Burst Indian musket update

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

Hallo!

A quick historical perspective.

The locks were stripped of their flint priming parts, screw holes plugged, the cut-out for the priming pan filled in with brass, and a percussion hammer was added replacing the flint hammer (cock). Then...

The first type alterations ("French" aka 1st U.S.type) involved the addition of a "side drum" with cone.

The common "Belgian" type official alterations to percussion (aka 2nd U.S.) "cone in barrel" was considered sufficient at the time.

The change over to the Minie in 1855ish, and the rifling of former thin-walled flint musket barrels, gave concern that the .69 Minie would develop dangerous breech pressures. So,, a third type alteration was used that involved cutting off the musket barrel breech and threading or sleeving a new beefed-up thicker breech section with integral bolster and cone.

There was also an "okay enough" 4th type, (aka 2nd model) a variation on the 3rd that involved keeping the musket barrel breech but just brazing a bolster with cone directly over the vent. (Hopefully, the brazing would hold the vent pressures.)

We usually refer to these percussion alterations as say a Pomeroy Alteration" NOT because Pomeroy did the alteration but rather because the musket used was made by that maker. Most work was arsenal done, with a few contractor exceptions. One was the Newark, NJ firm of Hewes & Phillips that altered (and rifled and sighted) about 20,000 muskets in 1861-1862. H & P typically used the brazed-on bolster or second model type process.

Curt

[Michael Comer]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

It seems to me that if a gun is made without the means to ignite a charge, that should tell you something. If you have decided to go and buy one of these Indian muskets, then go and buy it. If you are looking for validation of that action here, I don't think you will find it. Good luck with your purchase.

[calconfederate]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

It seems to me that if a gun is made without the means to ignite a charge, that should tell you something. If you have decided to go and buy one of these Indian muskets, then go and buy it. If you are looking for validation of that action here, I don't think you will find it. Good luck with your purchase.

Far from seeking validation I challenge your assumptions and the conventional wisdom; which seems to be based almost entirely on anecdotes rather than actual evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

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?

It certainly isn't correct, more of a generic bastardized representation.

- - - Updated - - -

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.


[ATTACH=CONFIG]50600[/ATTACH]

Do you have any idea how many different cone in and bolster conversions were used during the Civil War? I dare you to count them.

[Ambrose Bierce]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

What evidence do you have to the contrary? To date, none, save your own opinions and a video.

Do your own work, Michael. Tell us what you think, what comparisons you have done, and what works better for you. This thread has gone on long enough.

Since those who have compiled bodies of research can't educate you, and every opinion or position seems to refute your own way of thinking, just go do what you want.

Indian repros are junk. If you are putting together an impression that details what arms in the ACW looked like, don't cut corners. Just go get originals and talk through the differences. Buying cheap muskets on the cheap will not help your cause.

You have mastered the use of the quote function. Congratulations. Hope you find what you are looking for, but none are so blind as those who will not see.

[calconfederate]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

What evidence do you have to the contrary? To date, none, save your own opinions and a video.

Do your own work, Michael. Tell us what you think, what comparisons you have done, and what works better for you. This thread has gone on long enough.

Since those who have compiled bodies of research can't educate you, and every opinion or position seems to refute your own way of thinking, just go do what you want.

Indian repros are junk. If you are putting together an impression that details what arms in the ACW looked like, don't cut corners. Just go get originals and talk through the differences. Buying cheap muskets on the cheap will not help your cause.

You have mastered the use of the quote function. Congratulations. Hope you find what you are looking for, but none are so blind as those who will not see.

Research? Please feel free to point out the "research" done on this subject.

[calconfederate]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

And regarding my earlier question about the safety of original Civil War muskets being used in reenactments.........my concerns were not addressed, the question was not answered to my satisfaction.

