Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

[ACo.]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

.................................................. .......
("Forge welding" joins iron by heating it orange, and then hammering the edges together. At a molecular level, the iron of the one part merges or is melded/blended with the iron of the second part ideally not to become a seam but rather a "solid" fusion. Basically, it is how longrifle barrels were made- by hammering skelps of iron around a a mandrel creating a long hopefully/ideally seamless tube.)

Actually, forge welding is accomplished at a white heat, sometimes called a "sparkling" heat - an almost liquid state. The two surfaces to be welded are brought up to heat and sprinkled with borax as a flux and then driven together by hammer blows quickly and forcefully delivered before the metal cools, otherwise there will be an imperfect weld.

Due to the precision of location required for the percussioning process, I doubt that the lump was added by welding, the upsetting of existing barrel metal would be far easier to do precisely and it could be done at a lower heat - far easier to control and there would be less machining or shaping to be done afterwards to bring the new lump to proper shape.

[Blair]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

A skelp forge welded iron barrel for a "long Rifle" (Finished barrel length running at approximate 45 inches) may require as many as 50 separate welding heats to complete. This roughly translates to about one inch of successfully welded barrel per heat.
The mandrel is inserted into the weld effected area for only about two inches. This keeps the hammer blows from crushing the tube/bore the barrel smith is trying to create. The mandrel is removed and cooled between each heat and is only inserted again just before hammering begins in the next heating.
Wrought iron requires a welding heat of roughly 1800 to 2000 degrees. A heat color that this equates to is a bright yellow to white hot. At this heat, the surface of the metal is actually becoming sticky. This stickiness must be achieved to effect any weld.
These areas must be kept clean and free of scaling. An oxidation caused by the ambient oxygen in the air.
This scaling maybe forces into the weld during any one of the 50 welding heats it takes to create a rough forged barrel. This in effective has the potential for embedding flaw (s) in what should be an otherwise seamless weld. These are not detectable with the naked eye, unless the flaw shows up near or on the finished surfaces. Any such flaw may cause the barrel to fail at any point throughout its life. The older the barrel and the poorer condition the barrel has been kept in, the greater the likely hood of a failure.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

FYI...
Here is a cone-converted (though not your standard gov't job) of a Viriginia Manufactory musket in the collection of Springfield Armory NHS:


Note the 1806 "born on" date. I have some pics of this musket in my files from a trip to SA NHS. This musket also has initials carved in the buttstock.

[David Fox]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Dang right! If the Rebs were converting 1806 Richmond Manufactory muskets cone-in-barrel, my Charleville/Zimmerman M.1795 gains new luster as to authenticity! A kiss on the lips...

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

David,

I'd definitely hang on to your conversion! There is a conversion Virginia Manufactory musket in the collection of the Gettysburg VS museum that was recovered from Culp's Hill!

I've been doing a lot of reading up on the US M1795 lately, and I had the chance to see three very high condition versions this weekend:
Type II Springfield (didn't get to see the date)
Type II, Massachusetts Contract (undated lockplate)
Type III, Harpers Ferry, dated 1815.

What is interesting about the US M1795 is that it is not a "model" for a specific gun, per se. Rather, it appears to be more like a set of specifications (69 cal, 44+" barrel, flat-bevelled lock plate, bevelled/reenforced hammer, three barrel bands, top band with double loop, specified stock length, etc.) for producing muskets.

Within that set of specifications, there was a lot of variability from maker-to-maker and throughout the life of the 1795 "model" designation. Initially, they were reworked and refurbished French muskets (18,000 +/-) left over from the Revolution.

Contractors like Whitney, Evans, and others, as well as the Virginia Manufactory, appeared to follow these specs, although with their own particular variations on this theme in their patterns. Even Harpers Ferry, on of the government's own armories, arms had their own distinct variations.

For example, early Springfield and HF arms show a distinct comb and deeply grooved wrist. Later varieties didn't have the deeply set wrist, but continued to have a distinct comb. By contrast, Virginia and various contract arms have almost no comb on the buttstock, giving them a profile very similar to a Type I US M1816/22!

