Are M1816 and M1842 Barrel Bands interchangeable?

[maillemaker]

Question: Are M1816 and M1842 barrel bands interchangeable?

Thanks,
Steve

[James Brenner]

Re: Are M1816 and M1842 Barrel Bands interchangeable?

Unfortunately, they're not. In an admittedly unscientific study, I tried changing the front band on an 1834 dated Blake contract musket with the front barrel band of an 1846 dated Springfield and they don't fit. They're close, but the dimensions and overall shape are different between the two. Also, don't forget that the '42 had mostly interchangeable parts and the '16s didn't. Bands among the various M1816s weren't interchangeable. It's possible, I suppose, to find front bands that would fit better than the ones I have. As for the other two bands, the 16's are much wider than the '42s which means that the keepers would not line up.

I hope this helps a bit

[Pennvolunteer]

Re: Are M1816 and M1842 Barrel Bands interchangeable?

If you are talking repros, it also depends not only on the model but on the manufacturer of course, because they all have some difference between the Pedersoli, Armi/Chiappa and Indian made....I had a terrible time when my Miroku mainspring broke finding one that would work as there are no Miroku parts anymore and none of the other manufacturers parts fit something as simple as that.

[maillemaker]

Re: Are M1816 and M1842 Barrel Bands interchangeable?

What I am angling at is possibly building an M1816 H&P Conversion using Armisport M1842 parts and a Pedersoli M1816 lock and a Dunlap M1816 stock.

Steve

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Are M1816 and M1842 Barrel Bands interchangeable?

Hallo!

If you go ahead with your project...

I can save you a few Yankee Greenbacks on a Dunlap stock for half price.

Curt

[maillemaker]

Re: Are M1816 and M1842 Barrel Bands interchangeable?

Hey Curt, I may take you up on that!

The H&P 1816 Conversion utilized an M1855 rear sight, correct?

I am currently reading up on the H&P conversions with Moller's book:

https://books.google.com/books?id=y7_DzNMrDqsC&lpg=PP1&pg=PT233#v=onepage&q&f=false

Steve

[maillemaker]

Re: Are M1816 and M1842 Barrel Bands interchangeable?

The ebook link unfortunately is not a complete book. However you can buy it for $80, which is a little bit of a savings over the hard copy.

I have bought it, and am reading up on the H&P 1816 conversions.

Evidently they had 1858 three-leaf sights.

Steve

[maillemaker]

Re: Are M1816 and M1842 Barrel Bands interchangeable?

Hey Curt. I broke down and bought Moller. I've spent the evening digging out the pertinent information on H&P New Jersey and Federal Contract Conversions of the 1816.

You can see my synopsis here:

http://www.n-ssa.net/vbforum/showthread.php/13305-Making-a-reproduction-H-amp-P-1816-Conversion?p=57781&posted=1#post57781

Sadly it does not appear that using an 1842 reproduction barrel will suffice, since the shape of the bolster where it mates with the lock is incorrect. The bottom of the bolster on the 1842 is flat, whereas on the H&P conversion it is curved.

Still, it appears that Bobby Hoyt is an approved vendor for an 1816 H&P conversion barrel. It may be possible to buy a barrel from him.

Now the question is, is it better to go the route of a correct Dunlap stock, or how screwed up is the Pedersoli 1816 stock?

Steve

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Are M1816 and M1842 Barrel Bands interchangeable?

Hallo!

Good. The book will save me much writing. :) :) :)

The Pedersoli stock is basically the Italian repro M1777 "Charleville" stock. As with any Italian replica, and this can almost be carved in stone... they are replicas and representations/approximations so "pieces parts" are similar but not exact "drop in" level with original parts.

That aside.... perhaps the hardest thing to get around or rework is that the middle band location on the Italian "M1816" is not in the correct place and is "off" a bit. Granted when one does not, and others do not know... is it a deal-breaker for one's impression? (The cone-in-barrel alteration I am holding in my avatar is based on the Italian 'M1816." :) )

Had this come up a few years ago, when I still had my collection of originals as well as repro 'M1816's" I could have done a bang-up job of helping you out with details and measurements.

And yes... that is an M1855 (Type II) short-range rear sight. But without checking, I do not recall if it was the "musket" or the "rifle" version. I would guess RM.

Curt

[maillemaker]

Re: Are M1816 and M1842 Barrel Bands interchangeable?

Hi Curt,

Granted when one does not, and others do not know... is it a deal-breaker for one's impression?

The issue I am facing is I am trying to see how feasible it is to either make one's own H&P Conversion 1816 for N-SSA use, or have an Italian manufacturer make one. They are high demand (as are "Potsdam" smoothies) as they are smooth bores with rear sights.

The word from John Holland is that when the Pedersoli 1816 and Colt Conversion were originally approved for N-SSA use they were willing to overlook some of the dimensional inaccuracies, but that they probably would not today. If you try and make any new derivative arm based off of the Pedersoli 1816 then all dimensions would have to meet their approval.

So any new reproduction of the H&P is going to have to be dimensionally sufficient for N-SSA approval (for my purposes anyway).

And yes... that is an M1855 (Type II) short-range rear sight.

Moller is calling them 1858 sights, though they have one picture of an H&P that is said to be an "1861 rifle musket pattern" sight. See my thread link above.

Sight variants for US and Enfield muskets are still something that vex me.

Steve

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Are M1816 and M1842 Barrel Bands interchangeable?

Hallo!

Yes. It was something of an "issue" when I was an N-SSA member building ACW guns in the 1980's and 1990's because there was a double-standard between what individuals could approved and what commercial firms could get approved (Largely believed by many as a courtesy nod to Val Forgett with Navy Arms being a main importer of Italain repro's since Day One.)

So yes, altering or modifying an Italian replica puts it out of its SAC approval and into the more "exact" realm of individual submissions based on originals (with a small "tolerance' for builder lack of precise measurement). If you want top use it for N-SSA, it will have to be SAC inspected and approvable as "more original" than "Italian."

Without getting into our modern Typology classifications not around during the ACW too much.... ;) :)

The M1855 RM and R went through a number of evolution over their life times. Sometimes minor, sometimes severe such as M1855 Rifles starting out with browned barrels and brass furniture.

George Moller has his "Moller Typology." So, yes, he refers to the Model 1855 (Type II) Rifle Musket as having a "Model 1858" leaf type rear sight because it went into production in August of 1858 at Springfield (but March 1859 at Harpers Ferry).

IMHO, and heresies.. typologies make sense and are useful to we moderns for definition and clarity as to what we are talking about especially when trying to recreate something in its time frame as it relates to impressions.
But also IMHO, Moller slips up a bit. Not so much because evolutions and changes typically did not carry model year designations.. but because if one subscribes to the practice it almost never ends. Meaning, we don't refer to the addition of the "patchbox" on the M1855 Type II as the "Model of 1859" patchbox or the Model of 1859 Iron Nose Cap.

Oh, the M1855 (Type II) RM rear sight (Moller M1858) was 1.254" long. The R version was 1.175" long.

Curt

[maillemaker]

Re: Are M1816 and M1842 Barrel Bands interchangeable?

Great info, thanks.

Yes, another Moller thing that is getting me is he will say, "We don't know X. Blah blah blah we assume X is true."

I get thrown off by the first statement and then confused by the second. I think what he is saying is "We don't know X for certain. But because of blah blah blah we assume that X is true."

I've hit this kind of passage twice now in Moller and I'm always going, "Waitaminute! You just said we don't know that!"

Steve