Percussion altered Springfield Model 1840 flint musket

[WESTbury]

Springfield altered 26,841 Model 1840 Flintlock Muskets to percussion in 1851. All of those altered muskets were unissued muskets stored in the Arsenal at Springfield. Those altered muskets represented in excess of 88% of the M1840 muskets produced at Springfield Armory. Except for the 87 muskets issued to New Hampshire in 1851 and the 2,112 issued to Pennsylvania in 1849 and 1851, all of which were thought to be still in their original flintlock configuration, the balance were altered to percussion in 1851 at Watervliet and other Federal Arsenals.

The Springfield altered musket in the photos below was produced at Springfield in 1840.

[Daryl]

Very interesting musket.  Were the 1840's not of thick enough barrel to rifle?
Firearms of the American West noted that the 1842's were the "first" percussion muskets made with that ignition system.

[WESTbury]

Were the 1840's not of thick enough barrel to rifle?

It was preferred that the Model 1840 muskets were rifled, rather than the M1816, because the barrels of the M1840 muskets had the same thickness as those of the M1842. All of the rifling was initially performed at Frankford Arsenal, later at Harpers Ferry Armory and St. Louis Arsenal. There were however, many M1816 muskets rifled but that ended in disaster. Rifled M1816 muskets were used only with buck and ball rounds.

The M1840 pictured above is smooth bore.

[Daryl]

tks for the info.  Since buck and ball were paper ctg. loads, the pressures would have been substancially lower than the Minnie.
I've read that a bunch of the muskets were rifled and had sights installed.  Seems to me, the 1842 caplock musket already had sights
so rifling was all that was needed.
Writings of the period noted that the rifled .69's were preferred by some company commanders over the later .58's as being "more accurate" than the .58's.
I have that Lyman Minnie Mould, but so far, have been able to resist shooting any of those bullets in my .69 rifle. I suspect with the service 70gr. load,  they
 wouldn't "shake" the stock too much.

[WESTbury]

Seems to me, the 1842 caplock musket already had sights
so rifling was all that was needed.

Daryl,

The U.S. M1842 Percussion Muskets as originally manufactured at Springfield and Harpers Ferry, were smooth with a brass front sight as you very correctly pointed out, on the forward strap of the upper band. Those that were rifled only, retained the brass front sight. Those that were rifled and had the so-called long-range sight added, had the brass front sight removed and an iron front sight installed where the original brass front sight was.

Springfield went a step further than Harpers Ferry in regard to the new iron front sight. Fixed to the inside surface upper strap of the front band, immediately under the newly installed iron front sight, was a small diameter pin that fit into a corresponding slit milled into the top of the barrel. That arrangement prevented the upperband with the iron sight from rotating when the musket was fired. That insured that the front sight was always in alignment with the newly installed rear sight. Why Harpers Ferry did not follow Springfield's lead with the sight alignment is not known at this time. See pages 198 - 200 of George Moller's American Military Shoulder Arms Vol. 3.

[WESTbury]

Daryl---There was a very good article by David Stalvo on the development, etc. of the M1842 Musket in the February 2017 issue of Man at Arms Magazine.

[wildcatter]

 Westbury,

The only knowledge I have of any of this type of stuff is what you post here (very limited) , but I'm curious if there has any documentation as to why they converted these muskets in this manner. I'm fascinated that they took the time to meticulously convert the lock and plate but tap the barrel for the percussion cap in that manner.

Matt

[varsity07840]

tks for the info.  Since buck and ball were paper ctg. loads, the pressures would have been substancially lower than the Minnie.
I've read that a bunch of the muskets were rifled and had sights installed.  Seems to me, the 1842 caplock musket already had sights
so rifling was all that was needed.
Writings of the period noted that the rifled .69's were preferred by some company commanders over the later .58's as being "more accurate" than the .58's.
I have that Lyman Minnie Mould, but so far, have been able to resist shooting any of those bullets in my .69 rifle. I suspect with the service 70gr. load,  they
 wouldn't "shake" the stock too much.

Moose moulds makes a 500gr semi wadcutter minie for .69 cals in several different diameters. It's the same as the old Rapine mould which I use in  my original rifled and sighted '42. It is very accurate. Recoil with the 70gr charge is nothing special.

