Type II Austrian Lorenz

[brcampbe]

Also wanted to show you guys this. I found it last night on the ram rod, turns out the ramrod was made from a 1940s era Oxweld rod. I was told by a friend of mine who has been welding for many years that the last time he saw rods marked like this was back in the 60s. I suspect someone put this thing back into service for either reenacting or NSSA back in the 50's or 60's. The ramrod was clearly done long ago.

 

[Jobe Holiday]

Given that the ram rod isn't a Lorenz rod to begin with, it is interesting that the shank is a piece of old Oxweld rod!
J.

 

[originalrebelyell]

I have a Zouave that has a home made rear sight on it that looks a lot like that.

 

[major bill]

Nice Type II Lorenz. Looks great for it's age.

 

[Don Dixon]

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.

Thanks for the additional photos. The sight is definitely an "after market" item, rather than k.k. Army ordnance.

The Federal and Confederates Armies never translated the k.k. Army field manual for the Muster 1854 rifles. Nor did they adequately train their troops in marksmanship. So, the troops didn't understand the hold-offs built into the Muster 1854 rear sight. Almost all of them that you see over here were filed down at some point to give a center of mass (i.e., chest) aim/hit at 100 yards. A factory correct Muster 1854 rear sight for both of your guns would be much taller.

Regards,
Don Dixon

 

[brcampbe]

I'm not surprised, this musket was pretty beat so having a replacement sight like this is OK with me. Since I will be using this as a range gun, I decided to repair the damage on the underside of the stock. I used European Beechwood as the original stock is. I will need to go through a process to blend it in color wise. Repair is solid though, slight more complicated than a regular patch job but not too hard.

Before:

After:

 

[brcampbe]

And now that I've stained it with Potassium Permaganate, you can hardly tell!

 

[Larryh86GT]

That did blend in very nicely.

 

[originalrebelyell]

Looks good

 

[Waterloo50]

No live firearms in the U.K. so I have no idea how you know if a weapon is safe to live fire. Do antique weapons have to be sold with a safety certificate or is it down to the individual to make the decision? Sorry for such a simple question but what is second nature to you guys is totally alien to us Brits.

 

[Jobe Holiday]

There are live fire muzzle loading matches in England, just contact David Minshall who is also on this forum.
J.

 

[FiremarshalBill]

I believe my Lorenz is a type 1 with the numbers 860 stamped on the lock plate forward of the hammer. On the lock plate to the rear of the hammer is what may have been the Austrian Imperial eagle stamp, though it looks like either it was a poor stamping to begin with or possibly a tool was used to obliterate the eagle? Comments?

 

[brcampbe]

There's clearly sanding marks in the metal, so it was obviously obliterated that way. Would like to see full pics of the rifle, looks like a nice one.

 

[vmicraig]

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.

When you say "Type", are you referring to the pattern of rifle based on the date of manufacture?

As I understood it, all pre-1862 models are of the first pattern, also referred to as the 1854 pattern. I was under the impression the 2nd pattern (referred to as the 1862 pattern) started with the 1862 manufacture dates. As such, if the pictured rifle is dated 1860 (which would be of the 1st pattern...I couldn't see a date stamp in the pic), wouldn't it also be considered a Type I? And if it bears a Type II sight, could the manufacture date of 1860 be incorrect? (Assuming that Pattern and Type are the same thing)

 

[vmicraig]

And now that I've stained it with Potassium Permaganate, you can hardly tell!

Darn nice patching job

 

[Jobe Holiday]

The Austrian Muster 1854 Rifle Musket is divided onto Type 1 and Type 2 by collectors because of the sights. They were used at the same times. The solid block sight was for the common infantryman, while the folding sight was issued in more limited quantities for different purposes. Mr. Don Dixon has explained much of this in some previously posted discussions.
J.

 

[vmicraig]

The Austrian Muster 1854 Rifle Musket is divided onto Type 1 and Type 2 by collectors because of the sights.
J.

