Burst Indian musket update

[Ambrose Bierce]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

Sounds like you already made a decision prior to posting.

Maybe the Indian muskets have gotten better. Validate it with your own experimentation.

Be careful and good luck.

[calconfederate]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

Sounds like you already made a decision prior to posting.

Maybe the Indian muskets have gotten better. Validate it with your own experimentation.

Be careful and good luck.

Thanks. As someone who did NSSA skirmishing for years I might be somewhat reluctant to use one of these for live fire competition. But just blowing blanks for show it should be fine. I'm in the process of developing a Regimental Armorer impression and would like to acquire more muskets for display and demonstration purposes. I don't double time like I used to and I never did very well in the heat, so I need a static display to keep me occupied on hot days. I can choose to participate in a battle or not. The India made muskets offer a whole line the Italians don't make. I've already got my eye on the 1854 Lorenz and the 1839 Tower.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

Hallo!

Longarm barrels of our Period were typically made of iron. Some later ones were improved with the use of mild steel and so stamped.
A minute trace amount of carbon was forged into the iron as part of the forging process. (In brief."steel" is NUG iron with less than 1% carbon content)

Iron is fine as the "pressure curve" of its burning in the breech is radically different than that of modern smokeless powder. Especially so when the BP is "coarser"' such as FF or even the closer to just F which was 19th and 18th century common.

"India muskets" are not firearms. They are made as model guns or decorators to bypass Indian firearm inspection and proofing laws.

"India muskets' are not one product, or one thing. They are a range of products made for a range of markets based on that market's demand and needed pricing. As a result, "they" can range greatly in attention to detail, materials, and construction. Their high end are intended for gun collectors in countries where private ownership of guns is prohibited say Japan (where the "model gun" industry was born in the 1960's). Some of these, are rather 'good' in appearance and closeness to originals. At the low end, they are not much better in appearance or function than tourist "pirate pistols" (my father had two for the fireplace wall.)

IMHO, a larger issue beyond whether a model gun can have springs hardened/tempered, touch holes drilled, or frizzens hardened post manufactured jury-rigged to fire blanks or live rounds with success...

is that 'India muskets" can take in the high end collector's type piece AS WELL as the wall-hanger or decorator. And non educated customers and non informed consumers bring them to events.

The last issue is those "India Muskets' in the middle range that not very accurate or "authentic" reproductions when compared to originals. Some ares greater or less than others.
We live with .580 or .581 Italian Enfields, or M1865 Spencers in center fire say .45 "Long Colt" or S & W Russian, or Henry's in .45 center fire "Long Colt." Some of us are okay with .62 smoothbore Lorenz rifles, others not so much. But some of the offerings are somewhat close but not really when it comes to outward appearance unless seen from 10-30 yards away which again is fine for some lads but not others.

I have no personal issue with lads buying and shooting them, blank or live, on their own. As a person with some gunsmithing, gun building, and primitive and modern firearms experience with civilian and military arms... things can be different when being shoulder to shoulder with fellow hobbyists might just change things and consecutive stress and metal fatigue might just make us wrong.

One can flip a penny a hundred times, and get 100 "heads."

Others mileage will vary...

This is a partisan issue that divides us.

Curt

(The lad in the video appears to be over-charging the pan which draws flash away from the touch hole slowing ignition of the main charge. I am sure the lock would give fire faster and with less obvious 'hang time" with less powder. A properly made and tuned flintlock should fire in 1/10th or 1/15th of a second.)

[calconfederate]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

Hallo!

Longarm barrels of our Period were typically made of iron. Some later ones were improved with the use of mild steel and so stamped.
A minute trace amount of carbon was forged into the iron as part of the forging process. (In brief."steel" is NUG iron with less than 1% carbon content)

Iron is fine as the "pressure curve" of its burning in the breech is radically different than that of modern smokeless powder. Especially so when the BP is "coarser"' such as FF or even the closer to just F which was 19th and 18th century common.

"India muskets" are not firearms. They are made as model guns or decorators to bypass Indian firearm inspection and proofing laws.

"India muskets' are not one product, or one thing. They are a range of products made for a range of markets based on that market's demand and needed pricing. As a result, "they" can range greatly in attention to detail, materials, and construction. Their high end are intended for gun collectors in countries where private ownership of guns is prohibited say Japan (where the "model gun" industry was born in the 1960's). Some of these, are rather 'good' in appearance and closeness to originals. At the low end, they are not much better in appearance or function than tourist "pirate pistols" (my father had two for the fireplace wall.)

