Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

[OldState]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Steve,
Thanks for posting your pics and all the info. Do you know if there is a reason Hoyt places the cone there (safety concerns,etc)?

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

The one Todd did for me looks more like the pic of the original, actually. It looks like Hoyt is creating a bit of built up area
as a kind of bolster there to support the cone. Obviously these are being made to withstand the rigors of live fire with patched ball.

[ndnchf]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

I don't know why Hoyt uses the built up area for sure, but I think Craig is correct - it is for safety. The cone threads are deep. All the threads on the cone have corresponding threads in the breech. Perhaps this area could be slightly re-shaped so it appears less obvious.

[Blair]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

I would only be guessing as to why Bobby Hoyt chose this method.
First and for most would be directly related to safety reasons. This method would allow the full threads of the cone to be used. Shortening the cone threads would be a safety concern. (and keep the conversion/alteration from being interchangeable) He builds barrels with the idea in mind that they will be used for shooting live.
Second would be so he would not have to build extra tooling and jigs to initiate the "bumped up" cone seat from the actual barrel material. Without these jigs to support the barrel, the barrel will be effected in the area of the bump up. This would include the threads of the breech plug and the chamber area of the bore

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Getting one of these muskets done safely that looks right is quite a challenge. This and the cost associated
is why there isn't a good repro of the US 1816 cone-in-barrel currently available, I suppose. I plan to
use mine at the Memorial Day Cemetery event at STRI for the three volley salute after the program. I like
the fact that no one else there is likely to have one like it. I feel pretty confident no one will. It will be 90%
Enfields defarbed by Watts and a couple US 1861s.

[prestontoprail]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Wow Craig, your lucky to be around a group that has 90% defarbed enfields!! In regards to Hoyts' barrel having to much of a build up around the "cone/bolster" area, I suppose we still have the option of building the kit from a Dunlap stock, original parts...and a Hoyt barrel for an 1822 flintlock (smooth and ready for altering). Then you could send that musket to Todd to have the cone tapped in the barrel. From the photographs on this thread, it does seem that Todd creates a more accurate finished look than the Hoyt "altered" barrel. It's still not that blaring to me and I could suggest going either way. But at least that leaves another option in how we can get to the finished product.

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

1. Well, if Todd Watts was in your unit I'll wager you would have a similar number
of de-farbed Enfields. Virtually all of the STRI volunteers have de-farbed Enf rifle-muskets
that Watts did, except for me. He even did one for the park ranger at STRI, Jim Lewis.
There are a few guys with 1861s and 1842s and some of those are not de-farbed yet,
but all of the regulars have that part of their act together.

2. Where there's a will, there's a way...Watts can produce a 1816/22, and it is a worthwhile project
but it is not going to be inexpensive or quick.

[Todd Watts]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

A musket cone with a narrower threaded shank would make the alteration easier/better/safer. I need to look around and see if there is a ready supply of smaller diameter shanked cones for this purpose.

[prestontoprail]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

"Watts can produce a 1816/22, and it is a worthwhile project
but it is not going to be inexpensive or quick. "

I heard tell of a rumor going around that Todd was trying to get a contract to produce some unique reproduction muskets, namely the 54 Austrian Lorenz and an 1822 musket (with cone in barrel alteration). Considering that if the project was done by such individuals with an incredible eye and knowledge for every detail of the original muskets, I'm wondering what seriously needs to be done to get this dream to come to fruition? I know that this website itself tried to raise a petition for the Lorenz around 2001 that didn't go very far (there were not as many members then nor as much interest in these muskets).

I'm sure that it is a matter of having enough deposited funds to have the money to produce all the metal parts to begin with. However, if there was a "business plan" created on who could produce them and how much the funds would be, then I would be willing to make a crusade in the hobby to gather interest for such a thing. If a good prototype was made then you could even take it around to sutler row at mainstream events to gather interest or get order deposits once a buyer can look and feel the product in their hands. It would certainly be a turning event in the hobby to have reproduction muskets made that are "nearly exact" copies of the originals. Minus the slight extra weight that comes with modern metallurgy's there is not much in the way of getting these things made right. The Italians could even offer this to us if they gave a crap.

Sorry to get off on a rant, but we all know there's not much future in trying to "defarb" the Loyalist Arms Lorenz or the Pedersoli 1816, so the idea of petitioning a REAL effort to have these muskets repopped by a crew who will actually copy a real wartime original is above and beyond a special interest to me.......and MANY, MANY others for that matter. We have found a way to have these muskets by building kits, but I'm the only reenactor I know of in my area that is willing to invest more than 1,000 dollars to have a certain musket represented. Although very accurate reproductions would not be cheap (as in around 500.00) it would most certainly be less than the funds and time it takes to build one from a parts kit. It seems in our hobby, once again, that the detailing of our muskets is the last uncombed territory of our impressions. We all know where and how to make the uniforms of proper cloth and construction; there are at least 3 amazing sources for leathers; shoe and boot sources are good; and although we could use more sources for proper head wear (more slouch varieties), we once again come to the over abundance of 3 band Enfields and Springfields all over the place. So I figured if I stirred up some awareness of what Todd is willing to do if given the funds, then extra interest in the idea could fuel the fire. We need more/better weapon choices!! No thanks to Armi San Paolo, haha.

