M.1822 Conversion - A Contract Piece?

[James N.]

I'll be the first to admit this poor old thing I picked up this weekend at my favorite HUGE regional monthly flea market at Canton, Texas, isn't very exciting, but on closer inspection it does pose a question: is this an arsenal-produced or a contract weapon? Of course only about half of it remains after having the barrel shortened by 8" from 42" to 34" and the fore-end of the stock cut off and replaced by two "thimbles" or ramrod pipes, but what remains of the wood is a beautiful walnut, especially after receiving a fresh coat of linseed oil. It's also for some reason missing the cone or nipple but a replacement has already been ordered from S & S Firearms.

Obviously the name of the manufacturer has for some reason been scrubbed, leaving only a partial date, 182_; I figured it surely had been Harpers Ferry or Spring Field in two lines like on my full-length M.1822. But looking closer, there seems to have been NO eagle stamped into the lock like on either my M.1822 or M.1842 Harpers Ferry or M.1840 Springfield muskets. I wondered if this might have been made under contract, perhaps to a state for arming its militia?

The few other markings include a likely bogus or at least non-period V or N P K and 1005 on the side-plate above and the inspector's oval cartouche on the stock; sorry about the glare on the wood! The barrel retains the usual marks for Viewed and Proved plus the eagle head.

If only the rest of it were still here!

 

[UCVRelics]

I believe its a model 1816 type III Harper's Ferry conversion. It would have had a Belgium cone.

 

[captaindrew]

Interesting piece, if it could only talk.

 

[Cpl. Smith]

Cool still better than nothing at all. Very interesting.