IMHO, a larger issue beyond whether a model gun can have springs hardened/tempered, touch holes drilled, or frizzens hardened post manufactured jury-rigged to fire blanks or live rounds with success...

is that 'India muskets" can take in the high end collector's type piece AS WELL as the wall-hanger or decorator. And non educated customers and non informed consumers bring them to events.

The last issue is those "India Muskets' in the middle range that not very accurate or "authentic" reproductions when compared to originals. Some ares greater or less than others.
We live with .580 or .581 Italian Enfields, or M1865 Spencers in center fire say .45 "Long Colt" or S & W Russian, or Henry's in .45 center fire "Long Colt." Some of us are okay with .62 smoothbore Lorenz rifles, others not so much. But some of the offerings are somewhat close but not really when it comes to outward appearance unless seen from 10-30 yards away which again is fine for some lads but not others.

I have no personal issue with lads buying and shooting them, blank or live, on their own. As a person with some gunsmithing, gun building, and primitive and modern firearms experience with civilian and military arms... things can be different when being shoulder to shoulder with fellow hobbyists might just change things and consecutive stress and metal fatigue might just make us wrong.

One can flip a penny a hundred times, and get 100 "heads."

Others mileage will vary...

This is a partisan issue that divides us.

Curt

(The lad in the video appears to be over-charging the pan which draws flash away from the touch hole slowing ignition of the main charge. I am sure the lock would give fire faster and with less obvious 'hang time" with less powder. A properly made and tuned flintlock should fire in 1/10th or 1/15th of a second.)

I'm not really interested in promoting the use of India made muskets. What I'm wondering about is: Are original Civil War muskets any safer? You see reenactors carrying originals all the time. Given the inconsistent quality of 19th century crucible steel and wrought iron why do people assume these muskets are more safe than the India muskets? We know that many soldiers overloaded and blew up their muskets in the heat of battle. I'd like to see some statistics on how many originals blew up during and subsequent to the Civil War.

[maillemaker]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

"India muskets" are not firearms. They are made as model guns or decorators to bypass Indian firearm inspection and proofing laws.

This, to me, is the heart of the issue. Also, I find the video annoying. I am not some kind of zealot for Pedersoli. The bottom line is that objects that are not sold as firearms being rigged to function like firearms is risky because, as Curt noted, you can't tell the ones intended to be rigged from the ones not intended to be rigged. If it's not sold as a firearm, then anything goes. I have a lot more confidence in using a firearm sold by a company that is standing behind its product as a firearm than using a firearm that was sold as a decoration. Because if something goes wrong, you can't go sue the guy who sold it as a decoration, and thus they have no skin in the game for screw-ups.

The Indians can manufacture to whatever standards you set and enforce for them. I know - I've outsourced manufacturing of medieval armour to them and you can get whatever you're willing to pay for.

So can you get away with doing what the guy in the video is doing? Of course. If you are comfortable with converting a decoration into a firearm, and the people standing next to you are comfortable with that, fine. I, personally, am not. If the company selling it is not willing to stand behind it as a firearm, then I am not willing to stand behind it as a firearm.

This has nothing to do with me feeling snooty because I have a $1500 musket. I'd love to have a safe, quality, $500 musket. It's simply because I don't trust a business with no liability in the matter to do the right thing all the time based on a wink wink nod nod.

Steve

- - - Updated - - -

Are original Civil War muskets any safer?

From my limited exposure to originals, I would say that craftsmanship was generally far superior to commercially-produced items today. These items were made by workers who cared about the individual quality of every item, often because they were fined for poor quality. Parts may have been hand-fitted, but they were also individually scrutinized. Take a look at the lock internals of an original piece and compare them to a modern reproduction.

The biggest concern with originals, to me, is corrosion eating away material and making a weaker barrel.

Steve

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

Hallo!

Original "muskets' were subjected to a series of inspections, and typically two "proof' firings. The practice was somewhat "standardized" in that it was felt, and backed up by decades if not centuries of experience.. that a double charge and double "ball' proof" was a sufficient definitive proof.
And that a barrel surviving a double charge would be okay for withstanding repeated single charges.

"Civil War" era barrels were made to the "state of the art" firearm technology (well not so much cheap Belgian clones) as part of the art and science with a system of checks and inspections, then proofs. 'India Muskets" are non-forearms, made to no standards of any kind other than visually cosmetic to appear "like" but not function as a firearm barrel.

