Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

    Just heard from my favorite gunsmith Todd Watts that he believes that the flintlock musket conversion to an Arsenal or "cone-in-barrel" project is finished. I will pick it up Saturday at BRI but I have asked Todd to go ahead and post some images of it on here for anybody interested in seeing how it turned out. This particular musket was purchased by me from a gunbroker.com auction where it was listed as a Pedersoli Charleville. I knew at a glance it was not a Charleville, but figured it could the kissin' cousin US 1795 (Watts has one of these himself) that Pedersoli makes. After it arrived, it was pretty clear this was not a Pedersoli model, or completely any model I had ever seen before. It does not really meet the textbook definition of any of the US Models, or their Italian made reproductions but most closely resembles the 1795 type II or type III (alternately known as the 1808 and the 1812). It does appear have a Pedersoli lock assembly, bands, possibly the barrel and a Pedersoli Charleville ramrod. It is not Indy/Paki-made and has good quality parts so Todd and I opined that it could be one of those Rifle Shoppe kits, but who knows? Anyway...I won't bore everyone with Todd's learning experiences with it at my expense, but he now knows what it will take to offer a reproduction of this particular musket.

    1. You will need a quality repro flintlock musket, obviously. The Pedersoli 1816 is probably the best musket to start off with although cost can be prohibitive if purchased NIB. BRI is in the processing of becoming a Pedersoli dealer. Pedersoli also makes a Prussian 1809 in flint with brass bands that could be a potential conversion candidate. These tend to be in the $1,000 to $1,200 range from Dixie Gun Works. However, they do come up from time to time second hand for considerably less if you keep your eyes open. I just picked up a Zimmerman defarbed Pedersoli 1816 conv musket with a bayonet and TMD scabbard for about the cost of a repro Armi Sport US 1842. Point being, it can be done.

    2. The conversion musket hammer on mine was an original part, but these are not expensive or hard to find. The hammer usually requires some fitting to get the lock geometry to work out right.

    The US 1816 conversion musket (cone-in-barrel) was a very common musket on both sides early in the war. It will be nice to have this particular option available for those who want a smoothbore musket alternative to the Armi Sport US 1842, and the Pedersoli cone in drum conversion (Colt-type but not really) musket.
    Last edited by Craig L Barry; 02-03-2010, 11:50 PM.
    Craig L Barry
    Editor, The Watchdog, a non-profit 501[c]3
    Co-author (with David Burt) Suppliers to the Confederacy
    Author, The Civil War Musket: A Handbook for Historical Accuracy
    Member, Company of Military Historians

  • #2
    Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

    I'm kinda eager to see pics of how it turned out...for some strange reason I've always liked cone in barrel conversions.
    Scott McGowan,
    35th OVI, Co. G
    Co. A, 1st Bat. 19th US Inf
    Past Master,
    Lebanon Lodge #26, F&AM

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

      Several months ago when I sent my one-off Charlesville replica cone-in-barrel conversion to Zimmerman for remarking, etc., he informed me something, distilled, like there were no cone-in-barrel conversions of U.S. pre-1816 muskets wrought. I presume he meant by U.S. arsenals or on U.S. orders. Dunno if this is true, dunno what Southrons did during the war, but I love my musket none-the-less.
      David Fox

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

        Can't wait to see pics. Next musket purchase, even if it is some time out.
        Bryant Roberts
        Palmetto Guards/WIG/LR

        Interested in the Palmetto Guards?
        palmettoguards@gmail.com

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

          Craig - this is really exciting to hear, I look forward to the photos too.

          Cone in barrel (Belgian) conversions are almost non-existent in the reenacting hobby today. I recently set out to resolve this for my own purpose. I'm building a M1816 using a new Bobby Hoyt Belgian conversion barrel, Dunlop stock and original 1827 Harpers Ferry lock and hardware. I'm anxious to finish this and take it into the field. My Zimmerman 1842 Harpers Ferry will get a little lonely after that ;-)

          Steve Blancard
          13th VA Co. A.
          Steve Blancard
          Corporal
          13th Virginia Infantry, Company A.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

            Originally posted by David Fox View Post
            ...he informed me something, distilled, like there were no cone-in-barrel conversions of U.S. pre-1816 muskets wrought. I presume he meant by U.S. arsenals or on U.S. orders. Dunno if this is true, dunno what Southrons did during the war, but I love my musket none-the-less.
            I know I have seen cone-conversions of Type 1 US M1816/22's. I *thought* I had seen some earlier muskets, as well. However, I don't want to state anything definitively without something solid to back it up. I'll have to dig around the ole hard-drive later on to see what I can find.

            Regarding CS conversions and conversions to earlier pattern muskets:
            The CS "Echoes..." shows a Virginia Manufactory (Pattern of 1808, I think) musket converted using a pattent breech, similar to a Lehman conversion. Also, CS Arms has two contract US pattern "drum conversion" muskets in stock that utilize a "civilian style" hammer.