[Todd Watts]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Guys, it is a huge start-up expense. I have the know-how, but every turn is serious cost. Jerry Smith at BRi & I seriously discussed it in Jan/Feb this year and made the decision that 2010 would be the year we did it. But honestly, it has fallen to a side burner since then as we kept hitting cost-walls. Want to help? I need to get the fire under Jerry again. A few of you e-mailing Blockade Runner and asking if there will be a Lorenz coming might spur him back into excitement. He has the business and I just do the work. I think if he sees real interest in sales it may show him that sales would recoup the start-up costs.

[Blair]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

So, you want an Austrian Lorenz repro? The initial "out of pocket" costs can be horrendous.
Here are some thoughts on the subject, based off of my experience working within the reproduction firearms industry.
I would suggest you start with an original in as pristine shape/condition as you can find.
Take that to anyone of the known repro arms makers and see if you can get them interested in copying it. This original will be the pattern piece used in making up the tooling.
If you get them interested, You maybe be required to purchase the first one hundred and promise to purchase at least 25 per month every month for at least a year. You talking 400 guns for the first year. For this, you get exclusive rights to be the only seller of this product.
That doesn't seem all that bad, does it?
I can't mention any Company names not on the "Approved Venders" list. But, what I can say is that major import companies have had trouble meeting those demands and selling those quantities of "new" productions. In many cases, these importers have had to forfeit their exclusive rights to being the only distributor of that item. This can be a major set back considering your cost to initiate this project. Anyone with cash in hand can now be a competitor to you.
The price, FOB from the Country of origin, may not seem all that bad pre firearm. However, you now have U S Customs fees and Excise taxes. This can, at the very least, double the cost of the imported firearm (per gun). This amounts to "your" out of pocket costs just for getting this set up.
Now, are you going to have Distributor's that can help reach a larger market than you might be able to on your own? How much profit are you going to allow them?
Last but certainly not least in this equation is how much can you sell this firearm for and will it be an attractive price to the Reenactment and Shooting Communities?

The Italian manufactures can produce a quality reproduction, providing they are supplied with a quality "Pattern" piece to tool up from. The problem here is that that last few "new firearms" provided to them as a "Pattern" piece were not very good copies of that model firearm to begin with.
They will not research the firearm and they will not search for quality original or repro parts to build a firearm. That responsibility falls on the American supplier! And always has.

[Blair]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

There are alternatives to getting or having an Austrian Lorenz in reenacting today.

First, is to find a Farmerized Junker/clunker that you can rebuild and/or restore. Initially this sounds easy, but that is only if you can find all the parts you need for the project, and only those parts that are in good enough condition for the project.
I always recommend this approach first. It can put an otherwise unusable firearm back into severable condition. It can also increase the value/salability of the firearm, should that individual wish to sell it. Depending on the type/model firearm, they can also prove to be real "money pits" to the owners to get them right.
This price tag may run from $1,600.00 to $2,000.00 depending on what maybe required to put the gun back together correctly.

Next, would be to use domestic manufactures. There is one domestic manufacture/maker of Lorenz parts, up to and including making a complete new firearm. They, however, have developed such a poor reputation for being so slow with delivering products they say they have in stock, I will not recommend them even if I could mention the company name on this forum.

The last option would be to buy one of the India made Lorenz copies, and strip it down for the useable parts.
Based on what I have seen of these "non guns", it does seem like much of the furniture can be used.
The non proofed barrel and the sap wood stock should probably be replaced, again based on those few that I have seem. These two items are available at a price of about $600. to $650.00
The price of the repro Lorenz, the barrel and stock, brings the initial cost up to over $1,000.00 for the original owner. All before you begin any of the custom work required to put it together.
The lock on some of these guns may also be an issue as to how serviceable they might be in the long term. These have to be evaluated on an individual bases, before work on doing the customized assembly can begin.
A price tag, when finished, may cost a total of from $2,000.00 to a minimum of $1,600.00 for what amounts to a customized Indian reproduction.
Shooters will spring for this price tag, but not very many reenacters will.
I just boils down to what you as an individual are willing to pay for "safe", correct authinticity.

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Blair and Todd lay out the case pretty well here. Every year the Italians say they sell fewer units than the year before. Think they will add another weapon?
They haven't since 1996 (Armi Sport US 1842). The Pedersoli 1816 conversion was just about the same time (mid-1990s). Maybe a year prior. Nothing since.

$1500 is realistic, $2000 is not out of the ball park for a custom Lorenz. A decent US 1816? Probably about the same. Jerry (BRI) has a minty M-54
with the long range rear sight. Here is the deal, with the start up costs being what they are, the repro Austrian rifle would have to sell more than a few hundred
units to recoup the costs associated. It would have to come to market at or below $750 to do that. This is the reason these things don't happen.

Honestly, I am surprised that Pedersoli never made a M-54 Lorenz. They kind of specialize in 18th and 19th century European esoterica.

[rca53]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

[IMG]DSCN0814.JPG[/IMG]Hello there,
Interesting subject,about the cone-in-barrel 1816 that is, so I tried my hand at this myself. I'll try posting a picture.
Oh by the way ,this is a great site, lots of useful info and opinons.

[rca53]

Re: Todd Watts Cone-in-Barrel Flintlock Conversion

Guess I need to learn how to post pictures