[varsity07840]

Westbury,

The only knowledge I have of any of this type of stuff is what you post here (very limited) , but I'm curious if there has any documentation as to why they converted these muskets in this manner. I'm fascinated that they took the time to meticulously convert the lock and plate but tap the barrel for the percussion cap in that manner.

Matt

Probably because it was the least labor intensive and least expensive method. The alternatives were the rarely used drum and nipple threaded into the barrel side in the touch hole location or in the case of the H&P and Remington Maynard conversions, a new patent solid breech threaded into the barrel after the original flint breech end was cut off and the barrel rethreaded for the new plug.

[varsity07840]

Were the 1840's not of thick enough barrel to rifle?

It was preferred that the Model 1840 muskets were rifled, rather than the M1816, because the barrels of the M1840 muskets had the same thickness as those of the M1842. All of the rifling was initially performed at Frankford Arsenal, later at Harpers Ferry Armory and St. Louis Arsenal. There were however, many M1816 muskets rifled but that ended in disaster. Rifled M1816 muskets were used only with buck and ball rounds.

The M1840 pictured above is smooth bore.

N-SSA skirmishers shoot H&P and Remington/Maynard rifled 1816 conversions with minies.  Most shooters deem the cone versions to be unsafe.

[Eric Kettenburg]

I also do not have much knowledge of these other than what you post - so THANKS for posting because it's quite interesting.

What I'd like to know is (1) how were they plugging the original vents, if not cutting off the breech, and (2) how were they creating/adding that apparent boss for the nipple threads?

[WESTbury]

Thanks for all of the replys, comments, etc.

As far as I am aware there this no documentation discovered as of yet as to why the Ordnance Dept. adopted the so-called Belgium Plan for percussion alteration. I suspect that the fact that the Belgium Plan had been adopted by some Europeans was a big part of it. After all every flintlock musket produced for the Federal Government was a copy of a French musket so they just out of habit did what the Europeans did. It was very probably a matter of expediency and cost and could be accomplished quickly.

The problems with this type of percussion alteration were discovered when the altered flint muskets with there soft barrels were rifled. The backpressure from firing a conical bullet blew out the percussion cones and touchhole vent plugs.

Attached is a sheet from the 1850 Ordnance Manual that gives a description of the percussion alteration procedures.

[Daryl]

Daryl---There was a very good article by David Stalvo on the development, etc. of the M1842 Musket in the February 2017 issue of Man at Arms Magazine.

Thank you.


Matt, after the minnie bullet was adopted for the new .58's, instead of replacing all the muskets with .58 rifles, the ones which had enough barrel thickness for rifling
were returned to the armories and were rifled and sights fitted. Much easier to rifle existing muskets, then to build new rifles.
I believe the issue load for the .58's was 60gr. and the 480gr. or maybe a 505gr. Minnie, while the .69's were issued 70gr. ctgs. and the 730gr. minnie.
Maybe it was a 50gr. charge for the pistols with the lighter 480gr. minnie - now I just don't remember.

[WESTbury]

Daryl,

Appreciate your very detailed info on the ammunition for the .58 and .69 loads.

[WESTbury]

What I'd like to know is (1) how were they plugging the original vents, if not cutting off the breech, and (2) how were they creating/adding that apparent boss for the nipple threads?

I've never found any exact description of the method of forming the boss on the barrel form the percussion nipple.

My SWAG would be that they first drilled a hole in the barrel. Then they had a hardened punch, with a projecting hardened pilot that was sized to fit the drilled hole, which was struck with a triphammer to form the boss. Quite a bit of force would have been needed, but as the barrels were made of soft iron, it would have been possible with a triphammer. After the boss was formed the pilot hole was tapped.

The original touch hole was probably plugged with a properly sized iron pin, press fitted in the hole. You can see why the back pressure from firing a .69 cal Mini-ball would have blown out the vent hole. The fact that the original cavity in the brass flashpan was filled with a brazed in piece of brass was probably enough to contain the backpressure from buck & ball rounds, but not a mini-ball in a rifled bore.   

