Contract musket?

[ranger326]

I'm having some difficulties in trying to pin this musket down. I think it's one of the many variations of U.S. contract muskets.
Am I correct in understanding that the underside bayonet lug is from one of the earlier muskets? And, if so, the only "H. Groot" I've been able to find is from the mid-1850's. Any help is appreciated.

 

[Kyle Kalasnik]

Very nice musket!

 

[Craig L Barry]

It looks like the same musket you posted over a year ago in this thread:
https://civilwartalk.com/threads/weapon-id-help.170017/

 

[Grayrock Volunteer]

This musket is not a US contract musket. It was made up for private sale with some surplus components. Based on the position of the rear sling swivel the gun would not have been made prior to 1828. Given the standard US contract barrel proofs it is likely that the gun was assembled with a barrel from a surplus musket from one of the many unserviceable muskets sold off as surplus in the late 1840s and 1850s.
As I noted in the first post with this musket, the front barrel band appears to be from a M1840 or M1842 Musket. The sideplate is from a M1816/22/28 type musket. The barrel may be from a M1816/22/18 with the bayonet lug relocated or it could be a M1840 barrel. Measure the muzzle's diameter and the length of the breech flats and we can confirm. The buttplate is not from a martial musket. The stock was also probably made or at least fitted by Groot as it doesn't match established M1822/28 patterns particularly in regards to the comb and wrist. The lock is a commercial English lock. It has had some work done to it including replacing the cock, a new frizzen spring, and a replaced mainspring. Those repairs are were probably not done when the gun was built by Groot.

 

[ranger326]

Yes, the reason for my renewed interest is that I have recently taken the gun to a reputable/knowledgeable collector for an opinion before deciding to sell it. This is what he told me, in part:

"This is a U.S. Military Contract Model 1816. It has a 40.5", .69 caliber barrel struck with US Proof marks on the upper breech. All the steel furniture has dark rust age patina with some pitting. The lock is Einglish made and marked "WARRANTED" across the tail of the lock plate. The musket was most likely converted to percussion then later re-converted back flintlock. Stock is solid and accurate. Overall, in good mechanical working order."

So, I'm still not sure what I have. It's either a U.S. contract musket or a hodge-podge. I do lean towards the opinions given to me on this forum to be the most probable. So, do I sell off the parts individually or just leave it as is? (Not really asking anyone except myself.)

At any rate, I thank you all for all of your help, knowledge and opinions.

 

[toot]

WARRANTED is a good indicator that it is of ENGLISH origin

 

[bayonet]

Groot, Henry 1866-1871 General Gunsmith at Pittsfield, Massachusetts, 1866 to 1868. Migrated to Minneapolis, Minnesota and active there 1868 to 1871.

 

[ranger326]

Whoever put this Frankenstein of a gun together did, in my opinion, a good job (everything fits nicely together) and I think it was done quite awhile ago (I can see no differences in the coloring or aging). These two things are the only things that keep me from selling the gun by pieces - for now anyway.

 

[toot]

don't part it out. it has survived this long, let it go a lot longer.