Austrian Lorenz Question

[brcampbe]

Some of the early rifles may have been purchased from Italy or France, which had defeated Austria in a significant war in 1859. That is one very likely source.

 

[thomas aagaard]

True I misquoted the article in terms of the Loenz being a copy of the Enfield P53.
However the article stated it was very similar to the Enfield and Springfield.
Leftyhunter

It did claim that earlier. But someone removed that...

 

[leftyhunter]

And people WO Dee why I put such stock in wars being won by the least incompetent army.

That would be an interesting opic for another thread on what army Union or Confederate was the least incompetent.
Leftyhunter

 

[rockguy58]

There are indications that the Confederates had Austrian weapons almost from the beginning of the war.

LTC Broun, who was appointed commander of the Richmond arsenal in 1863, recalled that "With the exception of a few thousand rifles, the [Confederate] soldiers at the beginning of the war were armed with the old smoothbore muskets and with old Austrian and Belgian rifles imported." LTC Mallet wrote that: "In the scramble of the early part of the war to obtain at once arms of some kind, both at home and abroad, a most heterogeneous collection was gathered. There were in the hands of the troops Springfield and Enfield muskets, Mississippi and Maynard rifles, Hall's and Sharp's carbines, and arms of English, German, Austrian and Belgian manufacture, of many different calibers. I had at one time samples of more than twenty patterns of infantry weapons alone."

The first known significant Confederate shipment of European arms – a mix of more than 3,500 Enfield and Austrian arms from Confederate government, private, and state purchases – left Liverpool aboard the British steamer Bermuda. Coaling at Falmouth on 22 August 1861, Bermuda sailed directly to the Confederacy, arriving at Savannah on September 18th. This is the first recorded shipment of Austrian arms, and is well before MAJ Huse's known purchases of Austrian arms began.

In February 1862 the 50th Illinois Infantry occupied Fort Henry after that fort was surrendered to MG Grant. Company B discovered among the captured arms, a lot of new Austrian rifle muskets, which they obtained. This is the first reference to Confederate troops in the field having Muster 1854 rifles, and was well before Huse's known purchases of Austrian arms began.

On 31 May 1862 S. Isaac Campbell and Company wrote to Confederate Secretary of State Benjamin that Huse had been to Vienna, where he had seen 30,000 "very superior rifles, the last Austrian pattern." S. Isaac Campbell had agreed to purchase these arms, and would dispatch them, along with 10,000 Enfield rifles from London. Huse subsequntly claimed that all told he purchased 100,000 Muster 1854 rifles from the Austrian Army, and an analysis of the crate numbers from cargo manifests and Federal Navy captures indicates that this number is probably correct, or at least very close. However, it was some months before the weapons were incrementally run into Bermuda and the Bahamas, and then run incrementally into the Confederacy. A few never left the islands [shipping luxury goods was more important to the Confederate aristocrats than shipping arms], and some were captured by the Federal Navy. Based upon the markings on the shipping containers, other Federal Navy captures were clearly not part of Huse's purchases. Some Confederate units in the field had Austrian arms in quantity before Huse's shipments arrived in the islands and the Confederacy.

It is possible to calculate some of the quantities of Huse's Muster 1854s that were run into Wilmington, and I know how many of Huse's Austrian arms the Federal Navy captured. There is still a significant delta between those totals and Huse's claim of 100,000 purchased. It is also very clear that Austrian arms were coming into the South from other sources well before Huse's purchases. The problem is from whom?, how did the jobbers assemble them?, what models?, and how many? How many made it through?...A whole lot more than anyone has previously thought.

An issue which complicates analysis is Confederate captures from the Federals, and Federal captures from the Confederates.

Regards,
Don Dixon

Don I bought a Lorenz 35 years ago. I know it was originally .54 cal, converted to flintlock and back to percussion. The rifle is a great shooter especially at longer ranges. Can't ram a .58 minie ball down without peeling lead so I shoot .577. Rifling seems to measure out to slightly worn .577. The biggest difference I notice is the lockplate has 853 instead of 854 or later. Have you seen one like that before?

