Seeking experienced collectors knowledge about an old musket

[Corky]

We have an antique musket & socket bayonet from our ancestors farm in Connecticut. A knowledgeable friend thinks it was originally a flintlock and later was converted to a percussion. I’d like to know:
1. Is the consensus that it was originally a flintlock and then converted in the early 1800’s to percussion? If so, About how old was the original flintlock gun?
2. Is it Amerian? British? French??
3. What is the meaning of the barrel’s Roman numerals?

Musket Overall length = 60”, Smooth bore, 70 caliber.
The Barrel’s inside length is 44”, outside length is 45”, barrel has an octagon shape at the nipple end and tapers to a round shape at about 12”. Markings on the underside of barrel at nipple end “XXXXII” then more marks about 12” away from nipple end “XXI”. There are three notches on the underside of the barrel and they seem to correspond to lengths of 42” (XXXXII) (barrel front edge to front edge of 3rd groove)and 21” (XXI) (from the nipple end’s first notch to second edge of second notch). See my marked up photos.
The breech has a flower shaped Ketland makers mark on the outside and “W KETLAND” stamped on the inside.
The bayonet has a heart with “T P” stamped under the heart and has no twist lock. It only has a rectangular cutout.  It is 17.5” long, the blade is 15” long, and 1” at the widest part. Other measurements: Shank 1.5”, socket 2.5”, elbow about 2”

[Seth Isaacson]

1) Yes, that would have been flintlock in the early 1800s and then converted around the 1840s-1850s most likely.
2) The William Ketland lock should be from the early 19th century around 1800-1810 if I am remember the years correctly. The gun itself is patterned after the French "Charleville" muskets. The U.S. based our early military muskets on the French muskets, and Ketland locks are known to have been imported and used on various U.S. firearms in the early 19th century, so the musket was probably assembled here. .69 caliber was standard for U.S. and French muskets.
3) The Roman numerals are likely assembly markings.

[Dan'l 1946]

   To me that looks like a trade gun lock rather than a military one. Interesting piece.   Dan                                 

[Corky]

Thank you both for sharing your knowledge!

[smart dog]

Hi,
Hopefully Joe Puleo will weigh in.  I suspect it is a privately made militia musket based on old French parts but using an inexpensive Ketland trade lock.  The socket of the bayonet seems short and I wonder if the collar and the rest of twist slot were cut off for some reason.  You might get some sense of that if you measure the distance from the bayonet lug on the barrel to the end of the stock.  If there is a lot of excess exposed barrel behind the socket, that might suggest it was shortened.

dave 

[JV Puleo]

That's a good example of the conventional "New England Militia Musket" A purely collector term but one that covers the type quite well. Thousands of these were made from 1792 into the early 19th century. This one was clearly flint. The W Ketland lock cannot pre-date about 1803 so I'd place it right around 1803-1810.

Most had pinned barrels but about 1 in 4 used barrel bands. Those were often old French parts or condemned parts sold off by the National Armories. The matching bayonet is nice though I've no idea what the initials stand for. Since it wasn't armory-made they could be just about anything.

If you are not aware of this, the Militia Acts of 1792 and 1808 required that every male citizen from the age of 18 to (65?) provide himself with a musket and bayonet. Provisions were incorporated in the law to provide arms for the indigent and a small number of people or occupations were exempt—but not many. The government also contracted for arms but these were considered a strategic reserve and rarely issued. For the most part, arming of the militia depended on individuals procuring their own arms.

Also, it's a very unusual conversion. I can't remember ever seeing one where the nipple was screwed into the barrel a-la-Belgian conversions. Usually it's just a simple drum & nipple. And...the so-called "Ketland Makers Mark", though often mentioned is rubbish.  The mark means nothing and appears on locks with other dealer's names on them. William Ketland (or rather his company since he died in 1804) never made locks.These were cheap locks made in the B'ham trade intended to be exported by the gross.

[Corky]

I response to Smart Dog regarding the bayonet, there is 2” between the bayonet lug and the end of the stock. I am including photos. I wouldn’t know if that distance is unusual. Your thoughts?

In response to JV Puelo, thank you for your insights. Especially about the Militia Acts. I was unaware.
As far as the lock is concerned, you mentioned W Ketland did not make locks. I found “W KETLAND “ stamped on the inside. Would that mean that William Ketland bought the lock and put his stamp on it afterwards? (Regardless of the flower shaped mark on the outside of the lock) I am a novice regarding guns and their history so appreciate your thoughts

[Shreckmeister]

Looks like the Dreppard flower on my lock

[JV Puleo]

The gun locks were all made by specialist shops in the English midlands, known as the "Black Country" for the layer of soot that covered everything. The lock plates were hardened so they must have been stamped or engraved before the hardening process was undertaken. I expect that the W Ketland firm simply ordered the locks, probably by the gross and that the lock maker stamped the name of his customer on them. Better quality W Ketland locks are engraved on their face with the company name (This is also true of the Thomas Ketland firm). The flower-like device was stamped on a lot of cheap lock plates...it's only a coincidence that most of those we see are Ketland-marked locks but that explains why collectors have, incorrectly, identified that mark with them.

As to the location of the marking inside the lock, this is nowhere near as common as the marking on the face of the lock. I don't know why this was done or if it makes any difference but based on the few dated examples of Ketland-locked guns I'd handled I might guess that the inside marking pre-dates the outside marking but that would be just that, a guess. It is also quite possible that both types of markings were in use at the same time. Also, the Ketlands probably used several different lock suppliers depending on the quality desired.

This appears to be the cheapest they sold, described as "common fence gun locks hardened and engraved". The price in their 1812 wholesale price list was 17/ (i.e. 17 shillings) per dozen.