This whole "controversy" is the result of some unknown person experimenting with modifying a model gun replica discovering that it could be jury-rigged to fore off blank charges and even live rounds. That created a market, a market supplying a demand for cheaper-than-Italian imports. And NUG, where there is demand, there comes to be supply.

One issue with using original Civil War firearms, other than for authenticity of using a weapon that incorrectly looks 150 plus years old... is the potential risk of previous abuse.
"Ideally" original barrels should be professionally inspected and test with x-ray, sonic, and particularly magnetic particle (magnaflux) to detect
discontinuities, cracks, or fissures in the barrel wall or breech. These are often things on the inside, or not visible to the eye.
One can never know, how a gun had been treated over the course of its 150 year or more life. Someone not knowing, or not having black powder in say 1890 or 1930 may have used smokeless powder from a can or from broken apart cartridges... and guessed at the amounts creating pressures a blackpowder arm was not designed or built to handle. May be he stopped short of catastrophic failure due to damage or metal fatigue. May be he stopped one charge short, or ten... and a black powder pressure at shot 50 or 500 will cause the flaw to "blow."

Most black powder firearms, using black powder, tend to burst due to the dynamics of a partially or fully obstructed barrel as NUG pressure "vents" out the muzzle.

However, in the 18th century, due to manufacturing, some musket barrel muzzle walls were thin enough to allow for splitting a bit. And were trimmed back a tad. A somewhat CW parallel to that was in the Richmond Armory where RM barrels with failed inspection muzzle ends were cut-down for rifles and carbines/musketoons).

Curt

(Fortunately no one, yet, has taken a zinc or aluminum-zinc (AlZn) alloy model gun and tried to shoot it.)

[calconfederate]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

This, to me, is the heart of the issue. Also, I find the video annoying. I am not some kind of zealot for Pedersoli. The bottom line is that objects that are not sold as firearms being rigged to function like firearms is risky because, as Curt noted, you can't tell the ones intended to be rigged from the ones not intended to be rigged. If it's not sold as a firearm, then anything goes. I have a lot more confidence in using a firearm sold by a company that is standing behind its product as a firearm than using a firearm that was sold as a decoration. Because if something goes wrong, you can't go sue the guy who sold it as a decoration, and thus they have no skin in the game for screw-ups.

The Indians can manufacture to whatever standards you set and enforce for them. I know - I've outsourced manufacturing of medieval armour to them and you can get whatever you're willing to pay for.

So can you get away with doing what the guy in the video is doing? Of course. If you are comfortable with converting a decoration into a firearm, and the people standing next to you are comfortable with that, fine. I, personally, am not. If the company selling it is not willing to stand behind it as a firearm, then I am not willing to stand behind it as a firearm.

This has nothing to do with me feeling snooty because I have a $1500 musket. I'd love to have a safe, quality, $500 musket. It's simply because I don't trust a business with no liability in the matter to do the right thing all the time based on a wink wink nod nod.

Steve

- - - Updated - - -



From my limited exposure to originals, I would say that craftsmanship was generally far superior to commercially-produced items today. These items were made by workers who cared about the individual quality of every item, often because they were fined for poor quality. Parts may have been hand-fitted, but they were also individually scrutinized. Take a look at the lock internals of an original piece and compare them to a modern reproduction.

The biggest concern with originals, to me, is corrosion eating away material and making a weaker barrel.

Steve

A large portion of the India guns are evidently being used by American Revolution and War of 1812 reenactors. I've been looking on their websites for commentary on India made muskets, can't seem to find anything. Are Civil War reenactors more discerning?

- - - Updated - - -

Hallo!

Original "muskets' were subjected to a series of inspections, and typically two "proof' firings. The practice was somewhat "standardized" in that it was felt, and backed up by decades if not centuries of experience.. that a double charge and double "ball' proof" was a sufficient definitive proof.
And that a barrel surviving a double charge would be okay for withstanding repeated single charges.

"Civil War" era barrels were made to the "state of the art" firearm technology (well not so much cheap Belgian clones) as part of the art and science with a system of checks and inspections, then proofs. 'India Muskets" are non-forearms, made to no standards of any kind other than visually cosmetic to appear "like" but not function as a firearm barrel.

This whole "controversy" is the result of some unknown person experimenting with modifying a model gun replica discovering that it could be jury-rigged to fore off blank charges and even live rounds. That created a market, a market supplying a demand for cheaper-than-Italian imports. And NUG, where there is demand, there comes to be supply.

