Model 1809 Potzdam Conversion

[Baron deKalb]

I acquired this with a group of Civil War related import arms. It is a 1826 converted Prussian Model 1809 musket. I have read that both the Union and Confederacy imported thousands of these early in the war. What intrigues me about this one is the possibility that it is a Confederate Macon Conversion shortened for cavalry or artillery use. Any thoughts appreciated.

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

Big bore short barrel with a full load - a soldier who shot this once would think carefully before shooting it again!

 

[Old Soldier]

Butt marking = 11 Landwehr Regiment 10 Company Rifle no 420 - a Home Defense Reserve Regiment in Prussia in the VI Corps district (Silesia).

Are there any markings to show Confederate or Union ownership?

 

[Baron deKalb]

Butt marking = 11 Landwehr Regiment 10 Company Rifle no 420 - a Home Defense Reserve Regiment in Prussia in the VI Corps district (Silesia).

Are there any markings to show Confederate or Union ownership?

None. But it is my understanding that the imports were rarely stamped. The Macon Conversions certainly weren't.

 

[R. Porter]

Would shortened arms use a lighter load? If not, does that mean the barrel fouled more quickly because the powder had less time to burn completely before the ball left the barrel? Did carbines use the same cartridges as rifles or muskets to make supply easier?

 

[26Intrepid]

I love these old battle wagons (even if they've been altered). I've always wondered when the shorting of a particular rifle/musket actually happened… that's the mystery.

 

[Baron deKalb]

Would shortened arms use a lighter load? If not, does that mean the barrel fouled more quickly because the powder had less time to burn completely before the ball left the barrel? Did carbines use the same cartridges as rifles or muskets to make supply easier?

I have no idea. But these are smoothbore guns, so not as big an issue. I suspect a buck and ball load was common.

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

I've owned a good many shortened muskets, but do not have a good reference to the Macon shortened muskets, and how to identify them. What can you suggest?

As to the recoil of these, when the US rifled the Model 1847 artillery carbines, originally .69 caliber smoothbore, so they would take a heavier minie bullet, weight was added in the form of lead inserted into the butt, in an effort to dampen the heavier recoil caused by the heavier bullet.
These M1809s are so heavy, that likely would not be necessary.

 

[Baron deKalb]

I've owned a good many shortened muskets, but do not have a good reference to the Macon shortened muskets, and how to identify them. What can you suggest?

As to the recoil of these, when the US rifled the Model 1847 artillery carbines, originally .69 caliber smoothbore, so they would take a heavier minie bullet, weight was added in the form of lead inserted into the butt, in an effort to dampen the heavier recoil caused by the heavier bullet.
These M1809s are so heavy, that likely would not be necessary.

The Macon Conversion is an iffy call. I had a Model 1842 Harper's Ferry that was shortened. Everything looked very professional, including a coned muzzle. Used an 1841 Front barrel band. No markings to indicate Confederacy alteration, but it is my understanding that they generally were not marked.

 

[Patio]

Your picture of the front band is a telling sign to me. In my opinion, the fit of the band and the bandspring to the shortened stock does not show quality workmanship.

A observation: the front sight on Potzdam muskets are on the rear band of the top barrel band. The front sight on your musket has been removed from the band and replaced with a sight on the barrel.

 

[Baron deKalb]

Your picture of the front band is a telling sign to me. In my opinion, the fit the band and the bandspring to the shortened stock does not show quality workmanship.

A observation: the front sight on Potzdam muskets are on the rear band of the top barrel band. The front sight on your musket has been removed from the band and replaced with a sight on the barrel.

I had thought of that. But I don't think there were specific "patterns" for conversions. Quality might, on any given day, be affected to meet demand. Think Japanese Last Ditch rifles. But I make no assertions as to whether or not this is a Macon Conversion. There seems to be no authoritative study of them. Even Murphy gives them short shrift in his book.

 

[frontrank2]

I shoot a M1809 Potsdam Musket in the N-SSA smoothbore competition. We have relays at 25 & 50 yds. I use a .710 round ball behind 60 grains of FF blackpowder, without a patch between the powder and ball. It's a fun gun to shoot and the recoil is no worse than a 12 gauge shotgun.

 

[Old Soldier]

I had thought of that. But I don't think there were specific "patterns" for conversions. Quality might, on any given day, be affected to meet demand. Think Japanese Last Ditch rifles. But I make no assertions as to whether or not this is a Macon Conversion. There seems to be no authoritative study of them. Even Murphy gives them short shrift in his book.

It may well have been shortened AFTER selling on and by a local gunsmith. There are no markings to say when, but who wants a long line infantry musket to go hunting with? That would also explain the new foresight location - more like a shotgun.