Theoretically, one could take a reproduction Charleville or US M1795 and fashion a great conversion musket, perhaps even reshaping the stock to more closely approximate the shape of a contract musket, if so desired. Sadly, the big roadblock to doing this convincingly is the thick (downright "beefy", IMO) profile of the area from the upper wrist to the tang. The originals I've seen in books, on-line, and in-person were comparatively slender in this area.

... indeed, this area is a downfall of most reproduction muskets, regardless of model or pattern!

[Todd Watts]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

My cruel master, Mr. Barry traded a Pedersolli 1795 that had been converted drum-in-barrel style by someone that was obviously trying to mimic the 1808 VA contract gun. It is a monster of a gun! Sure gets some looks when it comes close to puny little 1842s.;) All I have to do for him in trade is be his personal gunsmith slave for life.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Cruel, indeed! ;)

They are monsters! I think if you set an original US M1795 down next to a flint fowling piece and a Pedersoli, you'd come to the conclusion that the original US M1795 looks more like a fowling piece with barrel-bands than it does a Pedersoli.

The originals were looong, yes (just under 45", compared with 39" or 40" for a US M1855/61/63), but not "beefy". They were slender-wristed pieces, with barrels distinctly of lighter weight than a rifle, hence my comparison to a fowler.

[rlhardingjr]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Folks..,

Another note for your files.., remember that the mainspring for the flintlock is very heavy. Most original converted flints I have seen, including my own, show the same crack in the stock aft of the lock plate. In fact, I had to file the mainspring down to lessen the tension to keep from further breaking out the stock on my converted Charlieville. The percussion hammer powered by that heavy flint mainspring is a recipe for heartbreak and frustration. Keep that in mind. There are too many originals out there showing the same damage to the stock to ignore when doing or having your flinter converted.

Regards,

[ACo.]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

FYI...
Here is a cone-converted (though not your standard gov't job) of a Viriginia Manufactory musket in the collection of Springfield Armory NHS:


Note the 1806 "born on" date. I have some pics of this musket in my files from a trip to SA NHS. This musket also has initials carved in the buttstock.

I'M IN LOVE!!!!!! :D

It is unusual to see a Confederate "Belgian" conversion but they are out there. I wonder where those were done, as I recall, none are seen in the Cromwell Collection at the Virginia Historical Society. And you are right John, the the 1792 Contract Muskets and the Model 1795 (more correctly called the Charleville Pattern) as well as the Virginia Manufactory muskets are very light when compared to their immediate successor, the M1816 and later, the M1840 and M1842. That cone is very close to the breach plug, it almost seems to be over the front of the plug rather than being actually in front of the breach face.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

TP,

Your observation is interesting, especially when you remember the pic of the conversion that Todd is making for Craig:

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=18383&d=1265559462

The position of the cone looks familiar, no?

Love the wrist of that piece!

Since that was such a hit, here's a pic of the buttstock from the same piece...

PS - Craig...
Why don't you just surrender on that one and have Todd put it back to flint for an "as manufactured" US M1795? It would certainly save me a great deal of trouble. ;) :D

[David Fox]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Yeah, I own an 1812-date Harper's Ferry "Charleville". The forearm is a splinter compared to later U.S. pieces, pieces which were criticized by contemporary Army officers as being unnecessarily clunky in contrast. I used to think these early flinters were homely. I now appreciate their elegance.

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Oh heavens yes! Gotta love the firelocks. You can even fire one upside down.

[prestontoprail]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

It seems that the 2 most lacking weapons in our hobby that should be represented in just as many numbers as the Enfield and Springfields ('42 and '61) are the Austrian Lorenz and the 1822 cone in barrel (Belgian style conversion). As far as having a Lorenz, there are a couple of options such as having a parts kit put together from original pieces or making deep/severe alterations to the Loyalist Arms version (which at least they now offer a rifled barrel in .54 cal). Up until recently, the only way one could represent the 1822 conversion was to have an original in immaculate shape.