One issue with using original Civil War firearms, other than for authenticity of using a weapon that incorrectly looks 150 plus years old... is the potential risk of previous abuse.
"Ideally" original barrels should be professionally inspected and test with x-ray, sonic, and particularly magnetic particle (magnaflux) to detect
discontinuities, cracks, or fissures in the barrel wall or breech. These are often things on the inside, or not visible to the eye.
One can never know, how a gun had been treated over the course of its 150 year or more life. Someone not knowing, or not having black powder in say 1890 or 1930 may have used smokeless powder from a can or from broken apart cartridges... and guessed at the amounts creating pressures a blackpowder arm was not designed or built to handle. May be he stopped short of catastrophic failure due to damage or metal fatigue. May be he stopped one charge short, or ten... and a black powder pressure at shot 50 or 500 will cause the flaw to "blow."

Most black powder firearms, using black powder, tend to burst due to the dynamics of a partially or fully obstructed barrel as NUG pressure "vents" out the muzzle.

However, in the 18th century, due to manufacturing, some musket barrel muzzle walls were thin enough to allow for splitting a bit. And were trimmed back a tad. A somewhat CW parallel to that was in the Richmond Armory where RM barrels with failed inspection muzzle ends were cut-down for rifles and carbines/musketoons).

Curt

(Fortunately no one, yet, has taken a zinc or aluminum-zinc (AlZn) alloy model gun and tried to shoot it.)

I've had discussions with reenactors who were quite proud of the mellow brown patina on their muskets. They hate it when I suggest that this is an unrealistic reenactorism; all muskets used during the Civil War were bright, blued or browned. I personally believe using originals is a gross misuse of important pieces of history that should be preserved.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

Hallo!

Every reenacted and/or living history era or period can be found with a series of "levels" or internal "communities" once (attempted to make sense of broad spectrum and many sub-levels) referred to as the Farb/Mainstream.Campaigner/Progressive/Hardcore/Authentic Model or Paradigm.

In my experiences in the F & I War, Rev War, Fur Trade, Civil War, WWI, and WWII communities, F & I and Rev War often have "lower standards" other than maybe WWI.

It was not always thus. Once Upon A Time, circa 1976, the Rev War's Brigade of the American Revolution was light years ahead with their concept of visible stitching had to be hand-sewn (something they relaxed to survive circa 1990ish).
For the longest time, migrating Rev War lads took post 1768 NLSP muskets and M1768 French muskets with them to the F & I War. And even after custom and repro LLP muskets became available NLSP were/are okay if not abundantly widespread.

Again, this discussion turns full circle as the high end of Indian model guns can visually appear fairly close to originals. Especially if the teak stocks are reworked and made to look more like English Walnut. Mid range, and low end, not so much.
I bought a brace of Long Land Pattern dragoon pistols with the hope of reworking, engraving, and "de-farbing" them because I always kicked myself for not buying a pair of Italian ones that were part of the Colonial Williamsburg's governor's house display project. They were so poor, they were beyond my craft and skill to make silk purses out of a sows' butts.

The greater appeal of "India Muskets" is the lower cost and the range of arms not offered by the Italians. NUG, there is greater appeal to lads with lower standards or a lack of knowledge (or care) as to what is correct or not. Here is an example of their "Belgian" (cone in barrel) conversion:



Curt

[calconfederate]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

Hallo!

Every reenacted and/or living history era or period can be found with a series of "levels" or internal "communities" once (attempted to make sense of broad spectrum and many sub-levels) referred to as the Farb/Mainstream.Campaigner/Progressive/Hardcore/Authentic Model or Paradigm.

In my experiences in the F & I War, Rev War, Fur Trade, Civil War, WWI, and WWII communities, F & I and Rev War often have "lower standards" other than maybe WWI.

It was not always thus. Once Upon A Time, circa 1976, the Rev War's Brigade of the American Revolution was light years ahead with their concept of visible stitching had to be hand-sewn (something they relaxed to survive circa 1990ish).
For the longest time, migrating Rev War lads took post 1768 NLSP muskets and M1768 French muskets with them to the F & I War. And even after custom and repro LLP muskets became available NLSP were/are okay if not abundantly widespread.

