Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

[GPM]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Keep in mind the rear of the lock on the 1840 comes to a pointed profile. Very different from the 1842. I'm not sure there would be enough wood to work with on the Italian repro.

[Bill]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Keep in mind the rear of the lock on the 1840 comes to a pointed profile. Very different from the 1842. I'm not sure there would be enough wood to work with on the Italian repro.

Greg,

When I compared my original M-1835/40 to the Armi-Sport M-1842 it looked like there would be enough of the "Flats" on the 42's stock to inlet the larger M-1835/40 lockplate, although you might not be able to maintain an equal margin all the way around the plate.

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Very interesting discussion. In the end we are about where we started with this project...lacking a decent US 1816/22 cone-in-barrel conversion.
Looks like the best route to one of these is the "Wickett" method, build one from parts. I would have to call this effort a qualified success. It looks
decent and works very well for its intended purpose, but it is pretty clear a Belgian alteration cannot be economically produced in any quantity
sufficient to meet the demand.

[OldState]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

You guys have got me VERY, VERY, interested. The wealth of information on this board always amazes me. I really need to stay off this site; it costs me money.

In any event, I'm looking at building one these and have to decide which of the various options to pursue. BUT, before I do that I was looking to get some books on these muskets so I know what I'm building is correct. I've seen a few on Amazon but prefer some suggestions if you all would be so kind.

[dirtyshirt]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Very interesting discussion. In the end we are about where we started with this project...lacking a decent US 1816/22 cone-in-barrel conversion.
Looks like the best route to one of these is the "Wickett" method, build one from parts. I would have to call this effort a qualified success. It looks
decent and works very well for its intended purpose, but it is pretty clear a Belgian alteration cannot be economically produced in any quantity
sufficient to meet the demand.

I would have to agree. For the money it is the most feasible to have a 100% usable piece. Of course resources to get the job done can be hard to come by, but with the knowledge and experience on the board such as John Wickett, it can be done. Shared knowledge benefits all.

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

He ought to start an online research site....Wickettpedia.

[OldState]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Does anyone have the stamps to mark the barrel, stock, etc if one were to build a musket from parts?

[prestontoprail]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

I'm not sure who "exactly" has the right stamps for an 1816/22 defarb project......but I've been told that Zimmerman has defarbed several of the Pedersoli percussion conversion (the colt wanna-be) models by applying correct stamps and fixing this and that. I'm not sure if Todd Watts is ready to tackle those stamps yet, but I sure hope he does as I would much rather deal with him since his stamps don't have lettering scattered all around the place. Of course, if you get an original lock plate for your project, that most likely will not need to be re-stamped.

What you pretty much need to start with is a Bob Hoyt barrel (the Belgian style modification) and a Dunlap stock. Both the barrel and stock should be of period appropriate measurements. From there I would start hunting down all the original metal parts you would need......or any reproduction of original parts as well. The trick is to stay away from any repro parts that go to the Pedersoli 1816. As for where to get the metal parts: I would start with Lodgewood and S&S firearms. They have just about everything you need, although I'm not sure what condition all the parts might be. Not to mention you need to make sure you get a appropriate screws for the original parts and I suppose (not entirely sure) you might need to install the threading dimensions into the stock for the screws.

Lodgewood seems to have almost every part you would need:

http://www.lodgewood.com/Springfield%201816.htm

As does S&S firearms:

http://www.ssfirearms.com/images/2010%20Catalog/2010%20Catalog%20main%20Gun%20Parts.pdf

Unfortunately these muskets were not parts inter-changeable, so that slows down this project a bit. Also, it may be better to find one of the dealers who is selling a fully functioning lock with hammer, lock components and lock plate with the brass dishpan brazened off. It'll be a little pricey, but that should save you a lot of trouble in completing the lock without tinkering with disassociated parts forever. Again, I think the trick to making a good kit of one of these just requires some woodworking skill to install the buttplate, barrel bands, band springs, screws and trigger guard. The stock also comes with lock mortise that will need to be customized to the lock plate you have on hand. But once you polish all your metal parts, fit all the parts to the stock with a precision wood-to-metal fit.......then just oil that stock, fit the pieces, drop in the ramrod and your good to go!

The only thing I'm wondering about is how Bob Hoyt taps the barrel with the cone in the right place. Since all the originals were hand made, I wonder if the tang on the barrel will fit on the Dunlap stock without reshaping the slot on the stock? And since you have to purchase a random original conversion hammer, will it fall right into place on the cone of the barrel? I doubt it, but I'm not certain. Perhaps Steve Blancard can correct me on this since he's able to look at the parts directly. At least fitting an original bayonet shouldn't be a problem since Hoyt's barrels are made with original dimensions in mind. Unfortunately this is the only way to do it, but at least when all is said and done it will resemble an accurately made reproduction.......pretty cool considering you can't get an accurate reproduction of any weapon from any source without further tinkering.

Can you imagine how much the Rifle Shoppe could change our hobby and make a killing by providing entire kits for weapons that are not available to us from the Italians? We could have these projects provided to us in kit form, all ready to be put together with no crazy fitting required for the Lorenz, 1816/22 springfield, German or French smoothbores. It's unfortunate that they have the capability to do that and it is such an impossibility to acquire these items from them. I can't get anyone to answer a call or email from that shop. Not to mention hardly anybody is willing to wait up to 2 years for some unfinished parts to arrive in the mail. Therefore, it's back to Hoyt barrels, dunlap stocks and old original parts for the rest of us.