I'm the kind of guy who agrees that if you are going to try and carry one of these arms around the field for reenacting then they should only look as old as they should be by 1861. No point in bringing out pitted barrels and rusty brown metal parts. Now we have 2 options as far as barrel substitutes on the 1822 conversion offered by Bob Hoyt or Todd Watts. Just to get some things clear, I was wondering what the ultimate options were for having one of these out in the field with 80-90% repro parts. Considering that the only most accurate 1816 flintlock repro available is the Pedersoli, although the barrel bands are out of place, stock needs re-contouring in several places and the trigger guard would need replacing:

Option 1
-Get a Perdosoli 1816 flintlock musket
-Have Todd Watts convert the barrel and tap in a cone
-Have Todd Watts remove the flint lock components and file down the dish pan (leaving the remaining brass on the flush side).
-Get a more accurately shaped stock from Dunlap for the 1816/22
-Strip the Pedersoli parts from it's stock and fit them to the Dunlap with properly spaced bands
-Acquire a cone in barrel percussion hammer (original)
-Acquire correct "button tipped" ramrod
-Have proper stamps and proof marks applied to barrel, lock and stock.
-Acquire correct trigger guard with sling swivel in the middle of the front piece or separate from the guard (depending on which type).
-Of course, coat the stock appropriately with linseed oil.

Option 2
Same as above except with a Bob Hoyt repro barrel.

Option 3
Using disassociated original parts such as the bands, lock plate, screws, hammer, butt plate.....attached to a reproduction stock (Dunlap) and a reproduction barrel (Watts or Hoyt).

Option 4
Using an entire original musket in good to great condition with repro parts added such as bands, screws.......however retaining the original stock and barrel (inspected and proofed by modern gunsmith). Or there is the variation of using the original barrel with a repro stock (Dunlap).

I've really been wanting to have one of these to use for reenacting as they are EXTREMELY under-represented. I have never even myself seen someone carry one of these around at an event although I know of others that do and have heard of the practice here and there. When doing research on the numbers and availability of smoothbores used throughout the war, it becomes evident that there were more 1822 conversions made and being used than the '42 springfield by comparison. It was a common weapon for early war confederates and federals.....east and west. I'm wondering if I left something out in my list of options and was hoping for some further discussion on how we can start making these muskets more available now that we have at least 2 sources who can make the tapped barrels safe for blank fire reenacting.

A couple of pictures of an original in great condition to spark the imagery. Taken from the College Hill Arsenal website of previous buys. This is what we want these repros to look like!




Pictures of the Pedersoli 1816 flintlock musket

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Todd finished the re-drilling of the barrel, it looks about like the top picture of the original from College Hill Arsenal.
The barrel has that small build-up (metal seat) around the base of the cone where he tapped it into the top. We
had Infantry training and drill at STRI today, and the musket performed well, no problems at all. So in the final
analysis, what have we got here?

This project was a beast, and while the cone-in-barrel is a unique and under-represented weapon in the hobby, the
bottom line is that you need to start with a flintlock to end up with a flintlock conversion. Unlike the US arsenals
prior to the Civil War, there are no surplus flintlock muskets sitting around waiting for conversion. Not sure it is worth the
trouble for what you end up with...I started out with only $500 in the flintlock to start with. The Pedersoli is running
at least twice that amount. Until some reasonably priced source of flintlocks is found--not Indy/Paki--this is probably
not a viable option.

[prestontoprail]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Thanks for the update Craig! Would it be possible to post some pictures of the recent work to your flintlock? Although you are right about the steep prices on quality flintlock reproductions and the fact that we will not see these by the dozens in the ranks, I for one am interested in purchasing the Pedersoli "1816 flintlock" and having Todd make conversion... no matter the cost. You could say that I've got a personal agenda to have one of these for events without trying to refurbish and trash an original, even if the price venture is similar. Thanks for bringing this project to Todd, it's good to know someone has stepped up to the plate of doing this conversion without heeding to Zimmerman's "law suit" excuse.