musket Q

[32ndalainf]

what is the most accurate musket to use for both impressions......??

[Tyler Gibson]

Re: musket Q

Depending on your impression, an 1853 Enfield, Or an 1861 springfield can go both ways. Austrian lorenz muskets are also very predomanant, especially early war.

[mslaird]

Re: musket Q

There are some others with a lot more research under their belts than I have who may also chime in. For early to mid war, the 1842 smoothbore, the 1816 percussion conversion (preferably the more common cone in barrel which is rather pricey to re-create) and the 1855 rifle-musket are good choices. For mid to late war the Enfield P-53 or the Springfield 1861 rifle muskets are good choices, although you have to be careful with the model, type and manufacturer represented with the Springfields. There are several accounts mentioned in books that I have read that mention Federal troops picking up Richmond rifle-muskets and that might work both for both a Confederate and Federal impression for mid to late war as well. Those are the commercially available reproductions out there. I have been toying around with building a Lorenze from parts from the Rifle Shoppe which would also be good for both sides, especially in the western armies.

I personally use a 41 Mississippi, primarily for living history events because I live shoot it. I use a 42 smoothbore for combat reenactments, and impressions that the 41 does not work for. The smoothbores were found in several units throughout the war on both sides. Both weapons saw service for the total length of the war. In my opinion the 42 is the best bang for the buck, so to speak, for someone wishing to have one musket and do several impressions regardless of time period during the war.


I hope this helps.

[David Mitchell Norton]

Re: musket Q

Does anyone know the best place to acquire a reproduction Lorenz?

[mslaird]

Re: musket Q

I have heard about the smoothbore Lorenze available from Loyalist Arms. From the pictures it looks decent but I think it leaves a lot to be desired. It is either Indian or Pakistani produced, I cannot remember which, and I have heard that it is safe to shoot. That would be the less expensive route.

The Rifle Shoppe in Oklahoma produces all the parts needed, including a quadrangular bayonet, to produce one from scratch but I figured the cost of all of the parts and my total came to around 1195.00 prior to shipping. That is the route I am going to go to produce a Lorenze. I feel it would be safer to shoot, more authentic in looks, feel and function.

Does anyone know the best place to acquire a reproduction Lorenz?

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: musket Q

Does anyone know the best place to acquire a reproduction Lorenz?

I concur with Mr. Laird's assessment of the situation, though I am a far more critical of the Loyalist Arms reproduction. I would recommend either
1) Finding a good gunsmith and going the route of The Rifle Shoppe kit, or
2) Finding a decent condition original/parts gun.

The latter can be found without too much effort for around $1000. If you have a *serious* interest in pursuing either path, please feel free to contact me.

As to the original question in this thread:
I don't really know how to answer... Is the question about which repro musket is the best reproduction, or which type of musket currently being reproduced is the most widely applicable to both US and CS impressions?

[32ndalainf]

Re: musket Q

The question I have is which musket is the most applicable to both US and CS impressions........I have a 42 but I am kinda torn on which musket to use '42 , or '53 Enfield I want just one musket that would not be any question of its authenticity both ways.............

[Bill Cross]

Re: musket Q

This is a troubling question, since resources limit some of our pards from going the usual route of having several weapons to cover a multitude of sins. In my case, I own an 1842, an 1861 Springfield and an Enfield.

But since most CPH events specify a list of choices from "optimal" to "acceptable" to "discouraged," one can usually attend with almost any weapon. As most guidelines state, "we would rather have you come with what you have than not come at all."

Yet the notion that one gun is going to carry you through all impressions just isn't accurate, and some of the justifications in this thread don't seem to me to meet up with AC Forum standards. Smoothbores WERE being used at least into 1863. I have seen ammunition records for NJ units showing that smoothbores were still being used that late. There are also accounts of huge stocks of rusting muskets in the woods around Chancellorsville as Rebs tossed away their smoothbores for rifled muskets picked up from the fleeing Union troops. Yet to say they will work at any event is misleading in the extreme, unless that's all you have.