[calconfederate]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

Since we are having a discussion primarily concerning the quality and metallurgical integrity of reproduction muskets, this should be interesting for some folks. A couple of years ago I bought a brand new Pedersoli Enfield two band. Beautiful rifle, all the appearance of traditional Italian gun making workmanship, or so it seemed. After firing about three hundred rounds both the tumbler and the sear spring snapped. I had been led to believe that Pedersoli made better quality lock parts than the competition. They should be since they cost about twice as much as Armisport parts. So I e-mailed Pedersoli with pictures and full descriptions, they were quick to respond saying they would replace the parts. Then I tried separating the tumbler from the hammer....no way in hell. I sent Pedersoli another e-mail castigating them for the quality of their metallurgy and manufacturing standards. They had me send the lock to their service center in Missouri. That was five months ago. I await a final result.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

Hallo!

The Italian repro firearms industry has had a decades old reputation for issues with quality control when it comes to fit, finish, and the proper hardening and/or tempering of parts.
At times it is almost random within and without the various companies that have come and gone, or been renamed, or have been bought out by others. Up to a point, and with exceptions, one tends to get what one pays for. Meaning, the lower the price, the less inherent QC one finds. For example some of the lower end, lowest cost reproductions have more issues than those at the higher end. Say, EMF or 1990 era Pietta versus a company like Cimarron Firearms that imports higher QC Italian repros but then has to charge more for them.
But again, with the Italian concept of factory QC, it can all range within a company. So, while one would expect higher quality from Pedersoli for the dollar spent, one lad may receive a flawless functioning piece while the next may receive one with overly hardened springs that crack while the next receives one with a tumbler so soft that the sear cuts off the half cock notch on the tumbler.

But, IMHO a barrel is of graver concern than a too-hard spring or too-soft tumbler as the potential risk is spreading shrapnel versus say a gun going off when not intended (and may e in the hands of a person with no Weapon Discipline or for that much mater much training or drill practice expertise). NOT that any potential "accident" is not a concern.

It would appear, that the Italians, do only a very basic QC check or inspection at all or if they do on a finished reproduction arm it is minimal. That is why one revolver will function perfectly while another may not be in time, or worse yet some turn up that cannot be cocked or the cylinder rotated. Or one fires 1,000 times and keeps going while another has lock internals fail after 50.

A difference lies in Italian government laws and regulations requiring that the barrels be proofed and inspected (government proof house) ... NOT the repro gun. So, barrels are made with modern barrel steels to industry standards, and then tested by the government.

There are two bodies that govern manufacturing and proofing standards throughout the world: the C.I.P, in Liege, Belgium, and SAAMI in the United States.
In the United States, SAAMI publishes the standards approved by ANSI in the United States for use by commercial makers. Membership in SAAMI is not law, it is voluntary. The CIP standards, are compulsory by law, in those countries where there are such laws.

But, it is not perfect. Spanish makers (CVA and Traditions) opt to have there barrels proofed to the lowest legal pressures.

India has strict firearm or gun making laws, and government proofing houses.

" 22. Proof testing of firearms

(1) Proof testing of firearms manufactured by a licensed dealer shall be carried out only in accordance with the regulations which may be framed by the Central Government or framed by such authorities as the Central Government may specify in this behalf and approved by that Government.

(2) No dealer shall sell a firearm which has not been duly proof-tested. "

This does not apply to toys or model guns.

This is different that the system used in the modern U.S. which requires no government proofing but makers "work" within industry standard(s). And, that is different that say the 19th century American system where barrels are reviewed during manufacture, proofed, and the entire firearm receives an inspection before being approved to go into government service. (This was repeated when the arm went out of service, and in those of arms brought back such as percussion alterations, one finds a second set of inspectors' cartouches.)

Curt

[calconfederate]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

Hallo!

