Deutschen Staaten 1800-1870" from P.255 on there is a complete chapter on the M1854 Lorenz rifles. PP256-258 show drawings of lock, backsight and barrel profile. All completely different to your example, and the barrel profile drawing indicates an external diameter at the muzzle end of 19.95mm. Say 20. Paper-thin if you bore that out to 19.2mm!
I suspect that if you measure the muzzle diameter of your gun it is considerably larger, more like 23.7mm. Say 23.5 to 24 = 0.92 to 0.94. Approx, of course. Please let me know.
A 13.9mm rifle with a muzzle diameter of that size would have been a real "bull barrel". For a target rifle - OK. For a military rifle - too heavy.

The trigger guard looks like the one from the M/54 Jaeger. But the Jaeger had a 71 cm barrel, octagonal, turned down to round for 11 cm from the muzzle, to take the bayonet. Your barrel is 32" long, therefore not a Jaeger barrel.
The full-length M/54 rifle barrel was 36 Viennese inches = 946 mm =37.24". That could have been cut down to 32", but then the foresight and bayonet boss would have been lost.

And thirdly, why would there be a bayonet lug on a shotgun barrel?

To make it look like a military rifle?

Finally, all Lorenz rifles had a proper nipple boss on the side. That nipple boss is home-made, and was never an arsenal product.

I could, of course, be wrong in all of this. It would be interesting to hear comments from someone else!

[TexasCheesehead]

Oh I do! And spend hours presenting the results.


- Which would prove that it is NOT an 1854 model !
And an arsenal date marking would surely have been stamped, not chisel-cut?


Not at all. I am saying that the barrel on a 13.9mm calibre rifle would hardly have been thick enough at the muzzle end to ream it out for a 0.756" smoothbore. That is 19.2mm.

In the book "Militärgewehre und Pistolen der Deutschen Staaten 1800-1870" from P.255 on there is a complete chapter on the M1854 Lorenz rifles. PP256-258 show drawings of lock, backsight and barrel profile. All completely different to your example, and the barrel profile drawing indicates an external diameter at the muzzle end of 19.95mm. Say 20. Paper-thin if you bore that out to 19.2mm!
I suspect that if you measure the muzzle diameter of your gun it is considerably larger, more like 23.7mm. Say 23.5 to 24 = 0.92 to 0.94. Approx, of course. Please let me know.
A 13.9mm rifle with a muzzle diameter of that size would have been a real "bull barrel". For a target rifle - OK. For a military rifle - too heavy.

The trigger guard looks like the one from the M/54 Jaeger. But the Jaeger had a 71 cm barrel, octagonal, turned down to round for 11 cm from the muzzle, to take the bayonet. Your barrel is 32" long, therefore not a Jaeger barrel.
The full-length M/54 rifle barrel was 36 Viennese inches = 946 mm =37.24". That could have been cut down to 32", but then the foresight and bayonet boss would have been lost.


To make it look like a military rifle?

Finally, all Lorenz rifles had a proper nipple boss on the side. That nipple boss is home-made, and was never an arsenal product.

I could, of course, be wrong in all of this. It would be interesting to hear comments from someone else!

I am impressed, you certainly sound like you know your 19th century firearms. I measured the bore diameter again and it measures 19.19mm inside diameter, and 23.88 outside diameter. The thing that perplexes me the most, is that if the barrel was originally manufactured to be used on a fowling piece, why the bayonet lug and front and rear sights? I carved a rear sight out of a piece of steel, patterning it after several advertised Lorenz rear sights which were on Ebay. But was it normal for something to hunt ducks and geese to have a bayonet and sights?

As for calling it a "Lorenz", I'm only going by what little information I could glean of the internet. I found several similar to it which were referred to as a "Lorenz", or simply an "Austrian musket".

[Patrick Chadwick]

I measured the bore diameter again and it measures 19.19mm inside diameter, and 23.88 outside diameter.

So my 23.7mm, scaled from your photo, was a pretty good estimate!

The thing that perplexes me the most, is that if the barrel was originally manufactured to be used on a fowling piece, why the bayonet lug and front and rear sights?

This is getting very speculative (but it's fun!): It may, of course, be a barrel recycled from a musket. Take out the barrel and see if you can find a trace of an ignition hole for a flintlock - if there was, it would have been plugged or welded shut. It is also conceivable that, if there was a flintlock ignition hole which was badly eroded, the person doing the conversion converter simply cut off the breech end of the barrel and recut (lengthened) the screw thread for the breech plug.