In terms of choosing one musket for both impressions, my vote would be with the Enfield, since it seems to be the weapon of choice for a majority of CPH events. This is not historical accuracy, by the way, but financial expedience. I don't know if those choosing the guiding impressions happen to prefer Enfields, want to amortize their investment in defarbing these lovely, but flawed repros, or if the guiding impressions over the past few years at events have simply fallen to the Enfield.

In terms of cost, the 1861 Springfield is the better choice, since it's relatively easy to defarb. John Zimmerman used to charge $25 to remove the modern markings and hide the serial number. You can improve on the sight with one from Lodgwood for $15. Defarbing an Enfield is complex and expensive, and has been the subject of many threads here. I've invested probably several hundred dollars in converting an out-of-the-box Armi Sport to a point where it's "more or less" accurate, at least without reducing the stock dimensions or making other adjustments that are simply too much at this point in my "arc" in this hobby.

As Curt Schmidt might say, "your mileage may vary."

[Andrew Kasmar]

Re: musket Q

Hi,

I would stay with the 42 Springfield. I have both a 1861 Springfield and a 53 Enfield, and now I am thinking about getting a 1842, because I have no good weapon for 1861 or 1862 in the west. The '42 is good for almost every Southern impression up until about late 1864, but there were still some in use in 1865. For a Northern impression they were used in 1861,1862, 1863, but past that I do not know. New York issued thousands of these weapons to it's troops for most of the war. I also have heard that PA troops also were issued these. The farther west you go the more of these older weapons were used by both sides.

Andrew Kasmar

4th Missouri Company E

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: musket Q

The question I have is which musket is the most applicable to both US and CS impressions........I have a 42 but I am kinda torn on which musket to use '42 , or '53 Enfield I want just one musket that would not be any question of its authenticity both ways.............

No such beast exists. However, the TWO muskets that you have will serve you well for just about any scenario. I'd say keep 'em both!

[32ndalainf]

Re: musket Q

The 42 I have is rifled and I was told that there were only a limmited number of these made in the war so I do not know , like I said I love the 42 I was just wondering I guese if it would be corect for Fderal and Confederate.....

[fahnenschmied]

Re: musket Q

Again, this is really dependent on what unit you did. If you portray, say, the 44th Massachussetts regiment, early war, you would need an Enfield. Using a 42 would be just plain wrong for SOME state regiments, and just plain RIGHT for others. Virtually every musket known to mankind was used by both sides, either as issue or trophy. If you have a particular regiment and time period in mind, its possible to do a little research and have a better idea of what they may have had. Who knows, perhaps they used an Austrian Consul or a Halls rifle or a brass mounted Prussian. You've just got to be more specific. Otherwise, avoid the Zouave rifle and the 1863 Springfield for early scenarious...

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: musket Q

Hallo!

"The 42 I have is rifled and I was told that there were only a limmited number of these made in the war so I do not know , like I said I love the 42 I was just wondering I guese if it would be corect for Fderal and Confederate....."

Between 1856 and 1859 the two national armories altered 14,182 M1842 muskets by rifling and adding a rear-sight. Apparently 4,363 were rifled only.
9,126 'bright" and "browned" percussion muskets of earlier pattersn were also done.

The survey of arsenals and armories done late in 1859 showed 33,631 percussion .69muskets altered by rifling on hand- (which does not jive with the above stats as that is for the two national armories and not the contractor done work).

Curt

[Prodical Reb]

Re: musket Q

If this doesn't work, Curt, Craig, Todd or one of you other gunsmithing experts chime in......

Jason,
since your '42 is rifled, have you checked into getting a smoothbore barrel as a spare? There are replacement barrels out there. I would check with Dixie Gun Works, Lodgewood and S&S firearms. I would think 1 if not more would have or could get an Armi-Sport replacement barrel. I would think it would drop right in with no other work. You would have 2 muskets for the price of 1 + an extra barrel. Way cheaper that 2 '42's would cost. All else should be the same on original '42s whether before or after the rifled conversion. I don't know if barrels were changed or relined during conversion to a .69 caliber rifle musket. Hope this helps.

[32ndalainf]

Re: musket Q

Man you know I did not think of that , so your thinkin smoothbore for CS and rifled for US that is a neat idea and I want to thank everyone for the input more is appretiated ...............