Mr. Wickett also has a good idea of going to an NSSA national tournament to hunt for your parts first. There are plenty of musket part vendors who attend these things that we in the Living History community are simply not aware of.......many of them don't have websites or email addresses. Craig also mentioned you could buy a complete 1822 cone-in-barrel from one of these shows that has already been refurbished by one of the NSSA members.......heck, it might even be an example of exactly what we are talking about above in regards to the parts. Either way, I'm glad to see there are others are interested in getting this musket represented in our hobby, no matter if it is in very small numbers or not. Now that we are past the old voodoo of these cone-in-barrels being "dangerous", we can finally bring them out to the field without worry of banishment. Now let's start a lobby for more M41 "mississippi" representation!!

[OldState]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

After looking into this further for the last week, I'm thinking a whole original lock assembly is necessary to start with for the reason discussed and that the repros do not look "right" to me. I'm thinking it would be best to have a lock with hammer and new stock first, then send that to Hoyt if he make the barrels to order. I wish Hoyt had a website; I'll have to call or stop by in my travels.
I noticed on the pics Steve posted on his project that Hoyt placed the cone far to the right and in a "hump" so that it almost resembles a bolster conversion. Is this how some looked? I'm wondering if that was done to match Steve's lock geometry or if that is how Hoyt makes them.

[Blair]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Most of the type arms in question here (cone-in-the-barrel) were altered/converted in the 1850's
This is well within the production range and development of "interchangeability".
Once the National Armories approved and authorized this particular type of alteration/conversion, they also produce tooling, dies, jigs and gages to help facilitate their accepted cone-in-the-barrel variation.
These were provided to Arsenals, which had the capability to make these changes, as well as to various commercial contractors who had contracted with the Government to do this particular alteration. There is a much greater degree of interchangeability within this type of conversion that is being asserted or implied here.

I don't know of the image I have included within this posting will come through. (If it does not, please e-mail me. I'll send it to you.)
It shows what was/is the Armory accepted variation for an 1816/22 cone-in-the-barrel type alteration.

The cone-in-the-barrel variation shown in the photograph, is a more correct European style variation found more frequently on French made firearms that were manufacture as Percussion firearms.
That being said, it is not my intent to say that this method of cone-in-the barrel type variation was not used by some contractors for various State alterations.
This is not, however, a U S Armory approved method, and therefore should not be considered standard.
P. S., the image I tried to post did not come through, sorry. you may find it here,

http://www.cwreenactors.com/forum/album.php?albumid=131&pictureid=786

[prestontoprail]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

This is not, however, a U S Armory approved method, and therefore should not be considered standard.

Forgive me, I may have misread the statement. Are you implying that the "Belgian" / "cone-in-barrel" method of alteration was not common for the 1816/22's converted to percussion? Also, in regards to parts interchangeability: I'm sure that the cone/nipple and thread size for the tapped in cone vent was kept uniform as probably was the long, arched over hammer used for it......but the flintlock muskets themselves were not machine made parts interchangeable. As far as my research tells me, the first parts interchangeable musket was the 1842 springfield smoothbore musket. I can see the arsenals and contractors using interchangeable pieces for the percussion alteration (cone, hammer, threading, stamps) but I don't see any evidence of them "fixing" anything else about the 1816/22 flintlock. I was mentioning the difficulty of putting together a kit of an 1822 springfield from disassociated original parts.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

The advantage that the armorers of old had that we do not (when purchasing a pre-made "cone conversion" barrel) is that of being able to install the percussing hammer on the lock on the gun and using that to determine where the cone needs to be.

The geometry of the lock and stock on an original non-parts-interchangeable musket "is what it is".
If a pre-made barrel doesn't fit into that geometry, there is probably a bit of "wiggle room" that one can eek out using creative inletting of the barrel tang. But, if the barrel is too far off, you're probably hosed.

No one said this was an easy task!
;)

[OldState]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

"The advantage that the armorers of old had that we do not (when purchasing a pre-made "cone conversion" barrel) is that of being able to install the percussing hammer on the lock on the gun and using that to determine where the cone needs to be."


That is why I am thinking about getting a lock and stock first and sending that to Hoyt (if that is an option) thus giving the "armorer" that advantage.

[ndnchf]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Since my 1816 project is being discussed I'll throw in a few observations. I agree with Blair that the Hoyt belgian conversion is not exactly like the US arsenal standard. It is very similar, but there is more of a bulge on the right side. When I compare the Hoyt barrel with the original Harpers Ferry M1816 barrel from my parts musket (dated 1827) it is apparent.





The cone on the Hoyt barrel is a tad further to the right than the original so I anticipate the need to tweak the hammer a little or not inlet the lock plate quite as much as original. The forward/aft position of the cone looks very close to the original.

I must admit that due to other obligations I have not had much time for the project lately. I have started to fit the barrel to the stock, but have not yet got it seated. But I'm pleased with the Dunlap inletting, it is pretty close.



As mentioned, no one said this was an easy project. It will take patience and care to meld everything together into an authentic, functional M1816 Harpers Ferry musket.

Glad to answer any other questions I can about the project.

[Blair]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Steve,

There is a US Armory 1816/22 conversion variation that uses a brazed bolster (also known as a Belgian conversion) that uses a hammer that does not have the "offset" that the cone-in-the-barrel "Belgian" type conversion requires. One of these hammer variations might serve your needs better. It may still require some bending but not as much.