ReConversion...

[gizamo]

I have read of many percussion conversions being "reconverted" back to flint.  This is done to restore a lock to its original condition.

I wonder if this actually further muddied the water about the guns originality. 

Other then do nothing....are there other options? 

Such as preserving the percussion conversion lock and associated parts and starting with another similar lock and fitting that to the original gun...without altering the the inletting. This would require fitting a touchole liner to the barrel.

Giz

[okieboy]

 I am sure some of the more knowledgeable collectors on here will inform you that many original percussions have been "reconverted" back to flintlock to help muddy the water.

[Don Stith]

The waters are further muddied by the fairly common use of flint locks being converted to percussion on the original build.  The rifle was always percussion in these cases. As I have quoted an old mentor on this site before:  Just assume they are all reconversions and you won't get disappointed
 I think Okieboy refers to the ones that even the lock was originally percussion. Most anyone would frown on making those into flinters and by far the majority would object to the scenario I describe. When you can not be absolutely sure what the real situation is, you are better off doing nothing It is not terribly unusual to find a rifle that has a replacement lock, possibly in its working life
  Then what do you do?  I vote for nothing.
 

[4th La.]

Don,
    I'll second  !
Bob

[Bill Paton]

“Retroversion” is the term I use to describe an original percussion gun turned into a flintlock. I think they are usually done fraudulently to increase the selling price. That practice does real damage to the historical and study value of an antique. I’m sure a lot of honest collectors are fooled and cheated by this practice. I know, from my own in-hand studies, that some published “flintlock” swivel breech Kentucky rifles that are really “retroversions”.

[Feltwad]

This issue was debated about a couple of months ago and got out of hand resulting in the thread been removed ,I am a strong believer  that a gun that is converted from flint to percussion using the drum and nipple principle should stay that way it is part of the history of the gun, converting them back they never look the same.
Feltwad

Save the Drum and Nipple for future Generations

[The Rambling Historian]

I'd agree in most instances guns are best left as they were. The conversion is part of their history, and many of these guns saw more use as percussion guns than flintlocks. However, some full on restorations of high end early guns I find more appealing converted back to flint (not that I can afford them in any condition   ).

[Dennis Glazener]

converted from flint to percussion using the drum and nipple principle should stay that way it is part of the history of the gun, converting them back they never look the same.
Feltwad

I understand anyone thinking their converted flint rifle should stay percussion but I also believe that anyone that owns a converted flint and wants it converted back to flint is only adding to the history of the gun. I fail to understand why the history of a gun stops when its converted the first time. Does it not continue as long as the gun exists? Now I do agree that if it can not be re-converted properly where it looks and functions properly it should be left alone.
Dennis

[lexington1]

Well put Dennis!

[Big Wolf]

converted from flint to percussion using the drum and nipple principle should stay that way it is part of the history of the gun, converting them back they never look the same.
Feltwad

I understand anyone thinking their converted flint rifle should stay percussion but I also believe that anyone that owns a converted flint and wants it converted back to flint is only adding to the history of the gun. I fail to understand why the history of a gun stops when its converted the first time. Does it not continue as long as the gun exists? Now I do agree that if it can not be re-converted properly where it looks and functions properly it should be left alone.
Dennis

Well said Dennis!

[Hungry Horse]

Dennis, that argument could be made if you wanted to poke it full of tacks, wrap it in rawhide, and paint it blue. I only hope that if people reconvert their percussion to flint, they make darn sure it was a flint in the first place, and have it done by somebody that does it right, and don't misrepresent it as a virgin flintlock.

  Hungry Horse

[gizamo]

“Retroversion” is the term I use to describe an original percussion gun turned into a flintlock. I think they are usually done fraudulently to increase the selling price. That practice does real damage to the historical and study value of an antique. I’m sure a lot of honest collectors are fooled and cheated by this practice. I know, from my own in-hand studies, that some published “flintlock” swivel breech Kentucky rifles that are really “retroversions”.

I am guilty of owning such a gun. But frankly....I could never afford to own let alone hunt with a original.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Heck there are even quite a few percussion guns out there that were built as percussion guns with converted flintlocks and the builder didn't even bother to plug all the holes.  Built originally percussion, nevertheless.  Maybe the holes were left open so the stock could 'breathe?' 

I absolutely hate seeing guns reconverted badly, i.e. using off the shelf replacement parts, especially Siler parts which don't remotely look correct to begin with.  However, given the huge variety of castings now available taken directly from original locks, as well as the ability of many to scratch make components, I can't understand why on earth anyone would choose to use stock Siler or L&R etc parts anyway.

A well-reconverted flint is a thing of beauty, however, at least to my eye.  IMO, a nice old flint gun that's been converted to percussion is like looking at a great old piece of early American furniture that's been painted hot pink!  Ick.

[jdm]

I have seen guns where the lock fit was so poor or so out of place that they begged to be replaced. Who knows how some of these locks got on some  rifles. They may have been taken out to put on what someone felt was a better gun . Then replace it with one that does not  fit . In some of these cases a well done reconversion not only looks better but also increases the value . It will do justice to the maker by making his work whole again. I'm not saying every converted rifle needs to be changed back. There are times when it makes sense. Well,  at least I think so.

[JV Puleo]

I find myself in absolute agreement with Feltwad. As to the "history" of the gun. It stops with the working life of the gun itself. Its likely that very few converted flintlocks were still in use by the middle of the 19th century... maybe a handful were still in use at end of the Civil War but the ready, and cheap availability of tens of thousands of ex-military rifles probably retires those. Anything done after that is historical vandalism.

[lexington1]

I understand both sides of the issue very well. I guess I'm more or less in agreement with Eric K's stance. There are some really hideous conversions that were done during the working life of some of these guns. The reconversion argument more or less parallels the whole restoration issue. To each his own.  I do sometimes notice a somewhat snobbish attitude towards guns that have been restored, no matter how well they were done. Often those with that attitude wouldn't touch a reconverted gun or one that had been abused during it's working life either. So what's to become of the poor gun? It has no value because it's had it's barrel lopped off or been reconverted. I suppose it should just be trashed. Another piece of history gone!

[gizamo]

Am working with a gun that had a excellent flint lock plate  converted to percussion. ..in a not so excellent manner. And yet, that is the true history of the gun.

In my case, all the original parts can be preserved. Bagged and sealed. The fitting of a new lock....while difficult and costly, seems the best option . The only change is fitting a new 5/16th" liner to the existing percussion hole. Everything  else will be made to fit the lock mortise exactly.

[JV Puleo]

I have no problem at all with guns in rough condition... most of mine are because generally, that's what I can afford. I will not, however, even look at a reconversion no will I use photos of them in any of the books I work on.

[Avlrc]

If I were fortunate enough  to have all original flintlocks, I would be very happy not to own any reconverted rifles.  But since I came along so late to collecting Long Rifles I don't have a problem with a properly done reconversion. I have paid a restorer to make a few of mine flintlock again. I did recently trade a couple reconverted guns and a substantial amount of cash for a totally original flintlock. So reconverted guns are worth something. I think it depends a lot on which side of the fence you be. Just my opinion, not trying to be contrary. "God bless the purists, God   bless the poor, If I were rich, I would still want more"  

[jdm]

I lean more to leaving a converted gun alone. I however have no problem with a well done reconversion. It would not stop me from buying a rifle . To me the lock is the least important part of an antique longrifle. Sometimes the reconversions  are so bad that the damage has already been done so there is no harm in redoing them .
If there were no pictures of  reconverted Kentucky's in books. There would be a lot thinner books.

[Big Wolf]

And then there are the re-conversions that are so good that even the "experts" proclaim them to be original flint.

[JV Puleo]

I suppose if its impossible to tell... it's what — a perfect forgery? No reconversion is original and no one, no matter how "expert," can possibly know what the gun looked like originally. The best work is, of itself, the worst from a historical perspective because it destroys something that has a history and replaces it with someone's current notion of what may have been. It would be akin to printing fake 18th century books (something I could do were I so minded)... or perhaps forging historical documents to support a particular thesis. Its all quite possible, but is it admirable?

My own experience has been that 99% of reconversions are almost instantly recognizable from a few fundamental mistakes almost everyone who does them make. I'm always amazed by collectors who go on sanctimoniously about preserving the past but feel its perfectly acceptable to alter it when it suits them. Its a reflection of collecting as "competitive acquisition" as opposed to genuine historical interest.

[lexington1]

I think that's a somewhat harsh assessment. You associate honest restoration with outright fraud. I'm sure that fakery exists and there are those who do indeed prey upon others, but I don't believe that represents the majority of restorers. I think that most proper restoration work is done to right a wrong which has happened in the past. Just because a fine rifle was butchered 150 years ago doesn't mean that it should suffer with that stigma forever. My passion is for flintlock era guns and I enjoy seeing them as they were originally, not as they were bubba'ed by someone who quite obviously had no interest in preserving it for its artistic and/or historic value.

[Hungry Horse]

 Unfortunately what is today referred to as being Bubba'd, probably was cutting edge when some of these guns were reconverted just a few years ago. And to deny a guns history, by reconverting a rough field conversion, born of necessity, back to a pristine flinter, is basically denying the guns genuine history. This is no different that when a genealogist finds that a hundred and fifty years ago someones family tree was purged of it native american, or african american roots. Reconversion falsifies the guns true provenance, and creates a false history through the deletion of the guns life after the flint era.

    Hungry Horse

[JV Puleo]

I associate reconversion, not gluing a broken wrist back together, with fraud...  I don't think intent has much to do with it. While I'll grant most collectors the benefit of the doubt, the result is the same. The historical record is permanently obscured and we now have no remnants of either the original lock parts or of their period alterations. And, if the majority of of restorers don't intend to deceive, why is it so few reconversions are marked as such? I've seen, at best, two out of hundreds of examples.