Help identifiying a long arm

[marktaylor]

I came across someone semi-local that has a weapon and I was trying to help identify what it is. At first I thought it was a M1816 but after seeing some closer up pictures It may be a French Charlottesville converted to percussion. I have not handled the weapon in person; but I do have a few pictures which I have attached. Some of the pictures show the weapon before the owner cleaned the silver paint his dad had put on it. He claims it has been in his family for about 50 years so if that is true, it puts it being a reproduction out of the picture (right ?). I'm just trying to figure out what it is so I can make him a fair offer on it.
Thanks!

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Help identifiying a long arm

Hallo!

A Prussian M1839 musket, or a Belgian clone of the same.

Curt

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Help identifiying a long arm

A 'Charlottesville'...That would be from Virginia?

All kidding aside, I think it is Belgian, there are no proof marks visible to know for sure, but I thought that the Prussian had brass bands. Some images of the muzzle and last barrel band would be helpful.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Help identifiying a long arm

Hallo!

Yes, I was/am "unclear" as to what is bare metal and what was silver paint.

I assume/ assumed that we are looking at a thick coat of paint that is hiding
markings, brass bands, etc., that would tilt towards Prussian or Belgian clone.

Curt

[lojafan]

Re: Help identifiying a long arm

Where the Prussian and/or Belgian rifles patterned from or close to the Charleville? It really does look a lot like the 1816 Springfield and I know those were patterned almost 100% from the Charleville.

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Help identifiying a long arm

There are common "themes" with many early-to-mid 19th century European arms. For example, the M 1854 Lorenz was called "the Austrian Enfield" by some soldiers, not because it was a copy of the Enfield but because of the number of design similarities when compared to the arms of a generation earlier. The Belgians were famous for knocking off the designs of other countries and producing them cheaper in Liege than they could be produced locally. The iconoclastic B'ham gun-maker W. Greener opined that unless something was done about it, the Belgians would take over the trade. He and Isaac Hollis sued one firm who was importing Belgian P53s and engraving "TOWER" on the lock plate to fob them off as B'ham guns, and recovered damages. What about the barrel proof marks, you say?...Well the B'ham (and London) proof houses had a reciprocal agrreement with Liege on barrel proofing. In other words, a Liege barrel could be proofed at B'ham, so marked and returned to Liege. In the big "houses" (factories) at Liege they would then "set it up" meaning put the componets together and shipped out with B'ham proof marks on it because it brought a higher price. Unscrupulous sellers would doctor it up to pass for a B'ham made gun. The Belgians did not care, they got their money. The proof houses did not care, they got their money...and the B'ham gunmakers got the shaft.

This and other reasons were part of why the Birmingham Small Arms Trade (Association) was begun in 1854. Of course, this would did not work the other way because no B'ham gunmaker would send barrels to Belgium for proof as it would have the opposite affect on the selling price. I won't go in to all the reasons for the differences in labor/material costs that would allow such a practice to be profitable, but this fraudulent practice was widespread.Hence, the Belgians shamelessly copied the designs of other European arms and were well known for doing so. The British Government, before going in-house (at Enfield Lock) bought hundreds of thousands of Belgian copies of their own various designs. They even had several officers there overseeing the Belgian contracts in Liege, but were not parts inspectors such as were at "The Tower" facilities in London and B'ham.

The Prussian Potsdam musket was an evolution from their 1809 design which does share quite a few similarities with the French Charleville, but quite a few differences as well. To my eye this musket looks nothing like a US 1816 (at all). For example, the hammer design is completely different. The method of conversion from flintlock is a bolster conversion and most 1816s (or vast majority) were cone-in-barrel type. The trigger is a dead giveaway, too. Nothing like an 1816.

[marktaylor]

Re: Help identifiying a long arm

Gents,
Thanks for the responses.
Sorry for the misspelling on Charleville. Dang spell check!
The bands are not brass (after removing the paint) they are steel, or iron.
Comparing this one to photos of Belgians, the lock around the bolster seems to differ slightly.

[ACo.]

Re: Help identifiying a long arm

Neither Prussian nor French, my vote goes for Belgian and it is a very well made example, the hammer and bolster will be key features in it's national identification. If I were around my resources I might be able to make a better attempt at identification but it would help to have a photograph of the front barrel band - I am willing to bet that it is more like one of the later French muskets. This musket has no similarity to any Prussian musket that I am aware of.

It's true that the Belgians did some fairly low quality work that was sold cheaply but they also did VERY high end work, even in the 19th Century and especially on military firearms production, both for themselves and for customers. Also, remember that both the English and the French governments purchased military firearms made in Belgium when their production facilities were unable to make the quantities required. The P53 Enfield Rifle Musket was made in Belgium on contract for the British Board of Ordnance and the examples viewed are as good as those made in England and the US on English government contract. Other countries that did not have military production capacity had all of the military firearms made by the Belgians, most contracted for French pattern arms since the French were considered "state of the art" in military firearms production so that was what the Belgians produced with whatever improvements or changes the customer wanted. Even the US copied the French muskets, almost slavishly, until the M1855 series of arms.

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Help identifiying a long arm

Mark:
To get back to your original questions, a fair offer on something like this is whatever you two decide on. I had a cone-in-barrel musket very much like this one, except for the conversion method of course, and it was something like $650 or $700. They are not really rare even today.

[ACo.]

Re: Help identifiying a long arm

Okay Mark, you have a Swiss "Infanteriegewehr Ordonnanz 1817, modifiziert1842" (Infantry Musket M1817, with modification of 1842) and here is a link:

http://www.rost-und-gruenspan.ch/museum/plate_waffen_g18174259.html

It is a Swiss musket, made in Switzerland, probably imported post WW2. The rear sight shown in the link is probably part of the 1859 modification they mention and does not appear to be done on your musket. Maybe Herr Schmidt can help translate the Swiss/German language? These were selling for around $20 each during the 1950s and early '60s and were advertised as being "just like the gun Granddaddy carried in the Civil War". Ads can be seen in "Gun Report" magazine.

As far as I know, they were not brought into North America for actual use during the American Civil War. Switzerland is a small country with a strong military tradition and active defense-based military and simply didn't have extra disposable firearms for export at the time. It is highly collectible and Mr. Barry's value figures may be pretty close, the condition is the big problem with this example. Many of those brought into the US have been bought up by Swiss collectors and returned there.

This information came from "Rost & Grünspan" ("Rust and Verdigris"), a Swiss site aimed at and run by the very active Swiss military reenacting community and can be seen at:

http://www.rost-und-gruenspan.ch/