Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Preston,

From personal experience: There are better ways to skin that cat. For the money you will be spending, you'd be better served to steer clear of the Pedersoli 1816. Plus, there's no guarantee that the Pedersoli parts would work with a Dunlap stock... in fact, I'd be shocked if they did work.

If "price is no object", the way to go is somewhere between your options 2 & 3, above. Dunlap stock, repro barrel, and whatever original/repro parts you feel comfortable using (The Rifle Shoppe, S&S, Lodgewood, etc.). No matter which way you go, you'll be looking at roughly $1000 in parts before you pay for labor.

The next step is to find a gunsmith.

Another option, one which might save you a buck or two, is to go to some N-SSA events (especially the nationals) and try to pick up a project gun someone has already done. You may be able to forgo the "project" altogether and get the completed piece... perhaps for as little as $1000 - $1500 ...maybe.

[GPM]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Option 4 was the route I went 10 or 12 years ago. I found a Whitney dated 34 that had been turned into a shotgun by removing the 2 upper bands and forestock. The barrel was unmolested, lug in place, no ramrod thimbles added. Stock had a large chunk missing to the rear of the lockplate which didn't matter since I was going to re-stock it. Other than the missing bands and springs, all original metal parts were useable.
I added reproduction bands, original springs and a Dunlap stock.
I did the work myself which is about the only way you can come out in my opinion.
I ended up with about 700.00 in the project, which is about what a decent original was going for at the time. But I enjoyed the work, and the musket always got plenty of attention in the field, and I didn't feel guilty about carrying an original.
I agree with the others, steer clear of using a pedersoli. The end result will not be the same and will cost more.

[LeatherHead]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

The National Armories--- Springfield & Harpers Ferry---converted hundreds of thousands of Model 1816 flintlock muskets to percussion by the Belgian cone-in-barrel methods in the mid-to-late 1850s. I have access (as does everyone with online connection to various US documents sites) to the War Department & Ordnance Department reports of the period of interest. I have downloaded all this stuff, but have yet to analyze it. My main goal is to determine the production numbers of M1816s by the National Armories, and the quantities of those converted by the National Armories to C-I-B and therefore have a better sense of how many NA flints escaped conversion. Unconverted NAs are a real though gun to find out there today to collect. The War Department was real sniffy about all the private contract 16s, and it is possible the NAs converted only NA 16s(?). In that pile of copying is mention of a mandrel inserted into the breeches of barrels undergoing conversion that (presumeably) goes well up into the breech past the to-be-formed "hill" where the new cone will go. I suspect a swaging die fitted precisely over the red hot breech, prepared for the swaging, to ensure uniformity of localized metal displacement. The C-I-Bs all feature a slight depression surrounding the cone "hill"; the metal in this depression is the metal displaced to make the "hill". I shoot live ammo, N-SSA, a 1824-dated Springfield C-I-B converted Model 1816, with 80 grs. FFG, and once hit 15 targets in a row in team events at 25 and 50 yards; horrible trigger pull with that hook mainspring (have never gauged how heavy it is.) I have also fired it off the shoulder, live, with the regulation 110 grains for a test 10 shots, which was brutally punishing even to me (6 feet, 220 pounds) which did not blow out the cone but must have been close to detatching a retina. It created in me a new & different awe for for all the 5 foot-plus soldiers firing these things in combat...

Dean Nelson
1st Maryland Infantry, CSA, N-SSA
Descent: Private Alston Houston Co. H, 30th Virginia Infantry, the Sparta Greys
Private Andrew Jackson Schroll, Co. E, 149th Illinois Infantry

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Todd duplicates that little hill for the cone seat very nicely. I think Preston and John Wickett have hit on the best options.
I would only add that for $1500 to "create" an 1816 out of Rifle Shoppe parts (I have not had good luck with them), you
could find an original in shooting condition, which would be the way to go. At least until a source is located that produces
a decent US 1816 flint smoothbore for a reasonable price. No conduit pipe barrels and teakwood stocks.