            Generally, I think a repop Charleville can be made into a better "conversion repop" than the Pedersoli "1816". The many incarnations of the US M1795 Types 1, 2, and 3 (aka 1795/1808/1812), as well as contractor-produced versions of this musket, are variable enough in the shapes/contours of the stock, lockplates, etc., so as to leave plenty of room to convert the musket by any one of a number of methods, and perhaps even reshape the stock, to achieve a very believable stand-in for a pre-1822 converted musket. By contrast, even though the Pedersoli 1816 is a high-quality firearm, it simply isn't a good replica of a US M1816/22... it just doesn't "look like" a '16.

            The "Convertable Conversion" might be the ultimate in flexibility! ...a drum conversion that can be interchanged with a flint configuration so as to be suitable for early war CS or War of 1812. There was a gent around the fora a couple years ago who purchased and sold a number of muskets, including "reconvertable" ones.
            John Wickett
            Former Carpetbagger
            Administrator (We got rules here! Be Nice - Sign Your Name - No Farbisms)

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

              I can't post pics for some reason. May be the fire wall or something on my work computer. I'll leave that to Craigster after he takes this critter back. I test fired 3 sixty grain FFFg loads last night from it (blanks) and it worked fine. The breech of this gun had been drilled half-way across its face by someone making a vent for it. It already had an angled vent ahead of the rer vent. I had to run screws into these and weld them over to close the vents off. I ran the rear screw all the way across the face of the breech and welded it over then ground it fairly flush to keep the trench left by the vent attempt from collecting fouling. After I reassembled the breech and barrel I had to weld and re-weld it several times to get the vents closed off. Sure hope nobody every wants to pull the breech on that gun! All that heating and re-heating managed to harden the breech where the cone had to be drilled and I burnt a TiN bit blunt trying to get the cone drilled. After I finally got it drilled with multiple resharpenings of the bit I threaded the cone, assembled it and found top my aggravation that the cone angle was not right and thus the hammer fell just shy of the nipple.:angry_smi Ran another screw in and welded it, ground it, burnt the TiN bit blunt again which further work-hardened the spot, so I welded it all back over and bought a Cobalt bit :baring_te and then drilled it while lubricating it with a thick cloud of oaths and swears. Aha! It reached the depth of the cone's shank which went through the barrel wall leaving no "seat base" at all. I shortened the shank of the supplied cone enough that it won't get into the breech area and threaded the hole and then screwed it in, grinding a shallow angled seat on the barrel exterior to allow the cone to thread in snug. The angle was not as far back as I'd meant to put it, but the hammer nose does just barely reach the nipple and reliably detonate caps. Lesson learned - drill cone seat first, then weld over vents.:o I had to weld and extension on the tumbler square to accept the thicker percussion hammer, and weld beads on its outside square faces and inside the hammer then file to fit tightly to make the hammer fit well. Threaded that for the hammer screw and cut off the old pan flush and plugged old flinter screw holes with the old screws and filed flush. It works. It ain't the most impressive bit of smithery I've ever done, but heck, it's only Craig's gun anyway.:p

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

                Originally posted by David Fox View Post
                ...cone-in-barrel conversion... what Southrons did during the war(?)...
                Isn't that what M. A. Baker was doing at the Fayetteville Arsenal, late winter '61?
                Last edited by Vuhginyuh; 02-04-2010, 06:07 PM. Reason: 'for' to 'at'
                B. G. Beall (Long Gone)

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.)

                  Yes, ideally, no pre 1812 flintlocks were altered by the Federals.

                  When the decision was made in 1842 not to make anymore flintlock arms, a survey of arsenals/armories/depots was conducted (and extended by the Mexican War until 1848) arms made prior to 1812 were held as "4th Class" arms. Theye were collected and the majority sold at public auction for between $3.00 and .40 each.

                  2nd Class arms made between 1821 and 1831 were either issued or held for use or as suitable for alteration.

                  Curt
                  Curt Schmidt
                  In gleichem Schritt und Tritt, Curt Schmidt

                  -Hard and sharp as flint...secret, and self-contained, and solitary as an oyster.
                  -Haplogroup R1b M343 (Subclade R1b1a2 M269)
                  -Pointless Folksy Wisdom Mess, Oblio Lodge #1
                  -Vastly Ignorant
                  -Often incorrect, technically, historically, factually.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

                    Originally posted by David Fox View Post
                    Several months ago when I sent my one-off Charlesville replica cone-in-barrel conversion to Zimmerman for remarking, etc., he informed me something, distilled, like there were no cone-in-barrel conversions of U.S. pre-1816 muskets wrought. I presume he meant by U.S. arsenals or on U.S. orders. Dunno if this is true, dunno what Southrons did during the war, but I love my musket none-the-less.
                    You are correct, NO pre-'16 muskets were converted by the Belgian "cone-in-barrel" method. I have never seen confirmed Confederate conversion by the method under discussion but anything is possible. AFAIK, all Southern conversions were done by either the civilian style drum and nipple conversion or by dovetailing and brazing (not welding) a bolster to the breach. Also, there were no confirmed conversions of purchased European flint muskets to percussion in North America. Some already here at the beginning of the War may have been done by the South, there are several Brown Bess muskets that show service under Confederate service but confirmation is very difficult as they are all by the drum and nipple and could have been done by civilian gunsmiths between 1840 and 1870.
                    Thomas Pare Hern
                    Co. A, 4th Virginia
                    Stonewall Brigade

