What is this? Can anyone tell me about this musket?

AdenNewman

Cadet
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
This was given to me by my grandfather. Its been in our family for generations It hung over the fireplace for years. Now it is mine. But we know nothing about it. Any information is appreciated. Im especially interested in what the PT stamping on the trigger guard means.

36799F5B-E544-4CDB-B09D-E1EC1A27D9F6.jpeg


5D2530F0-2C71-4B5D-922F-15FF9E81F15E.jpeg


75DC0BE6-E7F9-4279-8CEE-E084C16AA3A2.jpeg


7AC4B02C-BAC0-45BB-AD34-2B923F485D23.jpeg


B3BB8157-0DE2-4C64-BD73-9637F3243590.jpeg


4C30F066-EEAC-43A7-B8B9-0ACC70DCD428.jpeg


B699D537-8E81-4E4E-AE09-63C3B2822C12.jpeg


71996620-7B5C-4357-A3A5-5339ADEBB6B8.jpeg
 

ucvrelics

Colonel
Forum Host
Regtl. Quartermaster Shiloh 2020
Asst. Regtl. Quartermaster Antietam 2021
Joined
May 7, 2016
Location
Alabama
You have a VERY NICE what I call a true survivor which is a model 1816 that was not converted to percussion.
The M1816 was in production at Springfield (325,000) and Harpers Ferry (350,000) between 1816 to 1844 with around 675,000 muskets produced during this run. It saw service during the Mexican-American War and was even pressed into service during the Civil War in both the updated percussion and the old flintlock format. In the 1850's, many 1816's went through the conversion from flintlock to percussion. The top of the barrel bears the view and proof marks "P" and an Eagle's Head. The left barrel flat is marked "S.M.Co" for the Springfield Manufacturing Company of Ludlow, Massachusetts who worked as a contractor for the national armories. Nice piece.
 

rob63

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Location
PA, but still a Hoosier
JMHO, but I think this was converted to percussion using the "cone-in-barrel" alteration, and later reconverted to flint. The cock is not original and the barrel shows the evidence where it was repaired.

The payroll for Springfield Armory in February, 1825 included a Phinehas Tyler who was paid for "finishing guns" per Peter Schmidt's U.S. Military Flintlock Muskets. I don't know if that is who the PT stands for, but he is the only person listed with those initials.
 
Last edited:

muffinman67

Cadet
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
JMHO, but I think this was converted to percussion using the "cone-in-barrel" alteration, and later reconverted to flint. The cock is not original and the barrel shows the evidence where it was repaired.

The payroll for Springfield Armory in February, 1825 included a Phinehas Tyler who was paid for "finishing guns" per Peter Schmidt's U.S. Military Flintlock Muskets. I don't know if that is who the PT stands for, but he is the only person listed with those initials.
The comb on the stock looks wrong for an 1816 model. I have several and they all are more straight at the wrist with no comb. I'm not an expert though.
 

James N.

Colonel
Forum Host
Annual Winner
Featured Book Reviewer
Asst. Regtl. Quartermaster Antietam 2021
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Location
East Texas
The comb on the stock looks wrong for an 1816 model. I have several and they all are more straight at the wrist with no comb. I'm not an expert though.
Agreed - it's a beautiful piece but needs some "hands-on" examination and appraisal by someone familiar with these old "smoke poles."
 

rob63

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Location
PA, but still a Hoosier
Do yall know anywhere near philadelphia where I should take it to get looked at?
There are several antique arms associations in PA that regularly hold gun shows. If you google it, you can find something near you. There would be people there that can help you.

The stock doesn't really bother me that much, it's possibly just the angle of the photo. We just ran into that issue in another thread, something can look odd at the wrong angle.

Here are some comparison photos to help you see what I mentioned upthread. The first one is comparing the cock on your musket to what it should look like. The piece I am comparing it to is actually a French musket, but this is what it should look like, I am just using my own photo to avoid any copyright issues. The cock on your musket is too small overall. The heart shaped cutout area is far too small, the screw that holds the top jaw should be entirely on the left side, but it is centered instead. If you google flint muskets of the 1816 pattern you will see that the design of the cock never varied and the one on yours is clearly incorrect.

03.jpg


If that was the only issue, one could argue that the cock was replaced. However, the top view of your barrel clearly shows the outline of where the percussion cone was once placed. You can even see the slightly different discolorations of where new metal was welded to replace the threaded hole versus the area that was previously "upset" to form the flat spot for the cone. You can also see where the metal split a little bit on the bottom side of the curve due to the stresses induced when it was recontoured. The area of darker brown on the barrel is probably where work was done to mask the pitting typical of percussion conversions and then some sort of antiquing solution applied.

02.jpg


Here is an example of a museum piece that you can compare it to, I think there are some other parts used in the reconversion that look a little off to me as well.

http://www.nramuseum.org/guns/the-g...-springfield-model-1816-flintlock-musket.aspx

It is a very well done reconversion overall, really well done, although I personally wish people would just leave them as percussion. I have no idea what it does to the value. I like the history of any old gun, regardless, enjoy it for what it is.
 
Last edited:

James N.

Colonel
Forum Host
Annual Winner
Featured Book Reviewer
Asst. Regtl. Quartermaster Antietam 2021
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Location
East Texas
... If that was the only issue, one could argue that the cock was replaced. However, the top view of your barrel clearly shows the outline of where the percussion cone was once placed. You can even see the slightly different discolorations of where new metal was welded to replace the threaded hole versus the area that was previously "upset" to form the flat spot for the cone. You can also see where the metal split a little bit on the bottom side of the curve due to the stresses induced when it was recontoured. The area of darker brown on the barrel is probably where work was done to mask the pitting typical of percussion conversions and then some sort of antiquing solution applied.

It is a very well done reconversion overall, really well done, although I personally wish people would just leave them as percussion. I have no idea what it does to the value. I like the history of any old gun, regardless, enjoy it for what it is.
Since you've raised the issue, I think I can see what may be the "shadow" of a slightly larger original brass pan on the lock as well:

7ac4b02c-bac0-45bb-ad34-2b923f485d23-jpeg.jpg
 
Top