Musket date stamps

[Tim Hynes]

Hello,

First time posting on this thread.

I had a question regarding the dates that are stamped on lock plates and barrel tangs.

I am in the market to buy a musket, but am only interested in pieces that are largely untouched and original (have no interest in stripped, re-stained wood or overly cleaned and sandblasted metal) I realize that this can be challenging, if not impossible.

There are many muskets on the market, but one thing I noticed is that many of the dates that are on the lock plate do not match the date on the barrel. There could be many reasons for this I realize (created with parts available, replacement due to damage, etc.), but one musket that I saw has a 4 year separation between the two (barrel dated 1852, lock plate dated 1848). So, in the gun collecting world, is it better to find a weapon with matching dates (like matching serial numbers) or is the mismatch just accepted and no big whoop. After all, box plates on cartridge boxes can be easily be added, and bayonets can be married with scabbards, and insignia on forage caps, etc.

Thanks for any advice.

 

[Grayrock Volunteer]

Generally speaking a purist would prefer a gun with matching barrel and lock dates, however it isn't a complete deal breaker.

It is common to find muskets with 1 year differences, as these were assembled with parts on hand at the start of a new year.
Furthermore, it is quite common to find antebellum rifles and muskets, especially those with interchangeable parts (m1840s, m1841s, m1842s) with mismatched dates. A large portion of the aforementioned models were subject to various "upgrades" prior to the war and with the ability to freely swap parts the need to carefully account and mark their components was greatly lessened relative to say the Model 1816 family of muskets.

To summarize, if you're not overly familiar with the history of the gun you're looking at you are probably better off to stick to matching date guns, but if you know why a gun has mixed dates it's not the end of the world.

Cheers,
Garrett

 

[captaindrew]

Welcome Tim, from South Florida and the Reenactors forum, you'll find lots of good info here.

 

[Larryh86GT]

Welcome from WNY.

 

[johan_steele]

A lot of this depends on what model weapon you are looking for and whether or not it is an interchangeable arm. A weapon made in the spring may have a lock from the year before and a barrel made that year or the other way around. A weapon that has been repaired or refurbished in service may not have matching dares because the armorers that worked on them were not collectors; all they cared about was getting the weapon back into service. Some o f these arms were in service more than 20 years. You also have older arms that might have been converted from flint to percussion and the date on the barrel references the conversion and the lock the date of manufacture. So it depends a lot upon what model arm you are looking for.

I always suggest people invest in books before they make a purchase then stick with reputable established dealers. If something looks too good to be true it usually is. Etc...

Good luck.

 

[zburkett]

Grayrock, wouldn't the specific musket make a difference? For example a converted 1816 Springfield would be far less likely to have matching dates than an 1860s Springfield.

 

[zburkett]

Thanks johan, you gave the answer while I was posting the question.

 

[tbuckley]

Welcome from eastern Ohio.

 

[UCVRelics]

Welcome From The Heart Of Dixie. As stated a lot depends on just what musket that you are looking at. Once you deceide then the next 3 steps are RESEARCH RESEARCH RESEARCH. Please keep us updated on your decision and we will help out all we can.

 

[Tim Hynes]

Thanks for the info everyone. The one particular musket I was looking at was the M1842. I have also seen this in the M1855, and the M1841. The M1863 sometimes has dates that are a year apart, but that seems normal (plate dated 1863 with barrel dated 1864). I suppose over the course of the life of the '42, a 4 year difference wouldn't be that unheard of. I'm just trying to get the best musket for the price without the concern of parts being recently "married" from other guns. I suppose there is no way to ensure that, except for matching patinas throughout the weapon.

 

[zburkett]

Tim, If the patinas don't match then it has been recently worked on.

 

[JOHN42768]

Welcome, enjoy. Books, articles and past postings. Read all you can find about the arm you are interested in before you make a purchase.

 

[Craig L Barry]

I think johan_steele has the right of it here. Although it reminded me that in the book "The US Model 1855" (by John Willyard)...the author found period documentation that explains the discrepancies encountered on what we have always called "transitional arms." For example, a US 1855 that should have a patch box but did not, or it might have the newer rear sights that would not usually be found on a rifle-musket with an earlier lock plate date. And then of course the obviously different lockplate and barrel dates which are occasionally encountered.

It turns the national armories would sometimes leave a number of rifle-muskets unfinished or in a semi-finished condition and they would sit in stock until needed. When the need for them arose they would later finish those older weapons based on whatever they were producing at that time.

 

[Mk VII]

On some models you positively expect it, e.g. early Allin-system .50-70s, which have Civil War lockplates

 

[Grayrock Volunteer]

Grayrock, wouldn't the specific musket make a difference? For example a converted 1816 Springfield would be far less likely to have matching dates than an 1860s Springfield.

Due to the non-interchangeable nature of M1816s it can be a real problem to swap parts between 2 guns. That said, it is quite common, in my experience to see them with 1 year differences on the lock and barrel dates. There are certainly lots of mixmaster 1816s out there, but whether or not these are the result of Civil War era arsenal or even field repairs is hard to say. On a gun like that one needs to look at the mating marks that will be found on most all of the major components to see if it was numbered back to its self after new parts were swapped in. I think if one was to look at 1816s as a group, and limit their investigations to complete muskets that have consistent patina on all parts, and lack signs of having been worked over in more recent years you would find that most 1816s will have matching dates.

Personally, I think that M1840s are much more likely to be seen with mismatched dates. The vast majority were percussion altered, and their interchangeable nature made keeping close watch of which gun's parts you were working with much less of an issue.

There are lots of mixed M1861/3/4s on the market as well. Since these were first class guns it was important to keep them in order, even after the war ended. Again, knowing which parts are or could be arsenal replacements is tricky, but there are lots of small things to look at that can give you a better idea of what you are dealing with.

 

[Package4]

Welcome from Maryland, you've been given great advice above, the best in my estimation is @ucvrelics (research cubed). Do as much research on the arm that you are looking to purchase, if a M1842, what arsenal or contractor (only 3); rifled or smoothbore. (10,000 reworked). Always look for vise marks at the breech and make sure to take the band springs off to make sure it is not a stretched stock. Does the ramrod match and does it fit the piece, is it original?