AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Antique Gun Collecting => Topic started by: JohnHBryan on December 05, 2018, 05:24:03 PM
-
Any information would be appreciated. Apparently it was shortened at some point. O markings on the lock.
(https://i.ibb.co/GF61F01/C719-A322-D798-4-A4-A-A060-8-BEE3-C6-F206-D.jpg) (https://ibb.co/520z26z)
(https://i.ibb.co/FJ1kpNR/90182-F30-EC34-4624-920-B-07-CC3-C1-C2339.jpg) (https://ibb.co/6bScQVj)
(https://i.ibb.co/Fn8q7nJ/4-CB7-F393-EA63-46-A5-ADB9-AA9-C17-CCAA93.jpg) (https://ibb.co/jH3Z4HG)
-
(https://i.ibb.co/BPcSkgf/7-E40-C035-8532-407-F-809-C-0-D17-D0-C1-CAC0.jpg) (https://ibb.co/X4jvHzW)
(https://i.ibb.co/0hGqzzh/3834839-D-8-C85-4065-84-EB-95-D39224467-F.jpg) (https://ibb.co/dG5BHHG)
popular girl names 1992 (https://babynamesetc.com/unisex-baby-name-trends)
-
That appears to be a M. 1795 Springfield albeit shortened as you note.
-
I can't seem to find a springfield book. Is it unusual to not have any markings at all on the lock? Every other example I see has them. From what I recall, very few 1795s were actually made in 1795 or thereabouts. The 1811 marking on the barrel. Did they mark the year on the barrel, or does it have some other meaning?
ETA: I do have some springfields lying around, some with year stamps on the breech, some without. It must be the year. I suppose I need a Springfield book.....
-
Could it be a cavalry carbine, or a musketoon, instead of a shortened musket. The later we’re sometime manufacture separately from standard muskets.
Hungry Horse
-
It has Massachusetts proof marks... as far as I know, the only American proof marks. It's a militia musket made for private sale, likely from condemned parts purchased at one of the regular auctions the Springfield Armory had for such items.
-
1811 is at least the date of manufacture for the barrel although that doesn't necessarily mean that's when the musket was assembled. The other parts could be earlier or later but yes, I agree, a total lack of markings on the lock plate seems pretty unusual. I would think that at least implies it's a replacement as I don't think I've ever seen a musket of this period without some kind of maker's mark on it be it the product of a U.S. Government arsenal or a private contractor. As for it being shortened - Hungry Horse makes a good point - it could be the original design but I'm no expert in this model by a long shot. Assuming it was originally manufactured like that I would assume it's a pretty rare bird.
-
According to my only reference material, the 1795 Springfield loosley followed the French Pattern "Charleville" & usually had a barrel length of 44 1/2" with a .69" (nominal) bore, variations of 1/2" or so in length were the rule, rather than the exception.
Harper's Ferry, which began making muskets in 1801 made a few of the 'pattern' muskets to help, however at that time, only the Harper's Ferry Muskets were of decent quality.
The later muskets, models 1975, 1812, 1816, 1822, and 1840, all flintlocks also followed the same general design with minor differences in barrel length and close adherence to desired specifications.
-
But if made for private sale, anything is possible. No need to conform to a pattern.
-
Pukka is quite right. Muskets like this rarely conform to the Federal pattern. I'm not certain where the OP is, but here in New England, this type of musket isn't particularly rare although militia muskets with pinned barrels probably outnumber them 4 to 1. The marks on the top of the barrel are "P" and "M" over the initials of the inspector and the date. The proof law was passed in 1804 and 1805 is the earliest date I've observed. Most muskets marked thus post-date the War of 1812. The manner in which the law was written makes it applicable only to barrels made in Massachusetts. Militia muskets with British-made barrels did not have to be re-proofed and occasionally one finds a militia musket with a barrel that underwent Federal inspection - these came from contractors that were selling off finished parts after inspection because the government was extremely slow paying and the contractors had to be able to pay their workmen.
I am unfamiliar with the initials LB and the date, 1811, is quite early. There was an article in Man at Arms magazine on this subject about 30 years ago. I don't have it at hand but, since I wrote it, I can say that the names of the listed inspectors were taken from the official register of civil & military commissions in the Massachusetts Archives. At one point, I had about 60 Massachusetts Militia Muskets so I was able to compare the markings on the guns with the names in the register.
Although I am not sure if it was repealed, the law went out of use around 1832. At least that is the latest date on a barrel I have observed. The markings are never seen on rifles although I am aware of a single, rifled-barrel underhammer pistol with them. That was made by the Ruggles brothers so it was undoubtedly a barrel made in Massachusetts. Otherwise, Massachusetts proofs are only seen on muskets.
As to where to look for more information, there is nothing on the internet. You can get the MAA article by ordering it from their office and you can try to find a copy of George Moller's Massachusetts Military Shoulder Arms, though long out of print. Moller's information on the proof marks was taken from the magazine article.
-
Thanks. The gun popped up in FL.... being listed as a 1795.
-
I knew a high-end antiques dealer years ago who made an annual buying trip to Florida. He said that so many New Englanders retired there and, more often than not, brought their best items with them so Florida estate sales were an excellent place to look for nice NE items.