Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

[Todd Watts]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Going to have to add the "lump" and redo the cone seat yet again, as Craig informed me after a few firings the cone worked loose due to too few threads holding it. For safety, I will take it and weld the hole back over, weld up a larger lump and shape then re-thread that. Some guns are just cursed. This time however I am going to get the cone angle right no matter what.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Hallo!

As were some of the originals. Cones are sometimes found to be loose.

Curt

[Daniel]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Hello,

Has anyone seen a Bobby Holt conversion barrel? If so, what do you think about it? Any drawbacks to them?

Dan Stewart

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

No drawbacks to any barrel Hoyt does of which I am aware.

We will try a 5/16 x 18 cone with more surface area to grab the threads in the barrel.
8 x 1 mm was a poor choice in retrospect.

[ndnchf]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I have a Bobby Hoyt M1816 Belgian conversion barrel. It is beautifully made with a nice hump for the cone to go in. Plently of threads. An original bayonet fits it perfectly. I'm using it, along with a Dunlop stock and original Harpers Ferry lock (dated 1827) and furniture to build my militia/early war musket.

I'm just gettting started on this project, but here's what I'm working with:

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

That is the perfect way to do one of these things. The stock will take some time, but I'll wager
you have something special when all is said and done.

[Dan Wambaugh]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Steve,

That tempts me very much to do something similar with the 1829 dated Springfield cone in barrel lock I have here. If you would consider documenting your progress and perhaps post an after action report I would be VERY interested in seeing it!!!

[ACo.]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I have a Bobby Hoyt M1816 Belgian conversion barrel. It is beautifully made with a nice hump for the cone to go in. Plently of threads. An original bayonet fits it perfectly. I'm using it, along with a Dunlop stock and original Harpers Ferry lock (dated 1827) and furniture to build my militia/early war musket.

I'm just gettting started on this project, but here's what I'm working with:

ndnchf, am I correct in assuming that Hoyt used an original breach to make that barrel? Or is he having breaches with the proper "lump" cast? It is very interesting.

[Todd Watts]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

It would really be a great idea to modern-cast a correct breech and then thread barrels to the modern casting breech. That would solve these problems but to do it and make it profitable, you'd probably need to sell a hundred or more of the guns per year to recoup the costs of having the breeches properly cast. One problem that Craig's gun has is that, like so many of the repro guns, the breech is a casting. Cast steels does not weld very well. The thousands of fisures and bubbles locked inside the casting are filled with dormant air/gasses. When steel gets to welding-temps those pockets rupture and the steel suddenly becomes brittle. It takes a steady hand and quick reflexes to get the surface quickly to temperature and then get the flame off the metal the moment you see it starting to clump and break up. I have had some guys ask me to weld-in the deep groove of the "snail" on the cone seat of the Enfields to make that area look thicker like originals. But, the breech is cast and doing that could very easily cause a huge problem that would require lots of filing and re-welding to correct so I stay off that idea.

[ndnchf]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

I don't mean to hijack Todd's thread discussing the Hoyt barrel. I am facinated by what Todd is doing and look forward to seeing more on this. I only mentioned the Hoyt barrel to show there is another way to go.

I'm working hard at the office right now;), but when I get home I'll take a couple close up photo of the barrel. As far as I can tell, its entirely new made.

Steve Blancard

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Hallo!

It can be done, but as shared it is a matter of someone selling enough of them to recoup the production costs of having a breech setion made with an integral rather than ad added "bump" for the cone.

A number of barrel makers (such as Jencso) have been using the cast breech sections left over from the old Mike Yeck Springfields. The breech section slides onto the modified sleeved end of the barrel, is soldered, then the "seam" is cosmetically disguised so as to be invisible. And then the standard breechplug goes in.

Curt

[ACo.]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Todd, you are absolutely correct in all of your thinking. I personally would love to see cast breaches available for the Belgian conversion as well as one of the Confederate bolster conversions but I have a feeling it will never happen. Liability worries everyone these days and the maker would not be able to exercise the control over the installation of the breaches that would be necessary to protect himself. Gone are the days of the 1960s when Yeck started making cast replacement breaches for the M1861 Rifle Musket - of the correct size.

I am surprised to hear that Craig's gun has a cast breach, I would think that as a flint gun that it would have been better to make a standard barrel like all custom made barrels are. I know that Colerain, Getz, Rayl and a few others would be more than happy to make the barrels properly. They all make barrels to Rifle Shoppe specifications and are as close to interchangeable with originals as the original manufacturing/finishing processes will allow. Their products could be have the small lump for the cone seat welded on quite well. After hand shaping and drilling, the final machining of the cone seat would be a snap. (In a manner of speaking, that is. It is not an easy job you have taken on.)

I don't think you hijacked anything Steve and I doubt that Todd thinks so either. If you get time, try some detailed close-ups of the breach of the Hoyt barrel showing the cone seat with and without the nipple. Always fun to see what others are doing. Now, if you all will excuse me, I am going back to dreaming about a cast Confederate conversion breach for a correctly sized modern made barrel so I can build a repeop of the gun shown below. It is a Robinson Conversion (done in Richmond) of a Rev. War veteran French Charleville musket for either the Commonwealth of Virginia or the Confederacy during the early war period. Not exactly on topic, but a good example of what could be done if a courageous person could come up with the wherewithal to do the castings.
:)

[ACo.]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Hallo!

It can be done, but as shared it is a matter of someone selling enough of them to recoup the production costs of having a breech setion made with an integral rather than ad added "bump" for the cone.

A number of barrel makers (such as Jencso) have been using the cast breech sections left over from the old Mike Yeck Springfields. The breech section slides onto the modified sleeved end of the barrel, is soldered, then the "seam" is cosmetically disguised so as to be invisible. And then the standard breechplug goes in.

Curt

Curt, you and I posted at the same time or nearly so. The Yeck breaches are threaded aren't they? The ones I saw a Ft. Shenandoah years ago were, as I recall, but maybe I am wrong? My memory is not as good as it once was....

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Hallo!

I am embarrassed to say, I don't remember. Sigh.

When Mike Y. folded his run of M1861's, Richmond's, and M1863's due to the increasing lack of quality control (something wrong, bring it back for an no-hassle exchange), he allowed us to come up to Monroe and "go in the back" and go through his left over parts.
I used my last M1861 breech for a Richmond Steven J. made for me in 1998.

My fuzzy memory says that the breech sections were smooth, and just "slid in," (male to female) but I may be wrong.

We owe Steve and Marilyn J. a dinner out. If I see him soon, I will ask him.

Curt

(Thinking of "Froggy" Jone A. who returned four M1861's to Mike Yeck because they sprayed like a garden hose and would not group. And Mike gave him a new one each time. Plus, John was doping "chin up's" trying to get the ramrod down on a round.
He blamed poor barrel making.
Ended up John was using way over-sized Minies he was casting out of tire weights because they were free.)

[ndnchf]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Here are a few shots of my Bobby Hoyt M1816 Belgian conversion barrel. Sorry I don't have a better camera, but I think you can see what it looks like.









This barrel had been used for about 2 years by an N-SSA member before I bought it. So its not brand-spankin' new, but will clean up nicely for my project. The bore is perfect.

Steve Blancard