Springfield manufacturing differences? Bayonets / barrel dia?

[Bigmon]

I recently aquired what I believe to be a Model 1816 Springfield Musket, lock dated 1824.  Date on barrel missing.  I also have one dated 1833 and with a bayonet that fits.  However that same bayonet will not fit over the barrel of the 1824 musket.  In fact the bore measures nearly 74 cal in 1824,  Although the barrel wall thickness is noticably thinner than the 1833.
I realize that the standards and tolerences may have been less then, but that is quite some difference.
Could I have some varient not shown in my Flaydermans book?
The 1824 barrel has very faint remainders of the V, the eagle head and P remaining, so I do believe it to be a Springfield barrel.
Thanks for any help.

[Clark Badgett]

Lots of time and continuous cleaning and corrosion, Etc. The tolerance was .69-.73 until later when manufacturing techniques improved.

[Bigmon]

That's what I figured also, for the bore at the muzzle.  But the outside is oversized?  Not a lot, but enough that my other bayonet will not go on.
After close inspection, I think there might have been a section added at the muzzle.  If so, who ever did it did a good job, but it's a little big.
Still a decent representation of this model musket.  I was never going to fire it anyway.
But it would be nice to have a bayonet fit it for display.

[Daryl]

The colour change is noticeable if looking for it. When I read your post and looked at the picture,
it was obvious even without enlarging the pic.

[Clowdis]

I can see a line where the front 3 or 4 inches was added.