Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

[FloridaConscript]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Curt is right about that. I asked Zimmerman about doing a cone in barrel this past August and he mentioned the safety issue and also there was a fellow in georgia who did one and went to jail for it when the nipple blew out of the breach. I don't know if that is true, but that is what Zimmerman told me.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Here is an example of a CS "brazed breech" conversion (if I am understanding that process correctly) of a pre-1816 musket.



and another...

[Greg Barnett]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Hallo!

I really kick myself for selling my "cone in barrel" conversion in a weak moment of "It Seemed To Be the Thing To Do At the Time."
(You cannot see it, but I am holding it in my avatar image.)


Curt

Curt,
Did I purchase said "cone in barrel" from you? I bought one a few years back on the forum. I would really appreciate any info on the musket. I will post some images later. It is one of my favorite.

Cheers

[ACo.]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

John, thanks for posting those, all of mine are on my computer at work and with the snow I am at home. There are several other variants but most, if not all were done by contractors in Richmond and Lynchburg as I said above. For more examples and more information see:

http://vhs3.vahistorical.org/

type "Virginia Manufactory of Arms" into search. You will get pages of information and will be able to see both original flint and percussion conversion arms.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Hallo!

Herr Greg, I don't remember.
There are so few around, it is likely.

Curt

[Greg Barnett]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Here are a few photos of my repro. Image quality leaves a little to be desired...

The lockplate is marked as Millbury 1841 and under the US
D V I
AWATERS

Any additional knowledge will be greatly appreciated.

I look forward to see what Todd Watts is producing.

Regards,

[rbrewer]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

I've tried the search feature with no luck. I would appreciate anyone describing how parts were brazed in the 1860's.
Also, when can we see photo's of the Todd Watts conversion?
Many thanks!!
Bob Brewer
Gaithersburg,MD

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Hallo!

Thanks for the pictures, but that one is not mine.
(Mine did not have a "bolster" type area, it just the NUG "bump" on the barrel. And the lock and barrel markings are different.)

Curt

[ACo.]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

I've tried the search feature with no luck. I would appreciate anyone describing how parts were brazed in the 1860's.
Also, when can we see photo's of the Todd Watts conversion?
Many thanks!!
Bob Brewer
Gaithersburg,MD

Parts were brazed using (what else?) heat. A forge stoked with charcoal would have been the best, cleanest source of heat. The barrel would not need to have been covered with charcoal, it and the bolster would have been aligned correctly and clamped in position and held above the heat source until the brass braze flowed. It was then removed, checked for soundness and cleaned up with final shaping and drilling done as finish up. The addition of a precisely located bolster would have been difficult but they knew how to do it and did it well.

I too wish we could get a look at Todd's work, I'm sure we will see it soon.

[Todd Watts]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Well, Craig got it this morning at BRi, but we were so friggin' busy this morning that I lost track of him and his new toy at some point as he fled the scene leaving me stuck behind the counter outfitting some new cavalryman who ended up buying everything but a horse. When Craig posts pics you'll see that my alteration is without a lump. It is drilled straight into the barrel at a slight rear angle. To seat the cone I had to grind a lower spot in it. I was going by a few old guns I had seen on it and largely by trial and error. On any future guns I will build up a weld to accept the cone and place it higher. Our thought is that the particular "Charleville" he had me do is some sort of kit gun. We discovered some oddities about it that show it was assembled by a garage hobbyist and not a factory. The lock, in faint find script said something like "Manufactured Coxxxxxx" I could not make out the second word. I polished most of that off while cleaning it up. But, it fired blanks fine and seems to work reliably so as far as a neat addition to the muskets in our line it serves the purpose.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Greg,
I could be mistaken, but your musket looks like a Loyalist Arms repro of a US M1835/40 Conversion.

[Greg Barnett]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Greg,
I could be mistaken, but your musket looks like a Loyalist Arms repro of a US M1835/40 Conversion.

John,
The similarities certainly are there. Someone may have made some changes to the Loyalist Arms' version. Thanks for the imput.

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

This musket was definitely some kind of custom kit put together out of assorted parts. I don't
know what it is, but it is not made by Pedersoli, though some of the lock parts, ramrod and
hardware are from a Pedersoli. Some of the other parts appear to be original. The hammer
we used was an original US 1816 conversion hammer, while the bolster is threaded by
8 x 1 mm to take the most common reproduction cone.

It actually came out better cosmetically than what Todd had led me to believe it would.
There are no outward signs of the struggles he described earlier in the thread. I am pleased with it.
If you started out with something better than we did here, like a Pedersoli, you would have a fine
piece in the final rendering. Anyway, here is the thumbnail of the Todd Watts cone-in-barrel percussion
conversion.

[Mojo1842]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Very nice piece of work from Todd you have there. You're right that it doesn't show how much work went into getting it to turn out. Lets face it, he did a good job on a piece thats both under-represented and cooler than sliced bread. And now there will be a lot of people that want one (myself included).

[ACo.]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Craig and Todd, it looks pretty good. A small lump representing the forged upsetting done on the originals would be good but this should work fine, congratulations to you both for going to the trouble of getting something to the market that "needs" to be there. :)