Musket Identification Help?

[otisrush]

I have a piece (I assume it is a musket - but I hestitate to even use that word because I'm so unfamiliar with this era of firearms) that I'd like to get as much input / info on as I can.

I obtained it from my dad - who unfortunately is now gone. So I can't ask him any questions about it. He collected antique firearms and this was in his collection. I'm interested in learning more about this because, based on some markings I'd prefer not to go into, I have reason to believe the name of the soldier who carried it. If there was a way to guesstimate what states or regions this was used in that would help my search.

Here are some pics. If there are salient data points that people need from the piece let me know and I'll provide what I can.

Thanks so much!

OR

 

[otisrush]

I figured I should add a shot of the whole thing - although it providing detail is close to impossible.

 

[hrobalabama]

Well one thing for sure it is a conversion from a flintlock to a percussion. It has been proofed and a cartouche that it was accepted by the military. There were quite a few arms makers in New Haven Conn. I would guess it to be a .69 caliber.
Unless there is a name on the lock, I couldn't guess any more.

 

[Grayrock Volunteer]

It is a percussion converted Whitney musket, generally called the Whitney M1812, although there are several different variations of this musket depending on which contract lot it came from. Is there any state ownership marks like SNY or CT? Whitney produced these for a Federal contract as well as for New York and Connecticut.

Cheers,
Garrett

 

[Frederick14Va]

Its a Model-1812 Eli Whitney US Contract made arm. Originally it was flintlock, but has been converted to percussion. Majority of the original contracted made arms went to Conn...may be marked on barrel "SC" for State of Conn or "SNY" for State of NY for this particular arm. Who may have had possession or used in in later years after being converted can only be a guess.

 

[Patrick H]

...and I'd say it's in great shape, too. The wood, in particular, seems in much better condition than so many arms of this age that I've seen.

 

[chellers]

Welcome to CivilWarTalk and thanks for posting photos.

 

[13th Missouri Cavalry]

I do know that there was a huge arsenal and manufactury in New Haven Conn. One can tell that it's a conversion , first of all , from the front band, secondly because of its shape which is different from original percussions, and third because it has no sights , as far as I can tell. Conversions of this type were very common during the Civil War.

 

[rebelyell]

Nice musket

 

[Jobe Holiday]

@13th Missouri Cavalry - I'm curious, what does the front band tell you about the musket being a conversion?
J.

 

[rebelyell]

It is not the front band that has anything to do with the conversion, it is the lock converted from flint to percussion.

 

[Grayrock Volunteer]

@13th Missouri Cavalry - I'm curious, what does the front band tell you about the musket being a conversion?
J.

Perhaps he was referring to the double band with straight side front band which is indicative of pre M1840 muskets, excepting the M1812 type 2 (Standard Model of 1812), thus indicating it would have been produced as a flintlock.

It is not the front band that has anything to do with the conversion, it is the lock converted from flint to percussion.

Exactly, the only alterations that involve the front band feature the removal of the brass blade rear sight on the rear barrel band strap and the installation of a taller iron blade on the front band. This type of alteration is seen on Colt Russian contract alterations and certain alterations of US M1816 type muskets done by Hewes and Phillips and some of the Remington-Maynard M1816/55 alterations.

Cheers,
Garrett

 

[rebelyell]

Perhaps he was referring to the double band with straight side front band which is indicative of pre M1840 muskets, excepting the M1812 type 2 (Standard Model of 1812), thus indicating it would have been produced as a flintlock.



Exactly, the only alterations that involve the front band feature the removal of the brass blade rear sight on the rear barrel band strap and the installation of a taller iron blade on the front band. This type of alteration is seen on Colt Russian contract alterations and certain alterations of US M1816 type muskets done by Hewes and Phillips and some of the Remington-Maynard M1816/55 alterations.

Cheers,
Garrett

I forgot about the two different sight blade configurations.

 

[13th Missouri Cavalry]

Perhaps he was referring to the double band with straight side front band which is indicative of pre M1840 muskets, excepting the M1812 type 2 (Standard Model of 1812), thus indicating it would have been produced as a flintlock.



Exactly, the only alterations that involve the front band feature the removal of the brass blade rear sight on the rear barrel band strap and the installation of a taller iron blade on the front band. This type of alteration is seen on Colt Russian contract alterations and certain alterations of US M1816 type muskets done by Hewes and Phillips and some of the Remington-Maynard M1816/55 alterations.

Cheers,
Garrett

Yes, I meant that the front band was that of a flintlock. Thanks for helping me make myself clear.

 

[Jobe Holiday]

Thank you, everyone, for your input. I was literally only curious why anyone thought the front band was important to identify what I thought was an obvious conversion from flint to percussion. The conversion is just a very simple civilian alteration, known as a drum conversion, from flint to percussion done after the musket was sold off to the public. What is really important about this example is the remarkable condition!
J.