Can this ramrod be identified?

[Johnny676767]

Is there a good source for ramrod specifications? This one accompanies a Springfield m1816 (1822) type 2 percussion conversion. Lock is dated 1824. From what I read, the ramrods for these conversations were bored out (not sure if that's the correct term) to make the tip concave so that it would fit the newer Minie ball. Obviously, this one does not have that characteristic. How can I tell if this is a reproduction or authentic? And what type? I am only familiar with the general look. Thanks

 

[Dbackfed29]

Is your 1816 rifled or smoothbore? They did not provide new ramrods to unrifled conversions. So if it's smoothbore, that's appropriate.

 

[Johnny676767]

That would make sense. I did not know that. Always learning something on here.

I actually have been trying to determine that. On my other guns (all later), I can easily see and feel the rifling grooves. On this one, I can't. I thought that might be because they weren't grooved as deeply. Maybe it just wasn't.

What I'm seeing is that these conversions took many forms: some to percussion and some to percussion with rifled bores. I also read some were sighted and some were not. Thanks

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

Thin rifling for sure, and often the muzzle end suffers the most wear and so gets worn smooth when there may be rifling down the bore.
I think all the ones with rear sights added were rifled, but lots were rifled, but not rear sights added.

 

[Craig L Barry]

To answer your question, that does not appear to be a reproduction ramrod.