Re: musket Q
Uh, no. Sorry.
Various estimates put the number of 1842 smoothbores produced at around 275,000, mostly at Springfield, MA and Harpers Ferry, VA. A small number apparently were made privately, but not in large enough numbers to count.
Between 1856 and 1859, less than 15,000 were rifled, with about 10,000 of them fitted with rear sights.
I don't think a rifled 1842 is at all a good choice for a Federal impression unless portraying a unit issued that weapon. It's just not common. And considering that according to the Gettysburg web site (http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/soldierlife/webguns.htm), 1.5 million Springfield 1861s and its variants were produced, a rifled 1842 is in the same category as the LeMat pistol: a lovely curiosity.
If I may politely say so, this discussion is becoming a lot of hot air with little or no effort made to apply much historical rigor. As such, it's not worthy of this site, which has always put research above "gut feelings." We'd all like to be able to have a one-gun solution to the cost of a good impression, but this kind of wool-gathering is not going to help.
I'm far from an expert on this question, but a little surfing the web will turn up the numbers that back up these various long arms as appropriate or inappropriate.
Originally posted by 32ndalainf
View Post
Various estimates put the number of 1842 smoothbores produced at around 275,000, mostly at Springfield, MA and Harpers Ferry, VA. A small number apparently were made privately, but not in large enough numbers to count.
Between 1856 and 1859, less than 15,000 were rifled, with about 10,000 of them fitted with rear sights.
I don't think a rifled 1842 is at all a good choice for a Federal impression unless portraying a unit issued that weapon. It's just not common. And considering that according to the Gettysburg web site (http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/soldierlife/webguns.htm), 1.5 million Springfield 1861s and its variants were produced, a rifled 1842 is in the same category as the LeMat pistol: a lovely curiosity.
If I may politely say so, this discussion is becoming a lot of hot air with little or no effort made to apply much historical rigor. As such, it's not worthy of this site, which has always put research above "gut feelings." We'd all like to be able to have a one-gun solution to the cost of a good impression, but this kind of wool-gathering is not going to help.
I'm far from an expert on this question, but a little surfing the web will turn up the numbers that back up these various long arms as appropriate or inappropriate.
Comment