Musket Barrel Question

RSMorris

First Sergeant
Joined
Jul 3, 2020
Looking at this Butterfield conversion of a Harpers Ferry Musket. Am curious about the line in the barrel.

Screen Shot 2021-11-16 at 1.32.19 PM.png


Screen Shot 2021-11-16 at 1.32.48 PM.png


Screen Shot 2021-11-16 at 1.34.46 PM.png
 
The line is a seam where the original breech was cut away. A new breech piece was made with male threads and the cut off of the barrel tapped with female threads so the two could be screwed together.

Why would that have needed to happen? Is that a repair or part of the mod to percussion? Just wondering because neither my Pomeroy or Springfield has that line.
 
In this instance, it may have been? The "less safe" conversion was just to shear off the pan, stop up the touch hole, and drill a hole for a cone directly above the chamber. In this case, it looks like there is a reasonable off-set bolster with a vent communicating with the chamber from the cone...
 
Why would that have needed to happen? Is that a repair or part of the mod to percussion? Just wondering because neither my Pomeroy or Springfield has that line.

When the US Government started altering guns to percussion via the "Belgian" or "cone-in-barrel" method, they chose to do so because it was cheap. In fairly short order the Ordnance Department discovered that m1822/28s altered that way were unsuitable for rifling because the barrels were too thin for the cone to safely remain seated when the guns were fired with conical ammunition.
In 1855 the Frankfort Arsenal began altering guns with new breech pieces and new made Maynard primer locks manufactured by Remington. These alterations were vastly superior to the old style and could very safely be rifled and handle the increased breech pressure of conical ammunition.
By that point the US had a huge pile of percussion altered muskets and didn't really spend anymore time or money modernizing them after the ~20,000 Remington-Maynard alterations were completed in 1858. When war broke out in 1861 most of the leftover arms that were made after 1820 were altered to percussion, and the various States that had stocks of flintlock arms altered them as well. The chambered breech method used on the Remington-Maynard alterations was the preferred choice for most of the alterations done in the North since it is manifestly better than the older cone-in-barrel style and they had the industrial base to do it. Some fairly decent numbers of previously cone-in-barrel altered guns were realtered with chambered breeches as well, but finding exact numbers is mostly impossible since the contractors don't seem to have differentiated in their logs or charged different prices for realterations.

This Butterfield alteration is one performed for Pennsylvania, and as the contract originally specified was supposed to have a patent pellet primer mechanism on the lock. However, Butterfield took too long in delivering the arms (and his mechanism wasn't real great to begin with), so his contract was amended in 1861 to deliver the balance as standard percussion altered muskets using just the new breech pieces and hammers from his prior work.

If you intend to collect percussion altered arms you should really get a copy of George Moller's "American Military Shoulder Arms, Volume III" and Murphy & Madaus' "Confederate Rifles and Muskets".
 
In this instance, it may have been? The "less safe" conversion was just to shear off the pan, stop up the touch hole, and drill a hole for a cone directly above the chamber. In this case, it looks like there is a reasonable off-set bolster with a vent communicating with the chamber from the cone..

Thank you
 
When the US Government started altering guns to percussion via the "Belgian" or "cone-in-barrel" method, they chose to do so because it was cheap. In fairly short order the Ordnance Department discovered that m1822/28s altered that way were unsuitable for rifling because the barrels were too thin for the cone to safely remain seated when the guns were fired with conical ammunition.
In 1855 the Frankfort Arsenal began altering guns with new breech pieces and new made Maynard primer locks manufactured by Remington. These alterations were vastly superior to the old style and could very safely be rifled and handle the increased breech pressure of conical ammunition.
By that point the US had a huge pile of percussion altered muskets and didn't really spend anymore time or money modernizing them after the ~20,000 Remington-Maynard alterations were completed in 1858. When war broke out in 1861 most of the leftover arms that were made after 1820 were altered to percussion, and the various States that had stocks of flintlock arms altered them as well. The chambered breech method used on the Remington-Maynard alterations was the preferred choice for most of the alterations done in the North since it is manifestly better than the older cone-in-barrel style and they had the industrial base to do it. Some fairly decent numbers of previously cone-in-barrel altered guns were realtered with chambered breeches as well, but finding exact numbers is mostly impossible since the contractors don't seem to have differentiated in their logs or charged different prices for realterations.

