Model 1795 Springfield, type III

[Bigmon]

Have an old model 1795 Springfield, I think?  Rough shape but mostly there.  I believe it is the wrong trigger gd?  As well as pan.  This is how I got it but I think it was re-converted from percussion.  Barrel is full length.
Just welcome any comments?  Should I try and improve it or let as is?
Thanks

[WESTbury]

Bigmon,

It is definitely reconverted and the barrel is not a Springfield Armory produced barrel.

[Daryl]

Is that a vent liner I see?

[WESTbury]

BIGMON---The barrel proofs on the barrel of your musket are those of Henry Osborne who was an independent contractor and assembled muskets for state militia units.

The stock is also not Springfield production.

Photo below shows the correct Springfield barrel proof marks.

[Bigmon]

Wow!  That's why I posted it here.  There is always someone that knows about these things, more than I.  Am I correct that it is at least close to a model 1795?  I thry collecting different Springfields and this would have been my oldest, if it were one.
It is mighty rough but at least holds together if shaken!
That appears to be a liner in place of where there was a drum when percussion.  The stock has a few patches also.  You say it isn't Springfield?
Here are a couple more pics.
Thanks for all the input

[WESTbury]

Bigmon,

Superficially, it resembles a Springfield, but it is very definitely not a Springfield Armory production musket.

There are many of these "assembled" private contractor flint muskets out there.

I would suggest you acquire one or two recent (meaning the last 15 years) books on U.S. Military flintlock muskets before you purchase anymore muskets. If you need some suggestions on books, contact me by PM.

Kent

[Bigmon]

Westbury,  Thanks for the advice and the offer to help.  I do not think I will be in the market for any more muskets and such.  I have enough and at my age (68) I need to start thinking about thinning the herd.  I have model 1816's, a 42, a 61 some trap doors, Krags, 03's and Garands.  Even a Springfield 1911.  Then lots of other stuff that if I still have when I leave this old earth my wife and kids will probably give away not knowing what it is.
Take care and Merry Christmas!

[Daryl]

Bigmon,

Superficially, it resembles a Springfield, but it is very definitely not a Springfield Armory production musket.

There are many of these "assembled" private contractor flint muskets out there.

I would suggest you acquire one or two recent (meaning the last 15 years) books on U.S. Military flintlock muskets before you purchase anymore muskets. If you need some suggestions on books, contact me by PM.

Kent

Firearms of the American West speaks to the various makers of each "year" of the muskets & by 1800, I think it was (not exactly certain), efforts were made to make all the maker's offerings 'fit' the "pattern" more closely.

[WESTbury]

Firearms of the American West speaks to the various makers of each "year" of the muskets & by 1800, I think it was (not exactly certain), efforts were made to make all the maker's offerings 'fit' the "pattern" more closely.

"More closely" is a rather loose tolerance.

The Ordnance Dept, established in 1815/1816, has a goal of interchangeability of components between the National Armories and Federal Contractors. By the mid to late 1830's they were getting close but it was not until the second year (1841) of production of the U.S. Model 1840 Flintlock Musket that the goal was achieved.

The muskets made by the Federal Contractors were considered second class arms and were only issued to the various states for their militias.