Modifying M1816 to Cone in Barrel Conversion

[VMI88]

Does anybody know a gunsmith willing to convert a Pedersoli M1816 using the cone in barrel method? I have an original hammer, so it should just be a matter of plugging the original vent hole and mounting a new cone on top of the barrel. Zimmerman doesn't do this work for liability reasons.

On that subject, does anyone know a good reason why this shouldn't be done? I've never heard of any originals blowing up, and I don't see any reason why the cone should be any more likely to come out than any other conversion method. Granted, if it DOES come out, it's pointed in a dangerous direction, but I've never heard of any other type of cone blowing out.

[Moonshine]

Re: Modifying M1816 to Cone in Barrel Conversion

I'd make sure the original hammer will reach to the area where it would strike the nipple on the barrel. Those reproductions have a habit of being a bit larger than their ancestors and it's possible it may not extend as far over as to be safe to tap for the nipple. I'd say far enough over to be just off center.

I'm not a gunsmith, but I'd think this should work.

Maybe Herr Schmidt can help on this one. He's helped me and others answer gunsmithing questions.

Jim Ross

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Modifying M1816 to Cone in Barrel Conversion

Hallo Kameraden!

I believe there are some "smiths" who offer this service to N-SSA Skirmishers now that they have added a "smoothbore" event several years ago.

Unfortunately, it has been 13 years since I left the N-SSA, and I am not "current." I would suggest surfing the N-SSA website or even posting an "inquiry" there for quicker results.

It is not quite as simple as plugged the touch-hole and drilling and tapping a hole for the percussion cone. In general, the area where the cone is installed was often "beefed up" a might- on some conversions more than others- to give just an extra "bite" or "purchase" to the threads.

IF the breech section of the barrel is indeed sound (as determined by a professional), there should be little or no concern in the firing of reenacting blanks.

The "cone on barrel" conversions are "weaker" than the other types because the cone is simply threaded into a "bumped up" section (usually but not always...) of the barrel wall. For a musket, that is metal thickness is thin. The strongest method involved cutting off the breech and installing a new breech section with a larger, thicker, bolster well capable of withstanding the increased breech pressures of .69 E.B. over .69 R.B. rounds.

For personally, while I do no fear the soundness of a duly inspected original barrel/breech, I would NOT care to fire .69 E.B.'s from one. Short of x-ray, or Magnafluxing, or other stress detecting tests- one never fully knows the metal fatique factors and "internal barrel wall" flaws possibly caused by age and possibly caused by some Chowderhead in 1961 using smokeless powder charges.

I believe there are some "N-SSA" smiths who help remedy this by sleeving the original barrels, as well as those who make "repro" barrels.

And yes, there were many arsenal and contractor-based "conversions" with varying locations for the cone and with differing hammers to strike them. The "throw and fall" of any original percussion conversion hammer may not match up on different guns- so the cone would have to be set (or the hammer modified) to strike the cap/cone properly.

For me, I am generally against the use of originals for reenacting and living history purposes for two reasons:

1. They are generally highly "unauthentic" because they are almost always in aged, worn, and patinaed, relic condition and not in the state they were in when in use. (They do not, usually always, present a "Believable Image."
2. We do not actually own "Originals;" they are entrusted to our care for a while. Taking them into the field and using them, no matter how cautiously and carefully, furthers their wear and slow destruction.

Others mileage and practices may vary...

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[VMI88]

Re: Modifying M1816 to Cone in Barrel Conversion

Hallo Kameraden!

For me, I am generally against the use of originals for reenacting and living history purposes for two reasons:

1. They are generally highly "unauthentic" because they are almost always in aged, worn, and patinaed, relic condition and not in the state they were in when in use. (They do not, usually always, present a "Believable Image."
2. We do not actually own "Originals;" they are entrusted to our care for a while. Taking them into the field and using them, no matter how cautiously and carefully, furthers their wear and slow destruction.

Curt,

Thanks for the information! I may have confused you with my description: this is a reproduction Pedersoli musket with a French style (AKA "drum and nipple") percussion conversion. When I said I hadn't heard of an original blowing up, I was just making the point that if there were no problems with original Belgian (AKA "cone in barrel") conversions, there should be no problem with a reproduction one.

Your point that the bolster style conversion was inherently stronger is a good one: I had forgotten about that one. I was comparing the French to the Belgian style, both of which involve screwing a new cone into the breech. It seems to me that if there's a danger of the cone in a Belgian conversion coming back at your face, there's an equal danger of the cone in a French conversion flying off and hitting the man on your right.