[Daryl]

From "Firearms of the American West" - One of the "Forts", might have been Fort Bent - or another, has the habit of the night guards coming off shift in the morning, would shoot their 'load'
at a target at 100yards distance to the Butt.  In the middle of the target was a 4" "bull". If they hit that bullseye, they got the next night off.
A visiting Leuy, with his company wrote up the scenario.
The camp commander told the Leuy his Fort was armed with the new .58 calibre rifles and that they were amazingly accurate. The visiting Leuy's company were armed with the "Old Jager"
rifled .69's & 1842's I think. He told the camp commander he thought the .69's were more accurate & asked if his men could shoot against the camp's night shift. This was arranged. The Leuy
wrote that none of the Camp's guards hit the 'mark', yet none of his own men missed. Good shooting indeed! How much was BS, I do not know, but the Leuy wrote that the camp commander
"put in a request" to replace his camp's .58's for the rifled Jagers.
I thought this was a delightful story.  .69's rule!!

[WESTbury]

Daryl--That is pretty cool recommendation on the .69's, thanks for sharing it.

[Clark Badgett]

There were even some Northern Regiments during the War of the Rebellion that were issued the .69 muskets that refused to part with them when the newer .58 rifle-muskets became available.  Also, the .69s, M1816 & M1840 conversions and M1842s, continued their lives with many western immigrants in the 1870s and 1880s. It seems these arms were highly regarded.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Westbury I appreciate the info!  I suspected that since they mentioned the boss being 'upset' that mandrils and something like a power hammer would be involved.  In regards to plugging the vent - no pun intended, but if they were simply hammer-plugged and the plug reliant upon the replaced pan piece to 'hold' the plug in place, my mind will be "blown!"  I would think that silver soldering or brazing would be needed at the least.  Very interesting stuff.

[Clark Badgett]

Westbury I appreciate the info!  I suspected that since they mentioned the boss being 'upset' that mandrils and something like a power hammer would be involved.  In regards to plugging the vent - no pun intended, but if they were simply hammer-plugged and the plug reliant upon the replaced pan piece to 'hold' the plug in place, my mind will be "blown!"  I would think that silver soldering or brazing would be needed at the least.  Very interesting stuff.

Being an arsenal conversion it would not surprise me in the least if they had some form of fixture that the unbreeched barrel could be put upon that had a hardened face to upset the interior end of the vent plug. This is purely speculation on my part. It also would not surprise me if the plug was simply driven in and dressed. Whatever method they used to form the boss, it seems to have been minimal enough that one has to really look to tell it was done. And being iron I would not be surprised of the heated the barrel for the peening. I do know that it's fairly easy to peen low carbon steel at work, I've even managed to peen that stuff with copper and bronze.

[WESTbury]

Some of the fixturing and drill jigs are on display in the museum. They also had very elaborate Go and No Go gages. Pete Schmidt showed a lot of them in his U.S. Military Flintlock Muskets Vol II published by Mowbray Publishing.

[Collector]

Kent, 

Love your presentation on this U.S. musket and I am especially enjoying the discussion that has developed around this type of flint-to-percussion conversion, which has largely been accepted, for many years, without the investigation, or the 'how exactly did they do this' discussion that usually accompanies these details. 

A topic certainly worthy of more in-depth investigation.

My only observation from these very detailed photos, is that the material in the area of the previous vent hole location appears to be very 'homogeneous' in composition to the adjacent barrel material.  I don't see any differentiation that you'd expect with new material being added.  A countersunk mechanical plug with existing material hammer peened over and blended to reinforce and then surface dressed to disguise the modification?  Has age erased the evidence we'd expect to find, were this a more recent procedure? 

           

[WESTbury]

Gaylord--Glad you are finding this interesting.

Here are photos of an 1823 dated and an 1835 dated musket with easier to see vent hole plugs.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Perhaps the vent plugs were threaded?  That would at least offer a bit more of a safety factor, resistance to blowing out under pressure.

[WESTbury]

Eric,

That's possible although I have measured the dia of touchholes in some unissued M1816 muskets at Springfield Armory with gage pins.

A .093 dia pin would fit but a .094 dia pin would not. That's quite a small hole to tap and the thread would have to be a fine pitch to get enough threads to engage.

It would be interesting to x-ray some barrels to see what exactly they used to fill the hole, screw or pressed in pin. Unfortunately, I am no longer in the machine tool business so I do not have access to the equipment needed.