AS M1842 or Pedersoli 1816/22 Conversion

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: AS M1842 or Pedersoli 1816/22 Conversion

Fred,

Yes, there is certainty. It is an H&P conversion 1816. See the 1839(?) lock date, the almost complete lack of a comb on the stock, the button-head rammer, and square gap between the double front bands. All are hallmarks of the 1816. The 1835/40 and the 1842 both have a distinct comb on the buttstock, with a long wrist. Good question, though!

Ever see an H&P conversion 1835/40? Now there's a weapon that's tough to discern from an 1842! ;-)

[Garrett Silliman]

Re: AS M1842 or Pedersoli 1816/22 Conversion

I'll back Wick on the H&P call - nice piece too.

Rich - check to see if Michael Commer still has that .69 bayonet he was selling. According to Reilly's bayonet book that type was made specifically for the H&P or Remington conversions.

[Dan Wambaugh]

Re: AS M1842 or Pedersoli 1816/22 Conversion

You're both right, in a way.

H&P was contracted during the war to convert several thousand flintlock Springfields to rifled muskets, both by the US government and the state of New Jersey. By 1862 they got permission to omit the rifling process to speed up production, yet they retained the distinctive rear sights and iron front sights in spite of this. So while an 1861 dated H&P conversion would be rifled, an 1862 or 1863 dated one would not but would still look like the rifled version. Incidentally the H&Ps used a method identical to today's barrel makers of screwing on a cast breech to the end of the barrel to replace the flint breech. The replacement bolster in their cast breech was identical to the 1842. So Fred is very astute in his observation. Truly a neat musket.

[Archie R. Lib]

Re: AS M1842 or Pedersoli 1816/22 Conversion

No doubt gents, I am lucky to have scored this, so thanks to Dan. This is the first original I have owned, so it is a big step forward for me on this end of the hobby. Luckily, there was also an original bayonet to go along with it.... It has been a good week.

From what I can tell in just a little research so far, this is the second iteration for Hewes & Phillips (Newark, New Jersey) in their flintlock conversions. Their first type (a batch of about 8000-9000 in 1861) had a side-screw bolster very similar to the Colt or Remington conversion (without the Maynard device), and were also (for the most part) rifled. The cast breech was added along with the rear sights from the M1855. This early batch also mainly had Remington-style hammers, probably ordered directly from Remington with the bolsters in order the meet the first contract run.

The second type (a batch of about 11000-12000) had a bolster borrowed directly from the 1842 and the two-leaf M1855 rear sight, but as Dan mentions they were not rifled in order to speed up production and get them out into the hands of volunteers. All were cast breech replaced. Most (but not all) of these second batch conversions had the "H&P" stamp directly on the side of the bolster, as well as behind the rear sight. There was also a "circled P" below the rear sight, and the letters "NJ" on the left flat. Usually the date of conversion is stamped directly on the tang. Cartouche marks are usually on the rear of the bolt-side mortise. No longer from Remington, the hammers generally had to be fashioned for the new bolster alignment.

Looking forward to getting my grubby paws on it.

Thanks again pard.

[CompanyWag]

Re: AS M1842 or Pedersoli 1816/22 Conversion

No doubt gents, I am lucky to have scored this, so thanks to Dan. This is the first original I have owned, so it is a big step forward for me on this end of the hobby. Luckily, there was also an original bayonet to go along with it.... It has been a good week.

From the pictures, it looks like a sizeable hunk of wood was knocked out between the lockplate and barrel tang and was nailed back in place using modern wire nails. Or more likely it was cracked and reinforced with nails. Definitely not a period repair. Either way, if the area is strong then I suppose you could lightly countersink the nail heads and try to hide the nails with commercially available putty or putty made from sawdust and glue. Otherwise it looks like a nice piece.

Paul McKee

[Archie R. Lib]

Re: AS M1842 or Pedersoli 1816/22 Conversion

Paul -

Thanks, Yes, I am told that it is a sound repair and the area is strong. I wanted to take a look at it when it gets here first, but I had quasi-planned to repair the rear of the mortise behind the lock just to clean up the damage and to at least epoxy/sawdust up the crack and cover the nails if possible. Other than that I think it's good to go.

Thx.
R

[Daniel]

Re: AS M1842 or Pedersoli 1816/22 Conversion

Rich, nice looking musket.

Dan Stewart

[Archie R. Lib]

Re: AS M1842 or Pedersoli 1816/22 Conversion

Thanks Dan! Nothing beats a rock lock for early CW. Those are hugely under-represented, but I'd say this is a very close second.

R

[SamuelCathey]

Re: AS M1842 or Pedersoli 1816/22 Conversion

For that kind of cash, you don't need to mess with a beat up convesion in need of parts. I recently picked up a very nice original conversion for $750.00 at the Baltimore Gun Show. If you want to spend around $900, you can get a beautiful original. Or you can spend $1200 and get a repro that in no way resembles a real musket.

Here are a few pics of my musket that cost just over half what a repro cost.

On a related note, some of the so-called defarbed muskets are in the 900 dollar range. A couple of friends and I have each picked up original Enfields in the last couple years for around 1,000 and they are nice pieces. So always consider getting something real instead of a bad repro or a bad repro that has been made a little less bad.

Sam Cathey

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: AS M1842 or Pedersoli 1816/22 Conversion

Sam,

You and I are obviously drinking the same Kool-Aid. Delicious, ain't it!

If only we could get a few others to give it a try... Oh well! ;-)

[Archie R. Lib]

Re: AS M1842 or Pedersoli 1816/22 Conversion

G2ents -

Yes, that is exactly what I did. If you look at the pics and posts back a page or so you'll see the original 16/22 conversion I picked up from Dan Wambaugh. It is an 1835 Springfield made flint, converted by Hewes & Phillips in New Jersey in early 1862 using an 1842 bolster. The condition is very similar to yours, Sam. It also came with an original bayonet.

The originals are definitely the way to go. Can't argue that.

Cheers.
R

[WpnsMan]

Re: AS M1842 or Pedersoli 1816/22 Conversion

Double Post,

[WpnsMan]

Re: AS M1842 or Pedersoli 1816/22 Conversion

My contribution to the original Kool-Aid crowd for Manassas. I recently resurrected a Springfield M1816 conversion manufactured in 1823. Collectors and purist can relax as it was in relic condition with heavy “Patina”. In addition to striking it bright again, it required extensive repairs to a badly broken and previously (poorly) repaired stock that required replacing the entire comb.

I also had to rebuild the nonexistent nose of the sear and replace the nipple after extracting what was left of the rusted and deformed original in addition to removing, repairing or replacing various rusted, stripped and broken off screws in the lock and stock.

[Archie R. Lib]

Re: AS M1842 or Pedersoli 1816/22 Conversion

Bryan -

That is an impeccable musket. Very nice. I like the cone-in-barrel, and the stock is outstanding. Nice work. The patina still looks good to me!

R

[WpnsMan]

Re: AS M1842 or Pedersoli 1816/22 Conversion

Thanks Rich,

I spent many hours bringing this one back from the brink. The stock was broken in four pieces including the previous attempt at replacing the comb. As far as the patina goes, it was a total rust bucket. I brought it back to what I thought it may have looked like after it had seen service, was converted and re-issued but, still showing the previous 38 years of its age prior to '61.