Is This a Civil War Era Austrian Lorenz?

[gew8805]

Excellent research Patrick, all well thought out and defined! This shows every sign of being a pre-Lorenz Austrian military firearm.

Texascheesehead, you need to do your research with something other than the internet, right now you are limiting yourself by using limited resources. Now, much good information is out there and, thanks to many like Patrick, the internet resources increase over time but there are many good resources out there on paper and the internet shows little sign that it will overcome it. Besides, what will happen when someone "pulls the plug"? Someday, someone may very well do that. I also can not agree that the chisel-cut marking on the barrel is a date, it is an assembler's batch number.

Patrick, is it possible that this was once an 1844 Kammerbusche? I am not necessarily in total agreement that the percussion bolster shown in Cheesehead's photos is not original, it is too complicated for civilian, post military work. The 1844 Kammerbusch was .69 caliber IIRC.

[Patrick Chadwick]

Patrick, is it possible that this was once an 1844 Kammerbusche? I am not necessarily in total agreement that the percussion bolster shown in Cheesehead's photos is not original, it is too complicated for civilian, post military work. The 1844 Kammerbusch was .69 caliber IIRC.

I am not sure about the percussion bolster. Maybe I am being too negative because of the pounded nipple, and a hands-on investigation would show that it is a more workmanlike conversion than appears in the photo. That is the problem with all these "online puzzles" - at the risk of boring you all, I must repeat that all my observations are AFAICTWAHTOIMH - which as you know, is shorthand for As Far As I Can Tell Without Actually Having The Object In My Hands.

As to the 1842 (not 1844) Kammerbüchse, this was indeed also with an 18.1mm bore, but had a musket-style front end with a bayonet boss on the bottom of the barrel, in front of the foresight, which was further back in the usual musket position - i.e. surrounded by or even part of the generous front-band with the trumpet mouth for the ramrod.

Furthermore, the 1842 had a patch-box on the right side of the butt, and the sling swivel was further back.

See P210 of the previously mentioned book.

Of course, books also have errors. But specialist authors of technical monographs are usually fairly conscientious people, knowing that their works are likely to be picked to pieces by other experts.

The same cannot be said of advertisements and dealers appraisals, and that is what you will often find if you "google" a particular model. Once someone with a commercial interest has optimistically declared an old piece as being Model 1234 from the maker ABC or gunsmith XYZ and the photo is placed on the internet, other innocent parties will take this as gospel and start bandying the photo around, leading to a kind of "urban legend". There is little doubt in my mind that sellers (and owners) of all kinds would rather present a gun as a "rare version" of a military model than John Doe's farmers gun or Bubba's last-ditch effort.

The vast majority of altered guns appearing on the internet belong in the last two categories. Buyers beware!

The other aspect is that muzzle-loaders were often "recycled" in a way that would not be possible with cartridge rifles. For instance, the Model 1842 Kammerbüchse was made up with various surplus parts - locks from the earlier M1807 Jägerkarabiner and - O creative Bubbaring! - smoothbore barrels from captured French muskets!

When these 0.69 smooth-bore barrels were shortened from about a meter length to 84.5 cm, they had sufficient wall thickness to permit cutting an 18.1mm rifling in the originally 17.5mm smooth-bore.

If one of these rifles, many years later and utterly worn out, was sold out of service and then reamed out to make an approx. 12-bore shotgun, then it gloried in the astonishing history of having had 3 working lives - as smooth-bore musket, then rifle, then shotgun!

All this sort of thing makes it extremely difficult to say 150 years later whether certain alterations were arsenal-made while in service or privately, after service. One clue is the way in which the work was performed (machined or "hand-carved) and that brings us back to the AFAICTWAHTOIMH problem.

[TexasCheesehead]

Many thanks for the world of information you provided, Patrick Chadwick. The wealth of knowledge you have is simply astounding.