 

[Don Dixon]

Don I bought a Lorenz 35 years ago. I know it was originally .54 cal, converted to flintlock and back to percussion. The rifle is a great shooter especially at longer ranges. Can't ram a .58 minie ball down without peeling lead so I shoot .577. Rifling seems to measure out to slightly worn .577. The biggest difference I notice is the lockplate has 853 instead of 854 or later. Have you seen one like that before?

Rockguy,

I have seen things like you have described.

Regarding the lock on your rifle, the percussion locks used on the Muster 1854 family of rifles come in four variants. All of them derive from the small System Augustin tubelock:

Variant I: This is a small System Augustin tubelock which was modified by the removal of the tubelock pan, pan cover, and spring from the exterior of the lockplate. The two resulting screw holes for the pan cover and the screw hole for the cover spring were then filled. The face of the lockplate was polished to make the pins used to fill the screw holes level with the face of the lockplate. The top of lockplate was re-profiled to fit the bolster on the System Lorenz barrel. The tubelock hammer was replaced with a percussion hammer. No changes were made to the internal parts of the lock. The lockplate will have the Emperor's double headed eagle stamp and a three-digit date code (i.e., "852" for 1852) of 1842 to 1855.

Variant II: This is a small System Augustin tubelock which was modified by the removal of the tubelock pan, pan cover, and spring from the exterior of the lock plate. The two resulting screw holes for the pan cover and the screw hole for the cover spring were then filled. The face of the lockplate was polished to make the pins used to fill the screw holes level with the face of the lockplate. The top of the lockplate was re-profiled to fit the bolster on the System Lorenz barrel. The tubelock hammer was replaced with a percussion hammer. The interior of the lock plate was re-worked to fit a System Lorenz mainspring. The lockplate will have the Emperor's double headed eagle stamp and a three-digit date code of 1842 to 1855.

Variant III: This lock was newly manufactured for System Lorenz rifles. The lockplate will have the Emperor's double headed eagle stamp and a three-digit date code of 1855 to 1862.

Variant IV: This lock was newly manufactured by contractors for System Lorenz rifles intended for export. It is not marked with either the Emperor's double headed eagle or the three number date code because it never entered k.k. Army service.

American "gun show wisdom" has held that the first two variants were poor quality locks which were foisted off on gullible Federal Ordnance Office inspectors by unscrupulous importers. The same "gun show wisdom" has held that fourth variant lockplates were made of "soft" iron and the Emperor's double headed eagle and the date markings had been polished off by American soldiers. Neither belief is correct.

So, your lock is a Variant I or II, based upon the internal parts of the lock.

I am concerned about your statements regarding the conversion(s) of your rifle. Numerous surplus Muster 1854 rifle muskets were bored smooth and converted to flintlock in Liege for sale in the African "gas pipe" trade. Since the System Lorenz lock was based upon the System Augustin tubelock, a flintlock conversion of the lock was not rocket science. Numbers of Muster 1854/67 and 1862/67 Wänzl "trapdoor" breechloading conversions were also converted to percussion after the Wänzls were sold out of Austrian service. If one wanted a full rifle musket length weapon, the percussion breech was cut off or the Wänzl breech section was removed, and a purpose built flintlock or percussion breech section was either screwed onto the barrel or welded onto the barrel. Some of these conversions were bored smooth, while some of the percussion conversions were rifled. The ones with the welded breech section ARE POTENTIAL BOMBS AND SHOULD NEVER BE FIRED, even though they have Belgian proof marks.

From your description I have no idea what was done to your rifle. Did someone, for example, put a .577 liner into a gun which had gone through one or two conversions? I would be very cautious about shooting the weapon you have described. You are dealing with 150 year old metallurgy which someone or "someones" has significantly modified, and which has no clear provenance.

Regards,
Don Dixon

 

[63rdOVI]

My own ancestor's regiment, the 63rd Ohio Volunteer Infantry, was issued the .54 Lorenz. This regiment served in the Western Theater, at New Madrid, Cairo, Island No. 10, Iuka, Corinth, etc.