[prestontoprail]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

So I think I'm convinced the best way I should go about making one of these is exactly how Steve is doing his in kit form.

http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2919205540067858381VxQCPG

A Hoyt barrel, Dunlap Stock, original hammer...........and then I assume I'll have to hunt down a source that can sell all the metal parts complete or hunt each part down individually through Lodgewood, S&S firearms or another parts collector I'm aware of. Since neither myself nor anyone I know can even get an email reply from The Rifle Shoppe ( and their shady history) and don't think we should even consider that a realistic option. Although their parts would be just right, I certainly don't have the means to "finish" all the parts by polishing, drilling holes or vent shafts. Not to mention there could be an INCREDIBLE wait on these parts being completed and sent to me. (I've heard they "can" offer a full repro Austrian Lorenz, yet know one has had success in ordering or obtaining even one specimen). And at the same time, it seems like it's going to be pretty tough to find a complete lockplate with brazened dish pan in MINTY condition. I know I could use a polishing or burnishing machine to make dirty metal look shiny again.......but I'm trying to avoid ANY pitting or denting on these parts so it looks right for the period. However, I understand this is the only way to approach the project and come out with a musket that actually looks like a real 1822 cone-in-barrel. So I suppose I'll just have to dig around for a while trying to acquire all the disassociated metal parts in great condition and inlet them to the Dunlap stock.

I see Craig mentioned just buying a high end relic with original stock and barrel. But I'm pretty sure one or a bunch of you guys would kick my BUTT if I was carrying a mint condition original out on the field and doing all the good soldierly things with it. I'm aware it's one of those "moral sins" around the community and I myself would not be able to have fun with it by gently treating it like a baby. I want to treat the musket like a soldier is suppose to, that includes having to drop it here and there (battle scenarios), stack arms in all kinds of inclement weather, get dings and scratches marching through thicket, etc.

Also, I see that a few of you are definitely against the use of the Pedersoli 1816 Flintlock for this conversion method (which Todd Watts could apply). So I suppose I'm just wondering if you could enlighten me as to how much is "incorrect" in the shape and construction of the repro musket? I've never actually handled one of the Pedersoli's myself and all I can gleam is that the middle barrel band is an inch or so out of place, the trigger guard needs replacing with a "type 2 or 3" variant, and that the lock plate would obviously need new accurate stamps and proof marks on the barrel. But is that really it? I only say this because a friend of mine actually owns a Pedersoli 1816 flintlock that he never uses and would sell it to me for a very decent price (far from the list price). Other than the issue of money ratios in the options of creating one of these, is there anything else about the Pedersoli musket that is so inaccurate? Just curious because I can't see that much difference through these inferior internet pictures.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

So I suppose I'm just wondering if you could enlighten me as to how much is "incorrect" in the shape and construction of the repro musket?

Pretty much all of it. It is essentially a reworked, rebadged version of their "Charleville" musket. I don't even think its the right length. I'm sure parts interchange among other Pedersoli "1816's", but not on an original (which were not parts-interchangeable anyway). You could go the Pedersoli route, but based on what you're going for in your posts here, I don't think you'd be happy with the end product.

I think your idea of going for a "kit built" 1816/22 is the right way to go, spot-on.
1) It will look like an original during its service life.
2) It will feel like an original.
3) It will function like an original (bear-trap mainspring; nice, positive "clicks" at full and half-cock; full throw of the hammer)
4) You will learn things building it that you'd learn no other way, and that knowledge will be invaluable.

I'm taking on a similar project this summer with a US M1861. I've got the parts lined up. I'm clearing off my workbench in the garage. I'm reading, talking to gunsmiths, and getting the tools I'll need.

From what I've learned so far, it is analagous to my experience sewing:
Its about the journey, not the destination. If you sew "just to get a cheap coat", you'll end up with junk. If as you sew, you take the extra time to get it right, use care, and can enjoy the process, then you'll have a much, much better result when you're done.

One more note:
Don't write-off The Rifle Shoppe. From what I've heard, if they have the part in-stock, you can reliably order it. If they don't have it in-stock, look elsewhere.

Here's a US M1835 some one made from Rifle Shoppe parts:

http://www.trackofthewolf.com/Categories/partDetail.aspx?catId=12&subId=81&styleId=282&partNum=AAI-386

Best of Luck, Preston!!

