Problems with 1842 Reproductions?

[dirtyshirt]

Re: Problems with 1842 Reproductions?

That's it right there...what the heck?

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Problems with 1842 Reproductions?

More like WTF. See the warnings about these conduit pipe, teakwood, Indy/Paki "monstrosities" in other threads. Their shortcomings
have been well documented here and elsewhere. If the only thing better about any particular article is lower cost, think about what
that means in real terms. Many of us compromise on our firearms because absolute authenticity is not available unless
you tote an original arm--which is not recommended for obvious reasons--all reproductions represent a bit of a compromise.
However, when that compromise represents a safety issue, or potential safety issue you are stepping into an entirely
different realm.

[dirtyshirt]

Re: Problems with 1842 Reproductions?

Craig,
I couldn't agree more. The fellas carrying these impostors were fresh off the rack. I just couldn't believe it. When I went to the website and saw the price I figured out why someone would buy one, but you are right; sacrificing safety for price is unacceptable in this hobby, and I hope any event organizers would immediately deny attendance to anyone carrying one of these, or at the very least, refuse to allow the piece to be used. Just my 2 cents I guess.

[Blair]

Re: Problems with 1842 Reproductions?

Brandon,

One of the problems is that many event organizers know no more about firearms than the individuals who buy these things.
There are also a good many reenacters themselves who will swear by the one they have bought as being the next best thing to sliced white bread.
Some reenacters are more than willing to accept any risk associated that may come to them for using, what essentially amounts to a "pipe bomb".
These same individuals too have a tendency to forget there are going to be others standing in close proximity to themselves if and when one of these thing ever lets go. Those in close proximity go to an event fully expecting to be able to come home safe and sound at the end of that event. They were never consulted, advised or made a part of the "risk" association/evaluation.
I have to wonder why these "weapons" were not caught during weapons inspection? Those persons are suppose to be knowledgeable in firearms! Why they were not reported to the unit CO? Why they were not reported to the Event Organizers?
If you see something that is unsafe... report it! This is the only way the reenacting community will become aware of the issues. Safety is everyones concern!
Ok, I'm done.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Problems with 1842 Reproductions?

Hallo!

"I have to wonder why these "weapons" were not caught during weapons inspection? Those persons are suppose to be knowledgeable in firearms! Why they were not reported to the unit CO? Why they were not reported to the Event Organizers?"

A fair question, but with a predictable answer or two.

Sigh.

IMHO, were are plagued by five things here:

1. A growing culture within the Reenacting Commuity that these Indian imports are "affordable" options for "lower cost" firearms, and are perfectly safe to use for blank-firing and some maintian even live-fire

2. They are "close enough" for most all so-called Farb and Mainstream level activities

3. A culture within the Reenacting Community that knows nothing of firearms, firearm manufacturing and production, and firearm safety design features

4. Twisted and fickle firearm gods who are laughing because we do not have "catastrophic failures" injuring, maiming, and killing lads in the line at events with shrapnel and as a result give credence to the views that these decorator arms are indeed "firearms" and more than safe to use

5. Events NUG have no rules against them, and where safety inspections are farces if conducted at all, are largely deferred to individual units to inspect and police themselves rather than at an event level. (Yes, that varies by the type and quality of event...)

And were we get divided, is that some lads who have them swear by them. And some lads who do not have them for obvious reasons, swear at them.

IMHO still, it is going to take one blowing up and injuring or killing folks followed by the certain litigation to begin to "change the hobby." In the mean time, to quote Calligula:

"Can't you hear the gods laughing?"

And yes, others mileage will vary...

Curt

(Please remember that the sale of Indian non-guns are prohibited on the AC, and any discussions moderated closely...)

[dirtyshirt]

Re: Problems with 1842 Reproductions?

Again, I couldn't agree with you all more. It is difficult to monitor and enforce. That event was my first exposure to them, and I had never known about their existence. But maybe aside from barring access to events to those who own these weapons, they're presence in a company or squad or what have you, should at least be known by the other members (to Blair's point). But enough of this I guess. I took the thread in a different direction. We just need to keep our eyes open for stuff like this. Thanks all!