I'll check on the N-SSA board and see if I can find any information.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Modifying M1816 to Cone in Barrel Conversion

Hallo Kamerad!

"Does anybody know a gunsmith willing to convert a Pedersoli M1816 using the cone in barrel method?"

"Thanks for the information! I may have confused you with my description: this is a reproduction Pedersoli musket with a French style (AKA "drum and nipple") percussion conversion."

Aha...

The Pedersoli "conversion" uses the "Colt style" drum with a "non Colt' civilian style hammer.

Basically, the "rereconversion" process involves welding a plug into the large threaded hole for the drum. So, yes, it is inherently safe as a function of the quality of the weld- plus the pressure of the main charge is partially diffused through the cone vent. (Again, I would be more comfortable with a blank charge than a live one, but the modern repro has a thicker barrel breech wall than the originals and should be perfectly safe (as a function of the quality of the plug's weld, plus the pressure reducing effect of the cone vent).

A friend of mine, as part of a German "jaeger" rifle custom building, is having the gunmaker "reconvert" an 1800 era commercial military "jaeger" rifle back to flint.

It is an interesting idea though. But the larger problem is that the Pedersoli "M1816" is based upon a 1777 "Charleville" stock so the dimensions and proportions are off for a U.S. M1822- particularly the middle band location. So, the "value" of putting money into such a project might be worth reconsidering....?

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Re: Modifying M1816 to Cone in Barrel Conversion

Isnt there somebody already reproducing 1816 conversions?


Here is a good website dealing with all the different smoothbore conversions, as well as all manner of riflemuskets ect. (it does have pop ups!)

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2421/

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Modifying M1816 to Cone in Barrel Conversion

Hallo Kamerad!

No, to my knowledge, only Pedersoli offers one.

It is a extremely limited "application" but still "not right" as it uses a Colt style side drum, but a civilian style hammer. A very small of these were converted by Confederate gunsmiths (but not with Colt drums).

So one's choice is living with an incorrect 1777 Charleville profile stock and oversized moreorless "just barely okay" parts, with:

1. a correct civilian stytle "gunsmith" hammer but a Colt drum...

2. or, hoping to find the exceedingly rare, correct, Colt hammer to switch hammers (the drum face still lacks the Colt stampings)

3. or replacing the side drum with a civilian pattern one (IMHO, the best option- but one still then only has a very rare CS conversion)

4. looking to use a fairly commonly found conversion hammer, and attempt to have the barrel converted to the "cone in barrel" Belgian conversion method.

Or...

1. attempt to "rehang" the Italian parts on a correct stock (which is a major chore as the Italian parts are not the same size as the originals- so the stock would need to not be pre-inlet very much).

2. Use repro parts to custom build a correct M1822, which is another topic.

3. "Restore" an original to its CW condition and appearance, which is another another topic.

Or...

1. Just use the Italian M1842 (although with faults, perhaps the best effort to date, by the Italians!)

:-)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[VMI88]

Re: Modifying M1816 to Cone in Barrel Conversion

Just use the Italian M1842 (although with faults, perhaps the best effort to date, by the Italians!)

It's amazing, isn't it, that the manufacturers won't spend a few hours of research in order to get their reproductions correct the first time? I'm convinced that if somebody would make a correct Enfield, for example, they'd make a killing. And there's no reason a correct repro should cost anymore than the poorly researched repros that are available now!

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Modifying M1816 to Cone in Barrel Conversion

Hallo Kameraden!

'We teach people how to treat us.' -Dr. Phil

"It's amazing, isn't it, that the manufacturers won't spend a few hours of research in order to get their reproductions correct the first time?"

IMHO, to the contrary...
Although this has been discussed and rediscussed many, many times in the past- we suffer from poor qualaty reproductions largely because:

1. We accept what the Italians serve up to us, in large and ready numbers.
The majority of "hobbyists" use them "out of the box;" a small number modify or "de-farb" them, and a VERY small number use accurate (and expensive) "custom builts." (As long as sales and profits are near totally driven by the majority, things will not change much beyond an occasional "bone" tossed out such as ArmiSport "3rd Model Barrel bands" on their 4th Model "Enfield.")

2. "Correct," like "beauty," often lies in the near-blind or blind eye of the beholder and in the pen of the anti-litigation lawyers... ;-)_

As an old Heinrich Heresy was said to have gone: "If one accepts crap, one has to take the stink along with it.." :-)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt