Considering a flintlock

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Considering a flintlock

Hallo!

"I know, these Umlaute can drive you crazy."

We fear not diacriticals, and rather than adjust our keyboards, just add the "e." ;) :)

Curt

[Benedict]

Re: Considering a flintlock

Hallo!

"I know, these Umlaute can drive you crazy."

We fear not diacriticals, and rather than adjust our keyboards, just add the "e." ;) :)

Curt

Or use the "alt option" + "U"-a/o/u combination on Macs ;) Now back to topic.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Considering a flintlock

Hallo!

Schoen!

We used to have diacriticals in English, but they have fallen by the wayside over the years such as in coördinate, naïve, coöperate, or reënact.

In the Old Hessian dialect, my first name is diphthonged with a single dot over the "u." That makes it pronounced as "kwet" rather than the "German"
"koort" or the "American' "kirt."

We now return control of this hijacked thread to you by saying...

The Italian repro "M1816" is more like their M1777 "Charleville" fudged a wee bit... :(

:)

Curt
Klaus Umlaut, umpire at the '85 U.S. Open Mess

[Vuhginyuh]

Re: Considering a flintlock

..."Poor Boy" is considered a type of country rifle, not reflecting status...

As I understand it ''poor boy'' is a modern term to describe a product; in this case an early American long arm that was somewhat primitive in regards to other technology of its period and had inexpensive and scant hardware.

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

Re: Considering a flintlock

I am thinking about purchasing a flintlock for early war impression (private weapon showing up for enlistment early war). I have found a 1816 Springfield, however, I am not sure what would be considered a "private purchase." What would be a common flintlock of private useage be during the1850's? I own a double barrel shotgun, so that has already been done.
Would the 1816 Springfield work?

On another note I am also considering a Lorenz purchase. Were the Lorenz weapons predominately smoothbore or rifled?

Thanks

I think if your'e looking for something most-common for a "private-purchase" for an early enlistment firearm, such that may have been brought from home...then you'll want to for the most part steer clear of Martial Weapons.

While it may be true that some individuals did enlist with their "granpappies musket from the Revolution, War of 1812...etc.", it is far more likely that there were greater numbers of individuals going off to fight the war with their favorite rifle/fowler...

Keeping in mind, that many of the Martial Weapons that would most likely have been left over from earlier periods, would have been sitting in State/Federal Arsenals throughout the country, and not in the hands of the general public...

The choice of a proper period rifle/fowler, can be rather complex...as these do tend to have regional designs/characteristics which were incorporated into the design.

Of course their are oddities in everything...take for example the Richmond Sharpshooters of Richmond, VA...who enlisted in the 23rd VA Vol. Regt. as company H...these men "privately-purchased" Mississippi Rifles...as it was felt this was the premier Martial Weapon of it's day. But this is on a Company level...not an individual decision.


Disclaimer: I realize full-well that some individuals certainly went off to the war with Ancestral weapons, which were brought home from previous wars/conflicts...but these would seem to be the exception...based on the assumption that many State/Federal Arsenals kept a pretty tight log on the surplus weapons of previous wars....

Paul B.

[Vuhginyuh]

Re: Considering a flintlock

Richmond in and of itself is complex, regardless of the topic. There is Tidewater made converted hunting rifle and a battle damaged Enfield in a fine home south of River Road. Both are attributed to a fellow from the Norfolk area.

The half-stock hunting rifle is slender little thing with fine curves, a rounded lock and what I call a well pronounced or Vincent style butt.

[KPavia]

Re: Considering a flintlock

Moderator Hat On....

Setting aside the on-going and currently unresolved safety issue as to whether "Indian" imports are wall-hangers or actual firearms...

The level of historical accuracy or "authenticity" of these imports is below the standards that the Authentic Campaigner strives for.

Please take personal recommendations for these imports to e-mail or PM.

Thanks.

Curt Schmidt
Moderator

[lukegilly13]

Re: Considering a flintlock

Euroarms makes a Duck shotgun...has anyone viewed one in person or know the historical accuracy of it??

[Tom Ezell]

Re: Considering a flintlock

It's going to depend on what the impression is...

There is some fairly good documentation for what the seceding states found in/took from the various Federal arsenals in the early days of 1861. Here in Arkansas, what they took were primarily the Model 1816 through M1840muskets in their various contractor clones, as well as Hall's rifles, again mostly in flint. Other southern states found themselves in much the same shape, as they had not taken a whole lot of effort to convert the old Arsenal guns to percussion. Tennessee had a number of Brown Bess muskets left over from around the War of 1812; and Texas had quite a few of Mexican vintage left over from the Revolution and the War with Mexico.

As in all things Confederate, it's best to figure out the regiment being portrayed, and what they were able to draw at the time.

[Bill]

Re: Considering a flintlock

When the Federal Government made the decision to convert their inventory of flint locks to percussion, a lot of old weapons in storage were condemned. I'm not sure how they disposed of these weapons; but that may have been a source of military flintlocks in private hands.

Maybe some of the more knowledgeable folks have more information.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Considering a flintlock

Hallo!

It varies over time...

And is difficult to nail down.

The end result of the 1840's survey of arms completed in 1848 listed:

National armories: 586,513 muskets of which were 1st Class (made between 1831 and 1844, suitable for alteration (mostly M1822's TYpe II's/III's, and 30,000 M1840's). These were not inspected, and held for issue only under special orders. 63,335 being 2nd Class (made between 1821 and 1831 suitable for alteration (M1822 Types I's/II's). 198,050 were 3rd Class (made between 1812 and 1820 considered not suitable for ordinary use nor alteration to percussion- but good enough for emergencies. 82,220 4th Class arms (made prior to 1812, or unserviceable of any age, and all damaged arms of any age not worthy of repair. These were collected at various depots and condemned to be sold at public auction for $3.00 down to .40.

Non national and state armories held 118,133 muskets with 50,826 1st Class, 12,850 2nd Class, 30,221 3rd Class, and 24,236 4th Class. In addition 2,365 foreign muskets were on hand but all 4th Class slated to be sold off.

IMHO, the implication for reenacting is in the unknown rate of dispersal and public sale between 1848 and 1861. We can subtract the "known" numbers of 1st Class and 2nd Class flintlocks altered to percussion.
Plus, we do not know the "rate or attrition" of these arms being "used up" or not between dates of alteration and 1861.

And last, we do not what might have been available outside of the national, state, and private armories particulalry the small number of neither "here nor there" "social" militias and home guard societies.

So, yes, there are "some."

And last but not least, for believable impressions, IMHO, is the "condition factor." Meaning, a brand spanking new, bright and shiny, minty, out-of-the-box currently available Italian repro "M1816" Type I in 1860-something...

;) :)

Curt