The Italian repro firearms industry has had a decades old reputation for issues with quality control when it comes to fit, finish, and the proper hardening and/or tempering of parts.
At times it is almost random within and without the various companies that have come and gone, or been renamed, or have been bought out by others. Up to a point, and with exceptions, one tends to get what one pays for. Meaning, the lower the price, the less inherent QC one finds. For example some of the lower end, lowest cost reproductions have more issues than those at the higher end. Say, EMF or 1990 era Pietta versus a company like Cimarron Firearms that imports higher QC Italian repros but then has to charge more for them.
But again, with the Italian concept of factory QC, it can all range within a company. So, while one would expect higher quality from Pedersoli for the dollar spent, one lad may receive a flawless functioning piece while the next may receive one with overly hardened springs that crack while the next receives one with a tumbler so soft that the sear cuts off the half cock notch on the tumbler.

But, IMHO a barrel is of graver concern than a too-hard spring or too-soft tumbler as the potential risk is spreading shrapnel versus say a gun going off when not intended (and may e in the hands of a person with no Weapon Discipline or for that much mater much training or drill practice expertise). NOT that any potential "accident" is not a concern.

It would appear, that the Italians, do only a very basic QC check or inspection at all or if they do on a finished reproduction arm it is minimal. That is why one revolver will function perfectly while another may not be in time, or worse yet some turn up that cannot be cocked or the cylinder rotated. Or one fires 1,000 times and keeps going while another has lock internals fail after 50.

A difference lies in Italian government laws and regulations requiring that the barrels be proofed and inspected (government proof house) ... NOT the repro gun. So, barrels are made with modern barrel steels to industry standards, and then tested by the government.

There are two bodies that govern manufacturing and proofing standards throughout the world: the C.I.P, in Liege, Belgium, and SAAMI in the United States.
In the United States, SAAMI publishes the standards approved by ANSI in the United States for use by commercial makers. Membership in SAAMI is not law, it is voluntary. The CIP standards, are compulsory by law, in those countries where there are such laws.

But, it is not perfect. Spanish makers (CVA and Traditions) opt to have there barrels proofed to the lowest legal pressures.

India has strict firearm or gun making laws, and government proofing houses.

" 22. Proof testing of firearms

(1) Proof testing of firearms manufactured by a licensed dealer shall be carried out only in accordance with the regulations which may be framed by the Central Government or framed by such authorities as the Central Government may specify in this behalf and approved by that Government.

(2) No dealer shall sell a firearm which has not been duly proof-tested. "

This does not apply to toys or model guns.

This is different that the system used in the modern U.S. which requires no government proofing but makers "work" within industry standard(s). And, that is different that say the 19th century American system where barrels are reviewed during manufacture and the entire firearm receives an inspection before being approved to go into government service. (This was repeated when the arm went out of service, and in those of arms brought back such as percussion alterations, one finds a second set of inspectors' cartouches.)

Curt

I certainly wouldn't question the strength of the Italian made barrels, other parts seem to be of less consistent quality. I read a lot of hype about the new Pedersoli silver line before I bought a couple of them. It should suffice to say that I'm now somewhat less than impressed with the advertising. I appreciate these kind of thoughtful informed responses. Have you authored books about Civil War muskets? I'd be surprised if you hadn't.

[calconfederate]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

It was suggested in post #34 that perhaps I should do some kind of research to help substantiate some of my assertions. So as a follow up to our discussion I thought I should share what I've discovered. Not that one example could ever possibly constitute actual research, I merely offer this as anecdotes based on one example. And as I offer this as personal anecdote I think it fair to compare my anecdotal observations with the conventional wisdom found on several Civil War forums. My example is an 1854 Lorenz that I recently acquired from Loyalist Arms.
1. Conventional wisdom says that the barrels of all India made muskets are manufactured from low quality mild steel pipes.

Not so. Quality varies depending on the maker and vendor. The number 391 on the underside of the barrel of this musket, which is evidently confusing for most people,clearly reveals that the barrel is made from heat treated 80 grade steel. That's high strength alloy used for making things like precision tools and heavy lifting chain links. Doesn't exactly sound like pot metal to me. The barrel is obviously tapered so the chamber is larger than the bore, the muzzle appears to have an inside crown.