[ndnchf]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Preston,

You mentioned my 1816 project, so I'll add one comment. in reference to your statment "but I'm trying to avoid ANY pitting or denting on these parts so it looks right for the period. "

Depending on the time period you want to represent, a little wear and tear or pitting could be appropriate. My musket will be for pre-war (1858-1861) and early/mid war (1861-1863). While my original parts are almost pit-free, minor pitting, wear and discoloration would be appropriate for a 30+ year old musket that had seen real world use.

Steve Blancard
13th VA. Co A.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Steve,

Very true. Here's a little more to consider:
One tough part will be finding parts with wear consistent to each other. One wouldn't want a "worn but serviceable" barrel with a "minty" looking lock and hammer. It would look like a parts gun. IF you can find and use parts that actually look like the could have feasably come from the same piece, then I agree with you.

[ndnchf]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

John - I agree. The lock and other original parts I'm using have a smooth gray (lock)/brown patina (bands, trigger gaurd, butplate etc.). I will attempt to match the patina on the new Hoyt barrel. Hopefully I can blend the two finishes together. I also plan to gently age/darken the wood and add a few bumps and bruises.

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

That is one good thing about the one that Watts and I did here, he polished the original hammer to make it match the rest of the
musket. A little field use and the whole thing starts looking about right. It doesn't take long. It is actually pretty cool and out at the battlefield
park it lends itself to a discussion of the use of these weapons in the Western theater on both sides.

[Todd Watts]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

And the fact that I think it weighs only about 6 lbs sure make it a joy to carry, right Craig? Now if I can just come up with a strong aluminum barrel and balsa wood stock I could market a whole new toy for all the weaklings among us. Hmm...

[Bill]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Gentlemen,

Would converting an Armi-Sport M-1842 into a M-1835 Belgian Alteration be a viable option? I laid my original M-1842, converted M-1835, and Armi-Sport M-1842 down next to each other and it sure seemed that it would work. The lock plate on the M-1835 is larger, but it did look like it would still fit within the "flat's" on the Armi-Sport stock. In just looking, I don't know if you could grind away the bolster on the Armi-Sport breach, or if you would have to get a new-made breach.

You would need a new lock plate and hammer, but I'd amagine you could use the internal parts from the M-1842 lock.

Very interersting thread. You guys are WAY-WAY out of my league! If this was already discussed, please forgive me.

[Todd Watts]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

I discussed this option a couple of years ago with Tim Prince and Craig Barry. I think we came to the conclusion that while it is doable it would be fairly costly by the time you had the plate, hammer and some internal parts reproduced. I also had done what you did, studying a Belgian original owned by Tim and was very intrigued by how close it was to an 1842 US model. But, there would be enough parts changing and labor involved to probably make it not worth the effort. I am always up for a challenging new addition to my lineup, but can't justify it right now because I am a good 6-8 weeks backed up as it is. My Whitney stamps have just arrived to let me get after the MS projects so that is going to come on line now as well. My stamps order was missing in mail for a week and I was beginning to fret that I'd lost a $500+ order someplace. As it turned out, it was lost in the epic Nashville flood and stuck in limbo while the mail was resorted. Whew!

[Bill]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Thanks Todd,

I got thinking about this after reading the posts concerning the cost of a reproduction M-1816/22 to start the conversion process. I would think you could buy a used Armi-Sport M-1842 for around $500 dollars, or half the price of the M-1816.

Glad you got your stamps!

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

As I read this, by M-1835 Belgian alteration, we talking about the US M1835/40 flintlock converted to percussion
via the Arsenal (a/k/a Belgian) alteration. Being first class arms, virtually all of these (30,000 or so) were
converted to percussion in the 1850s. Todd (IIRC) is referencing a Liege (Belgium) made smoothbore. Two different
breeds of cat, as they say. We are not talking about the same thing here. Let me offer this thought...

Converting a US 1842 to a US 1835/40 in order to do a cone-in-barrel conversion is possible, but due to the relatively
small numbers of these, they would still be fairly rare. The most common was the earlier US 1816/22. Hundreds of thousands
of those were converted in the years prior to the US Civil War. That's the model most under-represented in the hobby.