Austrian M1842

Tlitton

Cadet
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Hi
I have a few questions hopefully ya'll could help me with. I have purchase a musket which I need a little help to clear up some details on
1. I was told this was a Lorenz rifle after research many photos I believe it's a M1842
2. I know that the musket was converted from tube lock to percussion But by Who is the Question?
A. I have read that the Austrian did do some before export with a breech plug but they still used the original hammer after modifications were made.
B. In Belgium they re-poured the bolster and put on new cocking hammer on.
C. In America some put the nipple on top of the barrel like the ones sent to Eagle in Cincinnati by MG Fremont.
I'm thinking this one was done by Henry E. Leman of Lancaster, Pennsylvania or E.K. Tryon Both removed the rear plug which the rear sight was located
note the hammer looks American like the ones found on m1841,m1855 and m1861

All stamps and markings have been remove except one on the underside of barrel their is one very small Austrian eagle. The breech plug has 9L only other markings is P in one place and J about two inches below. Most of the parts have 91 stamped which I believe these numbers was put on for assemble and disassemble muskets.

Is this one of the Missouri guns that General Fremont purchased
Please tell me if i'm right or wrong

20210110_103714.jpg


20210110_110742.jpg


20210110_103754.jpg


20210110_110549.jpg
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Location
Texas
This indeed a Leman conversion. From what I have seen there are two styles of hammers that Leman used on his percussion conversions; a M1861 style hammer like yours has, and his own cruder M1842-esq hammer.
 

Don Dixon

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Location
Fairfax, VA, USA
Now that I've stopped laughing I can try and respond to your questions. The problem is that almost everything written in English about the Civil War Austrian guns is pure cr*p, as is the American "gun show wisdom" associated with them.

Your musket is a Muster (model) 1842 System Augustin smoothbore musket designed by Baron von Augustin, the chief of Austrian ordnance from the late 1830s to late 1850s. The Muster 1854 System Lorenz family of arms was designed later by Ritter von Lorenz, who was the chief firearms designer at the Vienna arsenal in the 1850s. No, not every Austrian gun imported during the Civil War is a "Lorenz," and no they weren't called "Lorenzes" during the war.

It was originally manufactured as smoothbore tubelock and has been transformed to percussion.

The Austrians did transform some Muster 1842s to percussion using purpose made bolsters and the original hammers, but this isn't one of them.

The majority of Belgian transformations used a lump-of-iron cone seat which was braised to the right, top rear of the barrel and Model 1844/60 Piedmontese Army style hammers. The Belgians didn't "re-pour" the breech. This isn't one of the Belgian transformations.

The only firms who did cone-in-barrel transformations were Eagle Iron Works of Cincinnati and its sub-contractor Hall, Carroll, and Company. They transformed 10,000 of Fremont's guns. This isn't one of them.

It is one of the approximately 8,000 Muster 1842s that were transformed by Henry Leman. It is not the one sample gun that was transformed by Tryon. If you could find the Tryon gun and document it, it would probably be worth a fair bit of money.

Prior to transformation it was one of the 25,000 Muster 1842 and 1840 tubelock smoothbore muskets which were purchased by Fremont from the New York City dry goods house of Kruse, Drexel, and Schmidt in 1861.

No one that I know of - including the Austrian Army Museum - has a crib sheet on Austrian worker's, assembly, and inspection markings. Since Leman forged the breech of your musket during transformation, the marks shown on the base of the breech and barrel in your photograph are probably part of his work. Since the Muster 1842s were not interchangeable, your conclusion the "91" markings were placed on the parts to facilitate reassembly is not unreasonable.

I've told you where you were right and wrong.

Regards,
Don Dixon
 
Last edited:

Tlitton

Cadet
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Thank you Mr. Dixon For taking the time to write this reply
You have made me happy because I was shooting for the 8,000. When I was talking about the Belgian transformations re-poured the bolster I couldn't remember what they called it ( lump-of-iron cone seat). Thanks For all your information!!!

It's too bad on this musket that mid way down in the center on top their is a barrel bulge. just wonder how this gun survived. it must have meant something to someone because it should have been discarded long time ago. The stock is in very good shape and the lock works perfect like new
 
Last edited:

ucvrelics

Colonel
Forum Host
Regtl. Quartermaster Shiloh 2020
Joined
May 7, 2016
Location
Alabama
Welcome From THE Heart Of Dixie. I see you got the answers to your questions.
 
Top