Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

[ACo.]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Wheel weights are a lot of fun aren't they? And so inexpensive. :D Sometimes people are so "careful" with their money....

Let m know what you find out about the Yeck breaches, I haven't seen one for years. There used to be a fellow at Ft. Shenandoah that had a couple as recently as maybe 10 years ago, but now that I think about it, like you I am not sure about threaded or smooth. I must be getting old, the memory is not what it used to be. :p

I still want someone to come up with good castings of a Confederate conversion for a correct sized M1795 or Virginia Manufactory barrel.....

[ACo.]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Steve thanks very much for going to the trouble of posting the excellent pictures. That is a good looking barrel, Hoyt does good work.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

I still want someone to come up with good castings of a Confederate conversion for a correct sized M1795 or Virginia Manufactory barrel.....

You're not the only one. That'd be a great project!

[David Fox]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

The reference to Yeck barrels made my nostalgia gene quiver. The Yeck barrel I ordered in the late '70s for an M.1855 rifle-musket project fit the original stock quite well. Yeck's gimmick appears to have involved giving the finished barrel a squeeze over the last few inches to achieve a choke in the bore. The theory was, one presumes, that the minie would achieve greater accuracy and perhaps velocity as a result of such treatment, much like the squeeze-bore antitank guns adopted in limited numbers by the Germans and others in WW II. In practice, I experienced two unfortunate side effects: my oringinal bayonet was a rattle fit and the piece fouled vilely at the muzzle making already difficult loading more so. Lavish bullet lubrication helped some. Accuracy was never up to a Robert Hoyt reline job.

I'll try soon to post pictures of my cone-in-barrel conversion of a Charleville, now back from restamping by Zimmerman. In it's earlier incarnation it appears in another forum thread.

[Blair]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Mike Yeck's breeches were threaded to the barrels and a different size thread was used to screw the breech pluge into the rear end of the barrel. This effectively locked the three sectons together. With the bolster/breech section serving a s sort of sleeve. This method was required by by N-SSA regutlations, either when using original cut off breech sections or new made castings made from original breech sections.

I am unaware of Mike Yeck "chocking" any of his barrels. In fact, my conversations with him, he was very mush against the practice. It counters the best known minds of the time to efficient muzzle loading practices. I am only aware of Zoli doing this with his "Zouave" Rifles.
Blair

[ACo.]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Mike Yeck's breeches were threaded to the barrels and a different size thread was used to screw the breech pluge into the rear end of the barrel. This effectively locked the three sectons together. With the bolster/breech section serving a s sort of sleeve. This method was required by by N-SSA regutlations, either when using original cut off breech sections or new made castings made from original breech sections.

.....................................

Blair

Thanks Blair, that's what I thought but memory is an imperfect thing.

[rlhardingjr]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Folks..,

Maybe I have missed it here, but has anyone detailed how the original cone-in-breech conversions were actually done. So far - all I have heard to perform the present day conversion was the welding/brazing of a blob over the intend area where the cone was to be place. And yes, this is how I managed the conversion of my Charlieville/M1795 - or there abouts some thirty years ago. But is that how it was really done?. I have been told that the way it was done involved removing the breech plug, drill a pilot hole in the intended location, inserting a mandrel into the breech, heating the breech to temp (whatever that may well be) and then driving a punch-like tool into the pilot hole which actually expanded the pilot hole forming that distinctive shoulder around the area of the cone. After the barrel cooled, the hole was drilled and tapped for the cone. In my understanding - this operation never involved a welded or brazed "blob". Have I been misinformed or is this the jest of how it may have actually been done.

My converted original M1816/33 has that distinctive shoulder, but not very much. Not even as much as my home-made conversion.

Regards,

Regards,

[Todd Watts]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

I have no idea how that could work. The amount of metal added would have to have been a separate piece. What you may be describing is a form of brazing or welding. The rear sights were soldered on by placing a ribbon of lead-solder on the spot, then clamping the sight base to the spot and a red-hot iron placed into the bore to the spot. This transferred heat to melt the solder. To do the lump for a cone seat, this also may be the technique. The mandrel may be what transferred the heat while the lump was clamped in place of brazing material, either brass or better yet silver. A better hold could be obtained by welding the lump in place then shaping it. A mandrel would be needed to hold the piece in the furnace I would assume. Metal, to have been pulled out as far as the little lumps I see on originals, would have had to be heated nearly molten and pulled on to get it that far out. This would leave a weakend place under there which is in the back of the chamber wall - a bad place to have weakened. I'd love to read an account of how it was done by an armory armorer. My guess is that many times they simply replaced the breech part with one cast/forged for the cone-in-barrel.

