Early model 1795 springfield

[Biboon]

I need some help, the only markings are Springfield on the barrel, tower on the lock and US with EG underneath. Is this an early Springfield because they used an English lock?

[WESTbury]

This musket is not *an early Springfield Armory. It is very probable that it is a musket made for a member of a New England militia unit. The barrel has the proofs and markings associated with Henry Osborne of Springfield Mass. Osborne was an independent contractor and never a Federal Contractor.

Your musket looks to be in great shape. Do not clean it.

Kent

*Sorry about leaving out the word "not" in my original reply. That omission is the result of not finishing my first cup of coffee!

[WESTbury]

By the way Biboon, Joe Puelo, a member of this forum, is the probably the most knowledgeable person in the field of New England Militia arms.

[bama]

I know very little about US Muskets but this one looks to be in subperb condition, complieteness and originallity. Please follow WESTbury's advice.

Jim

[Hlbly]

I have an early militia musket stocked in curly maple with a Tower lock.

[Bigmon]

Is that the "Springfield Armory" eagle head stamped in the barrel?

[Biboon]

Thank you for all responses

[Biboon]

Would anyone take a guess at it’s age, when was Henry Osborne active?
Thanks again for your knowledge

[JV Puleo]

Osborn was located in Springfield. The armory regularly sold off condemned parts...those that didn't quite fit the regulations but were otherwise usable. Osborne was located in Springfield. I've had a couple of his muskets, both of which featured parts that were likely sold off by the armory. As Westbury has said...not a Springfield Armory product. That "SPRINGFIELD" stamp on the barrel is not an armory marking but Osborne also used it on locks. I would not be surprised to learn he did it to create the impression these were Armory guns.

[JV Puleo]

And...the armory never used English locks. The whole purpose behind government manufacture was to avoid dependence on foreign sources. foreign-made arms would  have been cheaper, Everyone concerned knew that but it was a matter of "national security" that we have the capacity to produce our own arms regardless of the additional cost.

[Biboon]

Thank you for your input and expertise, what time period am I looking at with Osbornes gunsmithing, also how would you date this tower lock?

[Bigmon]

Sir, JV Pulep,
Regarding that stamp that resembles the Springfield Eagle.  Are you then saying that what we are seeing is actually done by Osborne?  And that It is similar or the same as the Armory eagle?
Good to know when looking at old muskets.
Thanks fr your knowledge, and sharing it.

[Biboon]

I have an early militia musket stocked in curly maple with a Tower lock.

Can you show a photo?

[Hlbly]

I will try to do that tomorrow.

[JV Puleo]

I think the proof is official but that the barrel was rejected or obsolete when it was sold off rather than being assembled into a government musket. The mark I'm referring to is 'SPRINGFIELD' spelled out.

As far as a date, most of these guns post-date the War of 1812 so somewhere between 1815 and 1825 is the most likely date. Further, Osborne's guns almost always use barrel bands and resemble armory products while the overwhelming majority of militia muskets (called "training muskets in period) have pinned barrels and bear more resemblance to fowlers or British muskets. This use of the barrel-band design is further proof that he was using whatever obsolete or condemned armory parts he could buy.

Massachusetts was the only state (to my knowledge) that had a proof law. It was instituted in 1804 and required that barrels made in Massachusetts be stamped with the date and intitals of the prover. This rule was apparently not applied to imported barrels or to barrels made at the armory. From the dates we can get a rough idea when the bulk of these arms were made. Muskets of this type, with barrel bands rather than pinned barrels and Mass proofs are certainly known (I've had several) and they all had dates in the 1820s. The state was woefully short of arms when the War of 1812 started, so much so that they placed an emergency order for 2,500 with Asa Waters in Sutton. Those were distributed, 20 or 40 at a time, to towns along the eastern seaboard to augment whatever the local citizens might have.

The militia laws adopted in 1792 and updated in 1808 were apparently loosley enforced up to the War of 1812. That emergency apparently put the fear of G od into the powers that be and between the end of the war and about 1835 the requirement that every person subject to militia service provide his own training musket appears to have been taken more seriously.

[EGG17601]

The militia laws adopted in 1792 and updated in 1808 were apparently loosley enforced up to the War of 1812. That emergency apparently put the fear of G od into the powers that be and between the end of the war and about 1835 the requirement that every person subject to militia service provide his own training musket appears to have been taken more seriously.

My understanding is that the Militia Act of 1808 charged the Federal Government with providing arms for the state militias, and appropriated $200,000 per year for that purpose. This was in recognition that the requirement that militia members provide their own arms was not really feasible. Prior to that, states had often contracted individually with arms makers to arm their militias, so the 1808 Act was a significant improvement on this process and helped standardize and regularize the process of arming of the various state militias.

[Hlbly]

Pictures of musket with English lock.

[JV Puleo]

The militia laws adopted in 1792 and updated in 1808 were apparently loosley enforced up to the War of 1812. That emergency apparently put the fear of G od into the powers that be and between the end of the war and about 1835 the requirement that every person subject to militia service provide his own training musket appears to have been taken more seriously.