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

                      Yes and No. TP Hern is correct that the US1816s which were in classes one and two, plus the later US 1835/40 flintlocks (which were mostly all class one) were the main recipients of the Arsenal conversion here in the US. This reproduction was of god-knows-what, so we did it for practice. To my knowledge, no Charlevilles, US 1795s (1808, 1812) etc were done "cone in barrel" at Springfield or Harpers Ferry. Most were left in flint or if they were done at some point it was w/ the bolster conversions or cone in drum. The best repro weapon for the Arsenal/Belgian/cone-in-barrel conversion that Todd Watts can produce is the US 1816 from Pedersoli, at least at this point in time.

                      Other European repro flinties can be done cone-in-barrel especially if they are a reproduction of any one of the muskets knocked off by Liege (Belgium) like the Potsdam or these European musket repros could be done in various other conversion methods. Point being, there are other options to the US 1842 smoothbore musket now for those interested. Expensive option because of the cost of the flintlock, but none-the-less unique. Neither side--to my knowledge--imported any European muskets still in flint and converted them here in America, but Belgian muskets were widely noted in use according to period accounts. About a third of Union troops were still carrying them at Vicksburg if Grant's memoirs are to be trusted on this detail.
                      Last edited by Craig L Barry; 02-05-2010, 02:10 AM.
                      Craig L Barry
                      Editor, The Watchdog, a non-profit 501[c]3
                      Co-author (with David Burt) Suppliers to the Confederacy
                      Author, The Civil War Musket: A Handbook for Historical Accuracy
                      Member, Company of Military Historians

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

                        Craig you are correct about the use of the smoothbore musket by Union (and Southern) forces as late as Vicksburg and even in the Eastern theater at Gettysburg where the smoothbore served with distinction in repelling Picket's Charge - there are certainly not enough cone in barrel conversions in reenacting but the average reenactor should put his efforts into acquiring a correct US musket with this type of conversion. There may have been European guns converted by the Belgian method in Europe but I have never seen one (maybe others have) and the plain, average, everyday Prussian was done in Prussia by a standard bolster method and imported for use by Northern forces in fair quantity.

                        I congratulate you on your efforts having Mr. Watts, a good gunsmith willing to do the work, complete the conversion. Like others, I am looking forward to seeing it. And please keep encouraging others, the smoothbore musket needs to be out there in the hands of both sides in pre-1864 events.
                        Thomas Pare Hern
                        Co. A, 4th Virginia
                        Stonewall Brigade

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

                          I saw some pics of originals with an obviously brazed-on lump of steel into which the cone had been threaded. I did not know these had also been dovetailed. That would be fairly labor intenssive for a hand-file even today, but it certainly would be more secure than plain brazing. I toyed with brazing these, but feared the prospects of brazing not holding. Welding is the way to go today for safety. There is not much barrel wall thickness and actually welding up a lump and threading that is better than what I did on this one. For re-enactor blanks it is plenty strong, but I'd not want to fire a tightly-fitted projectile especially with a "hunting load" like some guys load.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

                            Todd, it sounds as if you made a wise decision, brazing such a small lump and then threading the cone into it would certainly be downright dangerous. The dovetailed and brazed bolster I was speaking of is very similar in appearance to the bolster on the US M1842 musket. This is also the way that the US M1842 was percussioned. Machine operations for these conversions were set up by CS contractors in Richmond and Lynchburg.

                            As I said above, I am looking forward to seeing your work, a friend of mine, a full time gunsmith here in Harrisonburg, Va. did one about 15 or so years ago for a local reenactor in the 10 Va. It was successful, strong and looked very good but he said it was more work than he felt he could charge for so he has always turned down requests to do any more. Keep up the good work.
                            Thomas Pare Hern
                            Co. A, 4th Virginia
                            Stonewall Brigade

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

                              Hallo!

                              Correct...

                              Perhaps not so oddly enough, we are victims of the same thing that bothered ordnance folks when the decision was made to rifle or rifle-and-sight percussion-altered flintlock muskets. (And the prefered to solution to the risk of increased breech pressures caused by the .69 Elongated Ball was to ideally cut off the breech end and attach a new breech with an integral bolster for the cone.)

                              In the Modern World, there has been a "reluctance" IMHO largely due to fear of lawsuits on the part of lads to make "Belgian" or "cone in breech" options for us because not only for the design but for never knowing how much powder someone somewhere might just put under that .69 "Minie."

                              Curt
                              Who keeps saying how much he regrets selling his repro Belgian conversion instead of the M1842 Mess
                              Curt Schmidt
                              In gleichem Schritt und Tritt, Curt Schmidt

                              -Hard and sharp as flint...secret, and self-contained, and solitary as an oyster.
                              -Haplogroup R1b M343 (Subclade R1b1a2 M269)
                              -Pointless Folksy Wisdom Mess, Oblio Lodge #1
                              -Vastly Ignorant
                              -Often incorrect, technically, historically, factually.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X