Interesting Conversion?

[vtbuck223]

I happened across this the other day while on vacation and snapped a couple pics. They had it listed as "converted to percussion by J. Golcher circa 1845". I read some of the previous posts concerning Golcher locks...interesting discussion...but still a little murky to me concerning dates. The musket they referred to as "a .69 cal. smoothbore circa 1799". So apparently they are suggesting it is a model 1795. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to examine it closely and now have only a couple of poor pics to remember it by. However, the stock around the butt looks more like a model 1816 to me. Still...it's interesting that an original flintlock lock was apparently replaced by another flintlock lock which was later  crudely converted to percussion. In this...I am assuming that there were no Golcher locks original to any Springfield muskets. And as I previously observed...this conversion  seems too crude to me to have been a government contract. The musket has obviously been tinkered with a great deal....(no barrel bands etc.)...in making it a civilian gun. I wish I could have examined it more closely and made better mental notes....more questions than answers....interesting piece to me though. Any thoughts?
PS. I didn't ask to take the pics...I hope they don't mind...it is in the name of education!

[mr. no gold]

You take some productive vacations, Jeremy. Wish mine were as rewarding as yours. Or, maybe I should change my destinations. This is an interesting adaptatation of a military musket to a civilian fowler, probably. At least they didn't cut the stock down. They did change the lock, which seems to be fairly old, and English. It's a nice lock, in fact. Can't tell if it is a Goulcher or not. Seems to have a signature rather than a stamp. Have not seen a Goulcher lock that is older than 1820 on any guns, and always stamped.
The conversion is a poor-boy type where the flint cock was retained and changed to a perc. hammer by the anvil fixed in the jaws. These are not common, but are far from unknown.
Some fine KY Rifles have had this done. JTR knows about this and I hope that he will address your post on this subject.
Your take on the musket pattern seems to be right on. It does not appear to be a model 1795 given the low comb, and probably a shorter barrel.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. These things are always a lot of fun.
Dick

[JTR]

I don't think I can add any more than what no gold has said.
I like these sort of conversions too, and have one that was done on a Allentown area rifle. I was going to post a picture of it,,, but can't find a picture of it on this computer to post!

John

[debnal]

Looks like it could be a New England militia musket. Note the pinned barrel.
Al

[mr. no gold]

Hey Al, you may be right on that call. It looks as if there may be a nose cap on the stock, and if so, with no bands, and a pinned barrel, it is indeed a NE Militia gun. that means that the lock is probably original to the gun as most of these pieces were made by private contracts. I don't recall seeing one with such an abbreviated comb, but that is overridden by the rest of the facts. The Springfield 1795, and its daughters, had the standard top barrel band, and on closer inspection, it appears as though this never had one, hence the nose cap. Good eye.
Dick

[JV Puleo]

NE militia musket. It probably even has a date on the barrel. These conversions are fairly common.

[vtbuck223]

Thanks for helping to figure this one out. Here is a closer pic of the name on the lock...which does appear to be GOLCHER.