Again, this discussion turns full circle as the high end of Indian model guns can visually appear fairly close to originals. Especially if the teak stocks are reworked and made to look more like English Walnut. Mid range, and low end, not so much.
I bought a brace of Long Land Pattern dragoon pistols with the hope of reworking, engraving, and "de-farbing" them because I always kicked myself for not buying a pair of Italian ones that were part of the Colonial Williamsburg's governor's house display project. They were so poor, they were beyond my craft and skill to make silk purses out of a sows' butts.

The greater appeal of "India Muskets" is the lower cost and the range of arms not offered by the Italians. NUG, there is greater appeal to lads with lower standards or a lack of knowledge (or care) as to what is correct or not. Here is an example of their "Belgian" (cone in barrel) conversion:



Curt

Funny you should happen to post that photo. I was recently pouring over photographs of every conceivable 1816 (or variant) flintlock to percussion conversion and couldn't find that one anywhere. I did see a picture of an 1808 Virginia Manufactory conversion that looked very much like that. But no Pomeroy muskets ever looked that way.

[calconfederate]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

I've considered getting the 1854 Lorenz reproduction. Perhaps someone with a better eye for detail can point out for me how one looks different from the other. The stock around the rear of the lock is a little different, the shape of the bolster is wrong; other than that it seems to be a pretty good likeness.




- - - Updated - - -

[asclinard]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

...and the people standing next to you are comfortable with that, fine.

This another factor to take into consideration. An unsafe musket is not only a danger to oneself but also to others in line. I know for a fact that I would not want a live grenade next to my face, so I would certainly not be enthused with a musket on the brink of failure near me. Lighting off these open-ended pipe bombs is just as much a matter of trust in each other's judgement as it is our own.

[calconfederate]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

"...and the people standing next to you are comfortable with that, fine."

This another factor to take into consideration. An unsafe musket is not only a danger to oneself but also to others in line. I know for a fact that I would not want a life grenade next to my face, so I would certainly not be enthused with a musket on the brink of failure near me. Lighting off these open-ended pipe bombs is just as much a matter of trust in each other's judgement as it is our own.

The Italian made muskets certainly have the advantage of being nearly idiot proof, although at the cost of being considerably heavier than an original. But an idiot can blow up an Italian musket too, it's been done. Reenactors have a somewhat less than consistent reputation for keeping their muskets clean and well maintained....which seems to be the cause for most catastrophic barrel failures.

[calconfederate]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

Hallo!

Every reenacted and/or living history era or period can be found with a series of "levels" or internal "communities" once (attempted to make sense of broad spectrum and many sub-levels) referred to as the Farb/Mainstream.Campaigner/Progressive/Hardcore/Authentic Model or Paradigm.

In my experiences in the F & I War, Rev War, Fur Trade, Civil War, WWI, and WWII communities, F & I and Rev War often have "lower standards" other than maybe WWI.

It was not always thus. Once Upon A Time, circa 1976, the Rev War's Brigade of the American Revolution was light years ahead with their concept of visible stitching had to be hand-sewn (something they relaxed to survive circa 1990ish).
For the longest time, migrating Rev War lads took post 1768 NLSP muskets and M1768 French muskets with them to the F & I War. And even after custom and repro LLP muskets became available NLSP were/are okay if not abundantly widespread.

Again, this discussion turns full circle as the high end of Indian model guns can visually appear fairly close to originals. Especially if the teak stocks are reworked and made to look more like English Walnut. Mid range, and low end, not so much.
I bought a brace of Long Land Pattern dragoon pistols with the hope of reworking, engraving, and "de-farbing" them because I always kicked myself for not buying a pair of Italian ones that were part of the Colonial Williamsburg's governor's house display project. They were so poor, they were beyond my craft and skill to make silk purses out of a sows' butts.

The greater appeal of "India Muskets" is the lower cost and the range of arms not offered by the Italians. NUG, there is greater appeal to lads with lower standards or a lack of knowledge (or care) as to what is correct or not. Here is an example of their "Belgian" (cone in barrel) conversion:



Curt

Get a load of this, an original Pomeroy percussion conversion that looks remarkably similar to the one offered by Loyalist Arms. Not an actual cone in conversion.

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

Not a fan of the India-made musket, personally. To my thinking, it's not necessarily good that their cone-in-barrel musket most closely resembles an original bolster conversion...it's so "off the mark" it actually looks more like something else than what it is supposed to be?

[James Brenner]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

FWIW, I'm attaching (I hope) - for the sake of clarification - a picture of what a true Pomeroy conversion looks like. From the appearance of the other Pomeroy, it appears that a barrel from an H&P conversion replaced the Pomeroy's original cone-in-barrel.