2. Conventional wisdom says the locks are poorly made with weak springs.

Doesn't seem to be the case, in fact an extremely strong mainspring, hammer draw is a little difficult, but strikes dead center, the trigger pull is surprisingly light and breaks very crisp. Half cock and full cock seem rock solid.

3. Conventional wisdom says that the stocks of India made muskets are made from very inauthentic and brittle teak wood with a lacquer finish.

The stock on my 1854 Lorenz is made from a very nice species of rosewood with a tight grain structure remarkably like walnut. It's been stained and waxed, no lacquer of any kind used on the finish.

4. Conventional wisdom says that the wood to metal fit on India made muskets is very poor. I've seen better, but I've also seen worse, like on a Euroarms 1841 Mississippi I used to own. Overall the fit and finish is not bad at all. There are some visible tool marks here and there. But guess what, original Lorenz rifles were all hand made the old fashioned way, none were interchangeable. I think the metal finish was a bit too bright, a little going over with a scotchbright pad fixed that.
The barrel has been test fired by a gunsmith using 130 grains of powder with a paper patched ball. Passed with no issues.

The next subject of my "research" will be an India made 1839 Tower.......probably a few months from now.

[ACo.]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

"number 391 on the underside of the barrel of this musket, which is evidently confusing for most people,clearly reveals that the barrel is made from heat treated 80 grade steel"

And how, pray tell, does the number 391 indicate the barrel is made from heat treated 80 grade steel? I am assuming you mean to say HY-80 steel?

Also, hard mainsprings are not necessarily good mainsprings, a spring such as you describe may be miss-tempered and ready to live a short life.

I also question the statement "The barrel is obviously tapered so the chamber is larger than the bore". You may be off on your terminology, the bore should be straight, not chambered. If there is a "chamber" at your breech that causes the inside diameter of the bore to increase.... well, that is a sure sign of a poorly made barrel no matter what the barrel is made of.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

Hallo!

T.P....

I thought the original .62 smoothbore Lorenz barrel was larger at the breech so that as the fouling built up it did not effect loading.

:) :) :)

Curt

[calconfederate]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

"number 391 on the underside of the barrel of this musket, which is evidently confusing for most people,clearly reveals that the barrel is made from heat treated 80 grade steel"

And how, pray tell, does the number 391 indicate the barrel is made from heat treated 80 grade steel? I am assuming you mean to say HY-80 steel?

Also, hard mainsprings are not necessarily good mainsprings, a spring such as you describe may be miss-tempered and ready to live a short life.

I also question the statement "The barrel is obviously tapered so the chamber is larger than the bore". You may be off on your terminology, the bore should be straight, not chambered. If there is a "chamber" at your breech that causes the inside diameter of the bore to increase.... well, that is a sure sign of a poorly made barrel no matter what the barrel is made of.

If you would like to have a look at a standard international table of types and grades of steel you will see what I mean.
And with regards to your opinion on terminology and gun barrel design......I'd say you have some more home work to do.

[calconfederate]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

Hallo!

T.P....

I thought the original .62 smoothbore Lorenz barrel was larger at the breech so that as the fouling built up it did not effect loading.

:) :) :)

Curt

In reading the many comments regarding this subject posted on Civil War forums over the past decade I've noticed something. The commentary on India made muskets all seems to originate with the same few people, the same few people who tend to have great influence on the consensus of opinion and setting standards on Civil War forums. Yet these "expert" opinions seem to sometimes be based mostly on established anecdotes rather than any actual evidence. I've discovered that these same few people are often incorrect, technically, historically, factually. Propagating opinions based on whatever people are already predisposed to believe without evidence isn't hard to do. Gesundheit.

[calconfederate]

Re: Burst Indian musket update

In continued search on American Revolution forums I still can't seem to find even one single negative comment about India made muskets. Boggles the mind doesn't it.