Austrian Lorenz Repop

[J.H.Berger]

Loyalist Arms cone In Barrel 18435/40 musket

Comrades has anyone ever examined one of those muskets and compared to an original?
I do not have a chance to do this here in Germany so I need to ask you fellows;-)

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Loyalist Arms cone In Barrel 18435/40 musket

I am not sure comparing the Loyalist Arms US 1835 to an original US 1835 exactly makes the point. Perhaps a better question would be "Is a smoothbore musket appropriate for your US Civil War impression?" And if so, "Which are the best?" It is the same musket as the Loyalist Arms US 1842 (essentially) except for the hammer and bolster. Loyalist Arms begins with their US 1835 flintlock that shares the stock and most of the hardware with their US 1842 and converts it to percussion via the common "Arsenal" cone in barrel method. The Loyalist Arms US 1835 is just about as accurate to an original as their US 1842, that is to say it is a marginal reproduction lacking some important details. En toto, not nearly as good as the Armi-Sport US 1842, both of these models are reviewed in The Civil War Musket: A Handbook for Historical Accuracy (Watchdog Publications 2006).

The problem is that the historical accuracy gained by using the most common conversion method is lost by putting it on the least common US military flintlock ever produced. It is the same "mistake" (conversely) for which D. Pedersoli has been excoriated over the years by converting their reproduction of the common (500,000+) US 1816 flintlock to percussion via the relatively rare drum & cone method (some call it the "Colt style" conversion but Pedersoli neither rifled or sighted the barrel as Colt usually did). In other words, Pedersoli takes the most common US military musket used for conversion to percussion and reproduces it w/ the least common method of conversion, while Loyalist Arms takes the least common US model flintlock and offers it in the most common form of conversion.

On the other hand, Loyalist Arms earns some brownie points by attempting to provide a much needed product in an under-served niche. Flintlock conversion muskets are woefully under-represented at most Civil War battle enactments. If only they had used the US 1816 instead...

When questioned on this key point, Blair Higgins (Loyalist Arms) stated that the decision to use the US Model 1835 flintlock as a basis for their cone in barrel conversion was two-fold. First, they already had all the hardware from their US 1842 so it was cheaper than re-tooling to make a reproduction US 1816 flintlock from scratch. Meaning, you have to start with a flintlock to end up with a flintlock conversion. Using the Pedersoli US 1816 flintlock would be cost prohibitive. And second, since Loyalist Arms as a retailer sells the D. Pedersoli line of muskets, they did not want to get on Pedersoli's "turf" by producing the very same model (albeit w/ another form of conversion).

The order of desirability for a US Civil War reproduction smoothbore musket:

1. Armi Sport US 1842; followed closely by
2. D. Pedersoli US 1816 Flintlock Conversion; and last by a wide margin,
3. Loyalist Arms US 1835 Flintlock Conversion

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Loyalist Arms cone In Barrel 18435/40 musket

Have a look. Judge for yourself.



Thanks to Jim Chocole for the pic of the LA conversion!

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Loyalist Arms cone In Barrel 18435/40 musket

Yes, not all that good is it? A picture tells a thousand words. Note the difference in the bolster and the lack of the ground down brass pan, the difference in the lock plate, trigger, hammer and so on. This is how the proto-type was as well. In fact, this is probably a photo of the proto-type if it came from Jim Chochole. He did a review of this musket for The Watchdog.

In the end the hobby is still lacking an authentic reproduction flintlock conversion musket.

[26NCT]

Re: Loyalist Arms cone In Barrel 18435/40 musket

On the Loyalist Arms website, they now show a more correct (not 100% correct) lockplate than the one that is pictured in Mr. Wickett's.

Jonathan Hartness

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Loyalist Arms cone In Barrel 18435/40 musket

Yes, the one Jim Chochole has pictured is the proto-type version.

[tmdreb]

Re: Loyalist Arms cone In Barrel 18435/40 musket

I've always thought the arm in question looked much more like a bolster conversion than the cone-in-barrel type.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Loyalist Arms cone In Barrel 18435/40 musket

Here is an updated pic from the LA website:

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Loyalist Arms cone In Barrel 18435/40 musket

Here is a pic of an original Pomeroy lockplate:

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Loyalist Arms cone In Barrel 18435/40 musket

To their (LA's) credit, it looks like they're trying to better their product. I like the use of contractor markings, rather than the typical "Springfield" used by so many repro makers.