[Blair]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Rick,

I believe you are correct.
I have not seen any images within this thread that authentically reproduces the "cone in the barrel" type of "Belgian" alteration as was developed and used at the U S Armories.

Robert M. Reilly's book, "United States Military Small Arms 1816-1865", page 18 clearly shows the four basic type "Alterations form Flintlock to Percussion Ignition" as was practiced and approved by the National Armories. Fig. 59 shows the cone in the barrel alteration. The text on pages 19, 20 describes each of these.

The nipple/cone seat is literally "bumped up" from the surrounding barrel material through a process of a series of punched holes done while the barrel is hot, then this "bump" will be drilled out and tapped for the cone.
There is no brazing as is shown in Fig. 61, and there is no cutting and adding a new breech section as in Fig. 60.
And if any of you come up with an "electric welding" process for this period in history, I would very much like to hear about it!
It is also important to note that these 1816/22 barrels were schelp forged hammer welded barrels made from pure "wrought iron' bars. It will not be until the M-1835/40 that drilled steel barrels will come into common usage in this country. These will be the preferred barrels used on the "Belgian cone in the barrel" alteration because there is no welded seam that the cone "bump up" might give cause to weaken. But they, the steel barrels, offer a great deal more resistance to the "bumping up" process.

[ACo.]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Thank you Rick and Blair.

[Mojo1842]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

I would be interested in seeing an account from an actual armory employee as what I'm seeing on my conversion is that the lump where the nipple sits actually sits in a dimple on the barrel. As for the official line, here's what the 1850 Ordnance Manual says about converting flint muskets to percussion:

The Barrel is altered: 1st, by closing the vent in the side, and boring a new vent on the upper part of the barrel; 2nd, by upsetting a cone seat in the metal of the barrel and putting in a percussion cone. The screw thread of the cone for altered muskets is a little shorter than that for the new muskets, so that it may not project into the bore.

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Well, as this goes on it gets "interestinger and interestinger." I really have no
idea who supplied the parts to this particular flintlock kit, or even who made
the barrel. Depending on how the cone in barrel re-drill goes, this one may
end up as a wallhanger.

[rlhardingjr]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

As a side note to our discussion here, I can remember a vendor at the big Tulsa Gun Show back in the 80's- early 90's that had dozens of original cone-in-breech barrels just laying atop his table just begging for a new home. Back then I think the price was $100 or there abouts and yet I just walked on by never thinking I would be kicking the tar out of myself for being so blind...

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Hallo!

Herr Todd...

I have never encountered a Period "how to."

It would appear from examining original alterations, that "upsetting" meant slightly different things "under the umbrella" to different lads.

Meaning, I have seen "upsets" be as basic as what appears to be a hammer blow to the breech creating a flat that was then drill out- to various "heights"
of "bumped up" area.
I want to think that the bump was an add-on forge welded to the iron barrel as it has to come from "somewhere." I cannot document or prove it, other than many if not most of fifty-some alterations I have examined/viewed/seen/owned, seem to have "extra metal" of some minor thickness and width.

Curt

("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.)

[Todd Watts]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

After I thought about this more on my long commute home last night in traffic & I realized what was being talked about was different than what I was understanding. Yes, with the soft wroght irons and semi-steels used I believe that the heat and punch method would work. I myself might try that on one. I'd need to cut myself a close-fitting mandrel of O-1 drill rod and harden it and then just spot-heat with a torch to make the spot orange and then use a sharp hammer blow with a tapered punch to start the seat, and follow that with another heating and a second blow from a wider punch to get the seat brought out again to accept the drill and tap. I can't try it on this one as it is effectively welded together forever now so the breech can't be pulled. Back then, to close the flinter vent they'd have just inserted a tight-fitting pin into the hole with a little head like a nail, heated to welding temps and then hammer-welded the head and pin and barrel together then filed the excess off. All of the sactions could be done on the mandrel at one time I think, and after cleaning the breech it'd be read for reassembly. An armorer doing this routinely could probably have turned out a dozen guns a day. Great, now I have some new thing to try as though I needed another hobby.