authenticating a 1816

[brown]

I am looking for info on how to authenticate a Pedersoli M1816 (flintlock). Any help is much appreciated.
Lindsey Brown

[Charles Heath]

Re: authenticating a 1816

You answered your own question. It is a reproduction.

[Fenianboy]

Re: authenticating a 1816

Lindsey, Have you seen Craig Barry's book on authenticating repro's distributed by "The Watchdog".Mine is out on loan so I don't know if the mention the 1816.however check it out as Mr. Barry has set the standard on this topic. Bud Scully 13th NJ and 69th NY:)

[Richmond Depot]

Re: authenticating a 1816

There are alot of existing original models of the 1816. I would suggest looking at an original to get an idea of which way you want to go with it.

I have always been a fan of the 1816. They were so nice and lightweight compared to todays repro's.

About 15 years ago, I was in a gun shop in Hopewell Va. and to my surprise, they had five of the things on the rack. All original, all converted to percussion and all excellent condition with only minor pitting. Over 6 months, I managed to scrape the $300.00 ea and purchased then all. Unfortunately, they were all later stolen when I was in San Diego, Ca. and never recovered.

[Tom Ezell]

Re: authenticating a 1816

I am looking for info on how to authenticate a Pedersoli M1816 (flintlock). Any help is much appreciated.
Lindsey Brown

Craig Barry's recent book on Civil War Muskets does indeed mention the Pedersoli/Dixie Gun Works M1816, and is a great investment if you plan to do any messing around with your muskets. Likewise, one of the old Watchdog issues from around the spring of 2000 covers the various .69 muskets, to include the Pedersolis.

Out of personal experience, their M1816 flintlock is a fairly decent reproduction. Mine is a 1999 or 2000 model, which I have compared it to two original Harper‘s Ferry flinters, and a converted 1824 Springfield. It is by no means a perfect replica, but the details are relatively minor in comparison to reproductions of other muskets. The upper band and the front sight are cast together, rather than having the inset brass sight. The middle barrel band is positioned 1" closer to the muzzle than the same band on original Harper‘s Ferry muskets. The sling swivels use rivets instead of screws. The metal parts (barrel and lock especially) are much more massive than those in originals, and while the locks on the originals that I have examined are set closely to the wood, the lock on the Pedersoli repro extends a little less than 1/8" above the stock. The shape of the stock matches the three originals that I compared it with, but still needs to be stripped and refinished with boiled linseed oil; the finish on mine looked good (like an oil finish) when I got it, but began to peel off in the 5+ inches of rain at Wilson’s Creek ‘00. I have since stripped the stock, and applied a hand-rubbed oil finish.

Most of the 1816/22 characteristics are faithfully duplicated. The lockplate has correct Harper’s Ferry markings. and the barrel has proper period proof marks. Correct arsenal inspector marks appear on the stock. The modern markings are low on the barrel near the breech. a much less conspicuous location than the usual top of the barrel. I removed the modern markings on my barrel, leaving only the serial number and period proof marks.

A few additions and changes can make this into a top-notch reproduction. The original frizzen spring had a curve at the rear of the top leaf, which is lacking on this reproduction. Correctly shaped reproduction springs are available from DGW and others. The lockplate and barrel are dated 1816, which was prior to actual production. An engraver can easily change these to read 1818, which was within the production period. The tail of the lockplate should have a smooth curve to a point, which can be fixed by minimal filing.

The sling swivel screws should be replaced with rivets. Most Harper’s Ferry muskets had small assembly numbers on the furniture and some screws, which can be reproduced with a steel number stamp set.

The parts will not generally interchange with original parts. This is only a problem concerning the bayonet. The reproduction bayonet is incorrect — it is the style made for various late 1850s conversions. Good original bayonets are available, but will require a lot of grinding to fit over the barrel (maybe more than should be done to an antique), and since the reproduction musket’s barrel is shorter than that of originals, the socket of an original bayonet will extend forward of the muzzle when fixed. I wish the front sight was an actual brass blade like those on original muskets, instead of just an extension of the steel barrel band painted brass color.

Hope this helps...