This Butterfield alteration is one performed for Pennsylvania, and as the contract originally specified was supposed to have a patent pellet primer mechanism on the lock. However, Butterfield took too long in delivering the arms (and his mechanism wasn't real great to begin with), so his contract was amended in 1861 to deliver the balance as standard percussion altered muskets using just the new breech pieces and hammers from his prior work.

If you intend to collect percussion altered arms you should really get a copy of George Moller's "American Military Shoulder Arms, Volume III" and Murphy & Madaus' "Confederate Rifles and Muskets".
Grayrock:

Were there any confederate conversions using this system of a new breach? I've noticed an offering an auction site which claims that this is a confederate conversion. Upon my inquiry for a reference, I got a general referral to the Murphy & Maudus book "Confederate Rifles and Muskets" but I can't find discussion of such a conversion in my copy of that book.
Now, that was months ago. The other day, I noticed that this offering is still posted, and the lack of anyone buying it would seem a warning sign that this story is not correct.

What say you?
 
I knew immediately those pictures looked familiar. I'm watching that one also but it's already beyond what my Social Security gun budget for the month allows. Good luck with it. Post lots of pictures if you're the winner
 
I knew immediately those pictures looked familiar. I'm watching that one also but it's already beyond what my Social Security gun budget for the month allows. Good luck with it. Post lots of pictures if you're the winner
I'm the leading bidder on that one and another on that same site, but will see how long that last. I've got bids on several others on another auction site, will see what happens.
 
Grayrock:

Were there any confederate conversions using this system of a new breach? I've noticed an offering an auction site which claims that this is a confederate conversion. Upon my inquiry for a reference, I got a general referral to the Murphy & Maudus book "Confederate Rifles and Muskets" but I can't find discussion of such a conversion in my copy of that book.
Now, that was months ago. The other day, I noticed that this offering is still posted, and the lack of anyone buying it would seem a warning sign that this story is not correct.

What say you?

There are no alterations covered in Confederate Rifles and Muskets that are chambered breech style. I believe there may be one photo of a Leman altered Virginia Manufactory musket included in there. It may be an error, or it could be an aside for identification, I can't remember off of the top of my head.
I once owned an interesting chambered breech altered 1817 Common Rifle that used a unique breech piece with a longer than normal tang. I highly doubt that it was a northern alteration, but since the barrel was reamed smooth and it was fitted with a neatly made wooden ramrod I couldn't preclude it was a nicely done civilian job.
If any Confederate alteration was done with a chambered breech alteration I would expect it to have been done by an established antebellum gunsmith, but none of the alterations that are identified to or attributed to known pre-war gunsmiths are. William & Cyrus Fisher, M.A. Baker, Frank Bitterlich, Thomas J. Adams, William Morgan, etc all used brazed on cone seats, and a handful of others performed cone-in-barrel alterations (though cruder than antebellum or northern cone-in-barrel alterations).

I see Northern alterations pop up pretty regularly listed as Confederate jobs. The majority of them are actually the work of Henry Leman, which relative to the fit, finish, and look of other Northern alterations are fairly crude. However, Leman's work is extremely well known so I can't wrap my head around the constant misidentifications.
 
That listing, from David Condon, is STILL up and here it is:


In emails to me he placed most emphasis on the style of hammer. But notice that the hammer on his musket does not match the rest of the gun for condition - it has obviously been replaced in recent times (after the period of use) by some other hammer than happened to fit.
 
That listing, from David Condon, is STILL up and here it is:


In emails to me he placed most emphasis on the style of hammer. But notice that the hammer on his musket does not match the rest of the gun for condition - it has obviously been replaced in recent times (after the period of use) by some other hammer than happened to fit.

It's a Leman alteration with a heated and bent hammer (I think a regular cone-in-barrel alteration hammer) on it. Seems a little surprising he didn't catch that, since I've seen a number of nice CS conversions he's listed correctly.
 
I think I had an email exchange with him last year, and then again in July of this year - he is stuck on that hammer shape, says he has owned many Leman conversions in his 60 years, etc. etc.
 
Back
Top