Potsdam Smoothbores.....1831 Danzig

[Jobe Holiday]

The Brown Bess is an entirely different topic from a generic Potsdam, and with a much richer world history! But, it wouldn't be right to hijack this thread with an involved discussion on the "Around the Globe use of the Brown Bess Musket!"
J.

 

[Smokepole50]

So.......what do you guys think about restoring this old battle rifle?

I mainly mean reversing the plating process and then rust bluing the barrel and lock.

The wood under the barrel bands appears to be free of any finish. Would this be correct for this musket or evidence of a stock refinish.

How were the parts serialised? The serial number on the stock is 1015. All the stock metal parts are all marked with a 10 number. In the barrel channel there are three different marks, one of them being a 15, all written in what looks like heavy pencil lead. The barrel and barrel plug are numbered 1015. The lock parts are all numbered either 10 or 15 with many other small maker marks.

How did they number parts back then?

 

[Smokepole50]

If it was in fact plated by the GAR then I guess some would say that the barrel finish it now has is a legitimate finish and part of the rifles history. I have never liked plating, I like rust bluing or Browning.

I guess I will let John Holland look at it in a couple weeks and see what he thinks about it's hstory.

 

[originalrebelyell]

I believe they were polished bright new from the armory not blued or browned. Somebody correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Story]

Could it have been "tinned" for naval use?

Tinning might not have been limited to Prussian Navy use. I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't some effort to provide some to units working in foggy, wet environments in Prussia.

Follow me on this; issue to a Landwehr unit may have been the 'second life' of the weapon, and usage during the American Civil War it's 'third life'.

One of the problems with the Potsdams is that the time window from when they were produced (starting in 1809, at the height of the Napoleonic Wars) to when they where rebuilt (in the OP's case, 1831) to percussion, there's not much reference material from the Prussian archives that can be considered Primary Source material (and hence, no B.S. references).

Part of the problem was that most of the archives for these sort of materials was firebombed during WWII. Moving westward, I ran into this problem studying the Hessians (@kevikens ). A Wisconsin U. professor of German languages went over before WWII and dug into those, which were also firebombed during the war. But I digress.

Now, if anyone can produce primary source material (and not American collectors' guesstimates) on initial issue of Potsdam M1809 muskets and their subsequent reissue, feel free to enlighten me.

Butt markings. 5th Landwehr Regiment has traditionally been Westphalia / West Prussia.

View attachment 158164

The Prussian Landwehr was first formed by a royal edict of 17 March 1813, which called up all men capable of bearing arms between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and not serving in the regular army, for the defense of the country.

 

[Jobe Holiday]

I think the answer to the use of the M-1809 Musket, aka "Potsdam", by the LW units lies in the butt plate markings. The unit markings are not secondary markings. In the over half century of studying existing examples I would hazard a guess that I have seen literally hundreds upon hundreds of Potsdam muskets. I have never seen one with secondary issue markings. What I have seen is that a majority of LW issued muskets are stocked in coarse grained Beech wood. The King's Regiment muskets are stocked in a wood resembling Straight Grained Maple. Asking for primary documentation from a part of the World that was essentially burned to the ground some 75 years ago is a nearly impossible request.
J.

 

[Story]

Assumptions that the Landwehr received the initial issue are just that, assumptions barring primary source documentation.

Where all percussion Potsdams converted, or where some factory produced with dated lockplates? Unless one has evidence, it's just an assumption.

Where buttplates initially unmarked, and then stamped when received by the Landwehr? Unless one has evidence, it's just an assumption.

Declarative statements without proof don't carry much weight.

 

[Smokepole50]

In the case of this musket, at least according to my understanding, the lock was originally configured as Flint lock and dated 1831. On the bottom of the barrel is the conversion date of 1842.

 

[Jobe Holiday]

@Story - I presented my experiences, observations, and nothing more, with comments of "I think...studying existing examples...I have never seen..." Nowhere did I claim it was documented data. Please do not attempt to twist my words into something else to suit your purposes.
J.

 

[Smokepole50]

Okay......we have established that almost all German record's were destroyed in WWII.....let's move forward. How were the small parts numbered? Is this musket matching or made up from parts of two different rifles.......rifle xx10 and rifle xx15????

 

[Jobe Holiday]

Smokepole50 - The "Potsdam" muskets were all hand fit with no interchangeability intended for the parts. There should be some type of matching number or stamping on the parts throughout the arm from when it was built. You will usually also find a different type of marking that is related to the conversion process. All of these cryptic markings are for keeping all the same parts together on the same musket. Which hails back to the non-interchangeability of the parts!
J.

 

[Story]

@Story - I presented my experiences, observations, and nothing more, with comments of "I think...studying existing examples...I have never seen..." Nowhere did I claim it was documented data. Please do not attempt to twist my words into something else to suit your purposes.
J.

I have no purposes to suit. Maybe you should stick with "from what I've seen" instead of making declaratives.

This musket is marked for LW use, aka Prussian Militia so that eliminates Naval use in Prussia, much less that it isn't a Naval model musket. The United States would have never used one of these arms ship board. The Confederate States never imported them. All plating, tinning, or chroming, is post war civilian modification.
J.

 

[Story]

In the case of this musket, at least according to my understanding, the lock was originally configured as Flint lock and dated 1831. On the bottom of the barrel is the conversion date of 1842.

Just order these books, along with a German dictionary.

https://www.booklooker.de/B%C3%BCcher/Angebote/titel=Neupreuss+Infanteriegewehr+%252F+Das+Neu-Preu%C3%9Fische+Infanterie-Gewehr+(Morion+Reprints
https://www.zvab.com/buch-suchen/titel/handfeuerwaffen-preussische-heeresreform-1807-1813/autor/wirtgen-arnold/

 

[Jobe Holiday]

The "declarative" of "All plating, tinning, or chroming, is post war civilian modification.", which you have chosen to take out of context, was in relation to the Potsdam we are discussing. Of course you know that since you claim to be a "Journalist." However, it seems that you would rather stir up discord and point out what you have determined to be "flaws" with individuals, their thoughts, and posts, instead of adding any meaningful dialogue. Adding links to a myriad of internet web sites which we can all find on our own, barbed comments, nonsensical photos and videos which serve no purpose other than to eat up band width, are a waste of everyone's time. You seem to have very little actual experience in the field of arms collecting and study. Your nonsense and nit-picking belongs on Face Book, not here.
J.

 

[Smokepole50]

Thanks for all comments.

Regards,
Smokepole50