My understanding is that the Militia Act of 1808 charged the Federal Government with providing arms for the state militias, and appropriated $200,000 per year for that purpose. This was in recognition that the requirement that militia members provide their own arms was not really feasible. Prior to that, states had often contracted individually with arms makers to arm their militias, so the 1808 Act was a significant improvement on this process and helped standardize and regularize the process of arming of the various state militias.

No, although most of what has been written about the subject is misleading. The contractor militia act guns were kept in storage. Very few were actually issued. This is why what we call militia muskets were called "training muskets" at the time. The individual militiaman was required to provide his own. The idea was that, in a national emergency, the stored muskets made to regulation would be issued. This very rarely happened and, in some cases like Massachusetts, the state had virtually no muskets in store to issue in 1812. I have a copy of the official report made to the Adjutant General from the state's master armorer saying that "there were no muskets in store."

This is why huge numbers were still in store when the percussion conversion program came about. Nearly all of the muskets made before 1821 were automatically condemned and sold even when they were still in new condition.

The law did provide that individual towns were obliged to "arm the indigent"...i.e. if a militiaman could not afford to buy his own musket the state had the responsibility of providing one. I suspect that some contract arms were parceled out in limited quantities for this purpose.

[JV Puleo]

Pictures of musket with English lock.

I have the wreck of a similar musket with a birds eye maple stock.

[Biboon]

Pictures of musket with English lock.







Beautiful! Thanks for sharing

I have the wreck of a similar musket with a birds eye maple stock.

Pictures of musket with English lock.

[EGG17601]

No, although most of what has been written about the subject is misleading. The contractor militia act guns were kept in storage. Very few were actually issued. This is why what we call militia muskets were called "training muskets" at the time. The individual militiaman was required to provide his own. The idea was that, in a national emergency, the stored muskets made to regulation would be issued. This very rarely happened and, in some cases like Massachusetts, the state had virtually no muskets in store to issue in 1812. I have a copy of the official report made to the Adjutant General from the state's master armorer saying that "there were no muskets in store."

This is why huge numbers were still in store when the percussion conversion program came about. Nearly all of the muskets made before 1821 were automatically condemned and sold even when they were still in new condition.

The law did provide that individual towns were obliged to "arm the indigent"...i.e. if a militiaman could not afford to buy his own musket the state had the responsibility of providing one. I suspect that some contract arms were parceled out in limited quantities for this purpose.

Clearly I need to do more reading on this topic. I had familiarized myself with the various militia acts, and was aware of the abysmal performance of the militia forces both before and after the War of 1812, but haven't really connected those dots before. It sounds like the states did a poor job of training and arming their militias (in some cases perhaps willfully so), while the attempts of Congress to redress this problem - e.g. the 1808 law that provided funds for this purpose - were woefully inadequate. There is the old saying, "follow the money," and I'm inclined to try to figure out where that allocated $200,000 a year actually went. I appreciate your response - I need to fill a fairly big void in my basic history of US arms knowledge, it would appear.

[JV Puleo]

Another of the popular miss-conceptions is that militias were a shambolic, rag tag creation. This view stems mostly from things written in the 1830s when, it must be admitted, the institution was past it's "sell-buy" date. It's probably an exaggeration to apply that to the period just before and just after the War of 1812. Training days were taken seriously in many communities. I've a couple of militia order books that more than support that view. It also must be seen that there were two types of militia, the enrolled militia (which everyone was required to belong to) and the volunteer militia. The volunteer companies were formed by men who took their militia duties very seriously and created specialized units...much like volunteer fire departments today.

Volunteer companies frequently purchased matching sets of arms. They also tended to adopt the style of elite units (which they were) so we often find them designated as light infantry and riflemen. All of the rifle companies were volunteers. Also, it was never intended that the militia would be embodied as a whole. It was a nation-wide basic training program. In time of war provisional units would be raised calling on the men who had already received their training in the militia. This approach goes back to the Seven Years War and was a long established practice. In fact,it rarely happened but only in the case of actual invasion would it have been considered practical to embody the entire militia.

It doesn't take much imagination to appreciate the devastating economic effect of calling up, for any length of time, virtually the entire male population of a mainly agricultural society. As it was, the Massachusetts militia manned a number of coastal forts, usually for two weeks at a time when they were relieved by another unit. We've no reason to assume that those who went were all of the members of a particular unit either.

All of this subject deserves much more study based on primary documents, especially since the subject is badly clouded by folklore and critical statements by people who resented having to do militia service.

[Joe Stein]

JV Puleo, thank you for all of this background information.  I have not seen this much information about the militias anywhere else before this.

[EGG17601]

JV Puleo, thank you for all of this background information.  I have not seen this much information about the militias anywhere else before this.

I will happily echo this sentiment. This info has launched me on a research journey (although not one involving primary sources at the moment).

[Bigmon]

Again, thanks for sharing your knowledge. Very interesting.