Discussion USM-1840 Percussion musket valuation Q

tvthiele

Cadet
Joined
Mar 27, 2020
Location
Leland, NC
A friend of mine is thinking of buying a rifle with the following description: "USM-1840 Percussion Musket. 69 cal. Converted from original flintlock using “Belgian conversion” method used by Federal arsenals circa 1850. Springfield dated 1841 behind hammer. U.S./Eagle motif in front of hammer. Barrel attached with three bands, wi split front band. Iron original. Cleaned."

Any thoughts on what an appropriate price range might be?
 
Without photos anykind of jedgement is futile. I have seen a pristine, as issued, one go for $2400 in the last couple years and I have seen a wall hanger fetch $250 which was a good deal for the price of the useable parts. It all depends upon condition and the market at the moment.
 
Its really hard to give a price without seeing some photos.
Yeah I know. I wasn't given any pictures. What do you think the max value might be assuming excellent condition? I'm trying to give him a range and I have no idea what I am talking about.
 
There is a lot of judgment and experience in valuing an item, and to do so sight unseen is not realistic.
If you bought a horse unseen, at least you might have some statistics about past performance of that horse (could be "comes up lame every couple months" or maybe "won the Kentucky Derby."
 
Last edited:
See if he will let you post a few pictures and that way both you and your friend will get a realistic idea of what it is worth. To me if it was a family heirloom carried by one of my ancestors it would be priceless.
 
A model 1840 altered musket in decent condition is hard to come by. Comparatively few of the original flint models were made and nearly all were altered to percussion. They were probably the earliest issued muskets at the beginning of the war and saw hard service. Many fell victim to post war shotgun alterations and the like. I was lucky to win one at auction for a thousand dollars that was in good condition, albeit with a poor bore. VG-EX one's fetch in excess of three grand. A lot of cut up, rusted ones can be had for under $800.
 
Always difficult to tell market values. I've got a different idea of values of these converted from flint muskets, lower prices than yours. I think that even if an owner does not want to shoot such a musket, the fact that the conversions made by drilling a nipple into the top of the barrel which proved to be a dangerous method and might be unsafe to shoot will affect value.
 
Last edited:
Always difficult to tell market values. I've got a different idea of values of these converted from flint muskets, lower prices than yours. I think that even if an owner does not want to shoot such a musket, the fact that the conversions made by drilling a nipple into the top of the barrel which proved to be a dangerous method and might be unsafe to shoot will affect value.
Can you 'splain what would be dangerous. From my research the Belgian conversion method was the preferred method. Almost every converted Flintlock I have seen used this method. Maybe I am missing something.
 
Can you 'splain what would be dangerous. From my research the Belgian conversion method was the preferred method. Almost every converted Flintlock I have seen used this method. Maybe I am missing something
Pressure from inside the barrel can blast that nipple, which is aimed right at the firer's face.
I think this is especially a concern with musket that had been modified to add rifling - this was not done by a new barrel, or adding a liner to the old barrel, but by removing some of the metal in the bore, leaving a rifled bore. So "adding" rifling means "thinning the barrel thickness."
There is also the problem that adding the nipple directly into the barrel might create a place to trap powder and so a place for corrosion. I think this could be the nipple (or a replacement nipple) extended too far into the barrel, or was too short and so left exposed part of the threaded hole bored into the barrel.
I don't think this accident happened often, but I have read some period comments on this problem.
The Belgian method was quick and cheap and widely used, as you say.
 
I just wonder how it could blast the nipple out since the hammer would be over it at time of firing. I know on my musket it takes quite a bit of thumb strength to even move the hammer back. It's hard to imagine there would be enough pressure to move the hammer back and then still have enough left to cause damage to the user. Is there a known record of this happening?
My musket has an unusual amount of erosion around the nipple. A couple of threads are even showing. For this reason my musket will never be fired again. at least not while I am still alive.
 
Last edited:
the hammer would indeed hold down the nipple, but could not prevent a more catastrophic failure.

I'll see if i have saved any original sources for this. i did find an on line article from the American Society of Arms Collectors about these which contained this about the Belgian cone in barrel method, which the article calls the second method:

The first and second
methods of alteration were used primarily during the
1840's and early '50's. With the advent of the idea of
rifling the barrel in these muskets and applying long
range sites, the first and second methods became unserviceable
due to the increased level of gas pressure
and also due to the position of the cone on the barrel.
These problems lead to the wide use of the third
method or rebottomed barrels.


I think that the cones were put into a bump created on top of the barrel created by some sort of device inserted into the barrel which pushed up the metal to create a bump which then was drilled. I suppose that might cause some structural weakness there, especially if there was some internal flaw or stress already existing there.

I suspect that this system was usable, so long as the bore was not rifled, and installation and maintenance done correctly. As always, the chance of a failure that could be fatal means that even a bit of a chance is something to be avoided!

I am also certain that soldiers at the time would have complained bitterly of the danger and unsuitability of these older, large bore weapons in the hopes that they could exchange them for "modern" .58 caliber rifle-muskets, so we can't always believe what we read in original sources.
 
Last edited:
I would like to think any flaws were caught at the armory before hundred of thousands of these were sent out to troops.

Thanks for the info, will do some more research myself
 
Today, we have x rays and other ways to examine - I don't know how anyone could search for and find an occlusion in the metal of a barrel - I think these old guns were over built to create a margin of safety.
And I am talking about a flaw that was not built into the conversion process, but a metallurgy problem that might exist in a barrel made at different facilities over a stretch of several decades.
 
I guess they could use X-rays, not then, but now. That is how we found hidden corrosion in aircraft that couldn't be seen with the naked eye. I had just never heard the cone in barrel conversion having any widespread issue since most civil war muskets were just that. I have never heard of that conversion lowering the value of a converted musket today. I am not an expert by any means, I just bought my first musket a month ago, but have done tons of research on them before I bought my first one. Plus, people on the site have been a tremendous help filling in blanks I had on mine.
 
Back
Top