Type II Austrian Lorenz

[brcampbe]

I've been looking for one of these for quite some time in fireable condition at a reasonable price. This one fit the bill. It's an 1860 dated Type II Lorenz marked with the Austrian Imperial eagle in .54cal. The original folding leaf sight was replaced with a fixed sight, I suspect either just prior to importation or during the war. The ramrod is an incorrect replacement. Bore was terribly filthy but cleaned up to reveal great rifling. It's seen some action as the stock has some damage on the underside from repeatedly banging it on something hard. Lock functions perfectly with a very strong mainspring. The nipple is a replacement. Will be fun to get it back on the range.

 

[originalrebelyell]

That is a nice one.

 

[WJC]

Great find! Thanks for sharing!

 

[JOHN42768]

Always like to see originals

 

[Larryh86GT]

Very nice.

 

[captaindrew]

Congrats on your new piece!

 

[Jobe Holiday]

The long range rear sight was not replaced. The example you have is the common Infantry issue Lorenz. The ones with the folding long range rear sight were issued in lesser numbers with only a few to each company. Mr. Don Dixon has explained this in far better detail somewhere else in this forum. Your rear sight appears to have been reduced in height a bit, but is correct in concept.
J.

 

[vmicraig]

Considering the numbers used during the war, why is it so uncommon to find one in good shape?

 

[johan_steele]

Here is a translation of the manual.

 

[johan_steele]

Considering the numbers used during the war, why is it so uncommon to find one in good shape?

Most of those captured from the CS were destroyed or sold off on the surplus market with large numbers ending up in Africa after being converted to Flintlock. A lot of the barrels & ramrods were used to help build Rock Island Arsenal. There was a bustling cottage industry a few years back reconverting Lorenzes to percussion and selling them in the US. You can also find Enfields with the same fate.

 

[brcampbe]

The long range rear sight was not replaced. The example you have is the common Infantry issue Lorenz. The ones with the folding long range rear sight were issued in lesser numbers with only a few to each company. Mr. Don Dixon has explained this in far better detail somewhere else in this forum. Your rear sight appears to have been reduced in height a bit, but is correct in concept.
J.

It's definitely a Type II. Here it is next to my Type I for comparison. As you can see, the rear sight dovetail is wider and the Type I sight would not fit if you tried.

 

[originalrebelyell]

I would love to get my hands on one.

 

[Jobe Holiday]

brcampbe - Thanks for the comparative photos!
J.

 

[UCVRelics]

Very Nice musket. Thanks for sharing.

 

[moosedog]

Congratulations on the find. Hard to find originals for sure.

 

[Jobe Holiday]

To continue the discussion a bit, I haven't been able to find any documentation regarding replacing the folding long range sight with the block sight prior to shipping the arms to North America. Perhaps Mr. Don Dixon will have some insight on this?
J.

 

[Badgercwcollector]

Nice find

 

[Don Dixon]

To continue the discussion a bit, I haven't been able to find any documentation regarding replacing the folding long range sight with the block sight prior to shipping the arms to North America. Perhaps Mr. Don Dixon will have some insight on this?
J.

Ah -- the issue of rear sights on Civil War Austro-Hungarian Army (k.k. Army) weapons.

Lorenz's Muster 1854 rifle musket design was superior to that of the Model 1855 Springfield rifle/rifle musket and the Pattern 1853 Enfield rifle musket, both of which had fixed rear sights, in that the rear sight of Lorenz's gun fit in a slot cut in the barrel. When the Muster 1854 rifle was proofed and targeted at the Vienna Arsenal, Lorenz's design permitted the rear sight to be moved in the sight slot to align the sights accurately with the target before the sight was staked in place. With the U.S. and British weapons the soldier had to hold off to adjust for misalignments in the structure of his rifle musket. But, it was also easier in Lorenz's design for the rear sight to be knocked off of the gun, and Muster 1854, Type I and II, rifles without rear sights are not uncommon.

Several thousand Muster 1854 rifles with Pattern 1853 Enfield long range rear sights were inspected at Liege, Belgium, and imported by Herman Böker and Company for the Federal Army. They are the only ones that I know of that went through a program of having new rear sights placed on them before importation. They were probably captured by the Sardianian and Imperial French Armies from the k.k. Army in northern Italy during the Second Italian War of Independence in 1859, and they were refurbished by O. P. Drissen et Cie in Liege.

I have seen replacement rear sights of somewhat different designs, which are conceptually similar to the one on brcampbe's Type II rifle. To make an educated speculation, if the sight is Civil War period it was probably an expedient Confederate replacement for a lost rear sight. But, I by no means discount a post-war expedient gunsmith replacement for a missing rear sight either. Close-up photos of the rear sight from several angles would have been interesting.

Pre-System Lorenz weapons were rebuilt/refurbished in significant numbers prior to importation, and the rear sights on them are all over the place.

Regards,
Don Dixon

 

[Jobe Holiday]

Thank you, Mr. Dixon, for your experience and comments!
J.

 

[brcampbe]

Thanks for the insight Don. I have attached some close ups of the sight. Notably, it is the proper height when compared to my original Type I sight so someone did their research. The V notch is darn near correct as well. It is certainly hand made.