1858 Percussion Conversion

[JOHN42768]

I was able to buy an maynard tape primer on ebay by it wasn't cheap

Welcome, enjoy

 

[CapGunner]

Yes, dated 1858.

I've attached some add'l photos which may be of interest. The 1st shows sight placement and the 2nd the muzzle & ramrod; specifically barrel thickness and rifling . . . pretty faint so you'll want to zoom in.

 

[Conquerordie]

It looks like somehow the rear site has been filed down. It should have elevation to 400 yards on the ears or wings. Does the barrel have the same finish of the lock and trigger guard/ trigger? I can't tell if they have been plated or maybe finely bead blasted? Overall it looks to be in good shape.

 

[CapGunner]

It looks like somehow the rear site has been filed down. It should have elevation to 400 yards on the ears or wings. Does the barrel have the same finish of the lock and trigger guard/ trigger? I can't tell if they have been plated or maybe finely bead blasted? Overall it looks to be in good shape.

No, the barrel had very light surface rust when I inherited it. Probably well intentioned but misguided, I "cleaned the barrel up" with extra fine steel wool in the 60's. The barrel bands, lock & trigger guard all have the same plated(?) finish. I was told at the time it was tin plated fro sea duty. I have since read that the plating is nickel. The sight appears to be complete and functional (ref photo)

Thanks!

 

[Conquerordie]

No, the barrel had very light surface rust when I inherited it. Probably well intentioned but misguided, I "cleaned the barrel up" with extra fine steel wool in the 60's. The barrel bands, lock & trigger guard all have the same plated(?) finish. I was told at the time it was tin plated fro sea duty. I have since read that the plating is nickel. The sight appears to be complete and functional (ref photo)

Thanks!

View attachment 527624

On the rear sight, it's not the elevation or the ladder that you have pictured, that looks fine. It's the wings that form the base of the site. You would see a 1,2,3,4 on it for yardage on the side. To my eye, the very top of it has been filed flat. You might not be able to see the numbers through the plating.

I've never heard of plating done by the military for use at sea. Maye , just not familiar with it. Usually, from what I've seen, when they are plated it could have been done by a veterans organization and the firearm used as a ceremonial/parade prop. It's just part of its history.

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

Old tin plating and old nickel plating look a lot alike - these old finishes are dull.

 

[Old Soldier]

On the rear sight, it's not the elevation or the ladder that you have pictured, that looks fine. It's the wings that form the base of the site. You would see a 1,2,3,4 on it for yardage on the side. To my eye, the very top of it has been filed flat. You might not be able to see the numbers through the plating.

I've never heard of plating done by the military for use at sea. Maye , just not familiar with it. Usually, from what I've seen, when they are plated it could have been done by a veterans organization and the firearm used as a ceremonial/parade prop. It's just part of its history.

They are there but faint, only the 1 and 2 visible:

The top of the sight (400), however, does seem to be flattened. Compare with an unaltered sight

 

[CapGunner]

Old tin plating and old nickel plating look a lot alike - these old finishes are dull.

Thanks . . . indeed it is dull.

 

[CapGunner]

They are there but faint, only the 1 and 2 visible:
View attachment 527762
The top of the sight (400), however, does seem to be flattened. Compare with an unaltered sight
View attachment 527764

Absolutely spot on! Good catch. I've attached a better photo which confirms what you say. Again, thanks!