Not disagreeing, as that's certainly part of the difference I believe lies behind the use of the term "Type", but my understanding of the Pattern variations was that the differences are based based on standardization in manufacturing that began in 1862 which also included a slightly different lockplate that more closely resembled the Enfield, but only very slightly.

The Type I (or more precisely, the 1854 pattern model) was heavily based on the P53 Enfield and had short, medium and long range sights. Manufacturing standardization not only improved the weapon and the problems with the contract models, but it hybridized the new Pattern. The 1862 pattern is a hybrid of the P53 Enfield AND the M1861 Springfield. It also had a marginally thicker barrel to accommodate the .58 mini ball.

With that said, I guess I'm probably quibbling to say collectors IMO are actually mis-using the term "Type" when they should actually be referring to "Pattern" as normally done when we discuss Enfield. Clearly the term "Type" has been in use for a long time, but how/why did we stop using "Pattern" in our description and start saying Type? Was it just easier to ignore the differences and use "Type" solely to differentiate between a model with adjustable sights and one without while ignoring the manufacturing differences? If we only look at the sights, we could potentially be referring to either pattern or type as noted in my previous post.

I know, it's "in the weeds" and who actually cares, but isn't this the right forum to get into the minutia of these kinds of things?

 

[James N.]

No live firearms in the U.K. so I have no idea how you know if a weapon is safe to live fire. Do antique weapons have to be sold with a safety certificate or is it down to the individual to make the decision? Sorry for such a simple question but what is second nature to you guys is totally alien to us Brits.

When I recently bought my M.1863 Springfield (apparently not considered a "real" firearm by the Bureau of ATF because 1) it's over 100 years old; and 2) it's a black powder weapon) I posted a week ago I was told by the shop owner that since it had good rifling it should make a good "shooter." But when you actually purchase a weapon, you get a receipt that contains a big disclaimer that all firearms purchased are collector's items ONLY and therefore NO guarantee or liability of any kind should be implied. THAT of course is legalese BS in order to, as the saying goes, CYA. However, this particular rifle had a gap of maybe 1/16" between the barrel and tang, making it look at least questionable. I was having the stock repaired before I took final possession anyway, so asked for their gunsmith to look at and fix the gap if possible. When I picked it up there was no indication there had ever been a gap and it looks fine; I suspect that for some reason a previous owner had pulled or unscrewed the breechplug and simply not replaced it properly. But again, when I asked about it I received the usual BS about it not being guaranteed safe to fire, etc., etc. - but the shop manager also said "that's what we have to say - but it should be fine."

 

[thomas aagaard]

I believe my Lorenz is a type 1 with the numbers 860 stamped on the lock plate forward of the hammer.

That is short for 1860, the production year.

 

[Waterloo50]

When I recently bought my M.1863 Springfield (apparently not considered a "real" firearm by the Bureau of ATF because 1) it's over 100 years old; and 2) it's a black powder weapon) I posted a week ago I was told by the shop owner that since it had good rifling it should make a good "shooter." But when you actually purchase a weapon from them, they give you a receipt with a big disclaimer that all firearms purchased from them are for collector's items ONLY and NO guarantee or liability of any kind should be implied. THAT of course is legalize BS in order to, as the saying goes, CYA. However, this particular rifle had a gap of maybe 1/16" between the barrel and tang, making it look at least questionable. I was having the stock repaired before I took final possession anyway, so asked for their gunsmith to look at and fix the gap if possible. When I picked it up there was no indication there had ever been a gap and it looks fine; I suspect that for some reason a previous owner had pulled or unscrewed the breechplug and simply not replaced it properly. But again, when I asked about it I received the usual BS about it not being guaranteed safe to fire, etc., etc. - but the shop manager also said "that's what we have to say - but it should be fine."

View attachment 187298

'But it should be fine', I guess that's where your own personal firearm experience comes into play, if you have prior experience then it shouldn't be a problem. Have fun and stay safe.