HOWEVER...
As Craig noted, they still have a long way to go. The markings look week and misaligned, as though letters were stamped one at a time. The checkering on the cocking piece looks crude and corners/edges look "washed out" like an original relic that has been overcleaned on a buffing wheel.

The original musket in the earlier photo is of an 1841 dated Springfield that I sold earlier this year.

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Loyalist Arms cone In Barrel 18435/40 musket

Like I said, this is a noble effort but very typical of Loyalist Arms products. I am pleased that they took the feedback offered on the evaluation of the proto-type and made some of the changes that Jim Chochole's Watchdog review suggested, which by the way I do not think has been published yet.

Loyalist Arms also (bravely) tried to reproduce the M-1854 Lorenz...I respect that and they deserve some credit for trying to offer something aside from a P-53 Enfield and a US 1861 rifle musket, which we all agree are both over-represented in the hobby. And this is their second new product introduction since 2006. When exactly was the last new product introduction from either of the major Italian reproduction gun-makers? 1996? However, in the end their US 1835 is still an oddball piece and in detail not all that well conceived.

As far as the fatter or thicker bolster appearance, my understanding is that there is some hesitation on the manufacturer's part to tapping a cone right into the top of the barrel in the fashion of the Arsenal conversion without some surrounding build-up of metal. Think percussion cone as "potential projectile" in the event of a black powder overload. IIRC this was part of the dialog with Loyalist Arms as well.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Loyalist Arms cone In Barrel 18435/40 musket

As far as the fatter or thicker bolster appearance, my understanding is that there is some hesitation on the manufacturer's part to tapping a cone right into the top of the barrel in the fashion of the Arsenal conversion without some surrounding build-up of metal. Think percussion cone as "potential projectile" in the event of a black powder overload. IIRC this was part of the dialog with Loyalist Arms as well.

Yep! I figure this is the type of cone conversion that would have been seen had lawyers and insurance companies been as active in the 1850's as they are today. :tounge_sm

Regarding Repros by LA or anyone else:
I am perplexed by the "need for feedbacK" on reproduction arms. The process of developing a reproduction should be simple (theoretically, anyway).

Buy an original and copy it!

However, both the Lorenz and the US M1835 conversion have fundamental differences clearly visible on direct comparison to an original. It doesn't take a learned expert to point these things out. I am bewildered by this.

[Todd Watts]

Re: Loyalist Arms cone In Barrel 18435/40 musket

I would think that they have to make concessions in the copying process with each part. While I am attempting this I have come upon the problem of getting decent quality parts to even study, much less get copied. And to keep production costs reasonable, many times parts have to be copied as good as practical, not as good as possible.

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Loyalist Arms cone In Barrel 18435/40 musket

Wick:
Taking a single original and copying it more or less exactly is apparently how Armi-Sport went with their US 1842 reproduction back in 1996, right down to the mis-shaped trigger guard. It appears the original they used for their reproduction had been damaged at some point in its life and they copied that flaw exactly. This is one easy way to tell an original US 1842 from the Armi Sport repro at a distance. The other mistakes such as the location of the band springs require a closer inspection.

Also, truth be told, none of the current crop of reproductions are "just right". It is all a matter of the degree of mistakes, and how easy the mistakes are to fix...And don't be bewildered (to quote myself in The Civil War Musket) "in the battle between historical accuracy and economics, the safe bet is on economics". This is why there is a cottage industry that supports itself by "de-farbing" our muskets. Geoff Walden once wrote that Paolo Amali of Euroarms was planning to make corrections to their P-53 based on Geoff's Watchdog articles (and subsequent monograph) "Authenticizing Your Reproduction Enfield". This was thirteen years ago and the agreed changes have yet to be made...why is that? Because its cheaper for them than "getting it right" and we keep buying them anyway.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Loyalist Arms cone In Barrel 18435/40 musket

Craig,

I had heard that was the case, but this is the first I've heard about the triggerguard! I'd wondered about that!

I think the early '42 reproductions set the bar for what we *should* expect from reproductions. I have noticed, however that the quality of even the celebrated Armi Sport '42 is not what it was in the late 1990's... though it is still head-and-shoulders above anything else currently being offered by overseas producers.