[PetePaolillo]

1842 Armisport problem addressed and repaired

I went with the shim idea near the top portion of the lock plate screws to help push the lock outward at the top to move the hammer more center to the cone. I did not have any wood pieces that achieved this. Instead, this was achieved using several small brass washers. It has lined the hammer up perfectly with the cone now and I am very pleased with the results. I believe now after reading through this thread that the problem occurred secondary to refinishing the stock and overtightening the lock plate screws pulling the lock tighter to bolster and moving hammer inward. Here are my after pictures as well. Thanks so much for the suggestions and information. It was very helpful. It was a very easy fix!

[prestontoprail]

Re: Problems with 1842 Reproductions?

What's interesting is that I contacted "veteranarms.com" to inform them that the 1840 conversion musket they were selling was not an "arsenal cone-in-barrel" as they advertise on their website. He informed me that they were getting more muskets in this year and that he was working with an Italian manufacturer to produce an Austrian Lorenz type II. He said the prototype would be coming in this summer and the production run should be available this fall. Oddly enough, he claimed to have no connection with Loyalist Arms, although the muskets available from him now are clearly the same models that loyalist arms has "designed" for their sale. Even though he mentioned that an Italian manufacturer was making their new Lorenz and that it would be a separate venture than the one Loyalist Arms took on........I can't help but not be excited coming from a source who doesn't even know his own conversion muskets are not cone in barrel when there is clearly a bolster added to it. Here we go again.....

[Blair]

Re: 1842 Armisport problem addressed and repaired

Pete,

It looks as though the lock may be a bit more flush with the flat of the bolster section too.
This is good and a tail tell sign of the lock plate being pulled in too tight from the side lock screws.
It may also indicate some supporting wood could have been removed during the stripping and/or defarbing process. It can be very difficult to say at this point.

I would suggest, because these washers cover a rather small area, (and can be pulled back into the wood from the side lock screws) you try building up a greater support area with some sort of slow setting epoxy.
This will distribute the contact area of the lock within the lock mortise.
This type of work can involve a great deal of pre preparation (releasing agents) of all those parts that may come in contact with the epoxy. It will benefit you in the long term.
Keep in mind, this is simply a suggestion on my part,

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Problems with 1842 Reproductions?

Pete
Actually that looks pretty good, about right as far centering the hammer on the cone.

Preston
If one of the Italian gun makers was producing a Lorenz "type II" (whatever that means), they would
not be selling it through an outlet like Veterans Arms. However, we will see what the
future holds as far as that goes. Who knows? There are some hardcore "Austrian Rifle" fans out there
and if there is a decent repro Lorenz, it will hasten publication of the Austrian Officers
Manual (translated from German) which The Watchdog has in the pipeline since 2005. For some reason
nobody ever translated it before now, and if someone had bother to do so, many of
the complaints with the Lorenz during the Civil War could have been overcome.

[prestontoprail]

Re: Problems with 1842 Reproductions?

Count me in as a huge "Austrian Rifle" fan and even though I know whatever experiment the folks at "veteran arms" will probably fall short, I still anticipate every attempt at getting these rifles closer and available to our hobby. I've found the option of making a "put together kit" for the Lorenz is actually harder than doing the same for an 1816/22 conversion musket. Tracking down various original parts (and screws) is becoming more and more difficult, especially when your looking for a quality part that is not trashed with pitting. The quote from Misulia at Veteran Arms regarding their in the works Lorenz:

"However, we are at present working with a manufacturer in Italy to produce a reproduction M1854 Austrian Lorenz Type II rifle exclusively for us. It will be .54 cal, with beechwood stock (as original) and come with the cruciform bayonet. We expect to have the prototype for that weapon sometime about mid-summer and, if all goes well, production models sometime this fall. "

I'm not hopeful, but still curious.

[Todd Watts]

Re: Problems with 1842 Reproductions?

Pete, shimming as you did is fine to better align the hammer to the cone. I very often find off-the-shelf Italian guns that have been shimmed with cardboard like that from the factory. Some have been shimmed under the barrel tang with a sliver of wood and some have a wood sliver shimmed under the breech as well to help align the parts to pass "inspection" for sale. In general I think that so long as the hammer is able to reliably detonate caps it is fine. A center-hit is no better than one that strikes slightly off-center. It does not make the weapon more or less reliable unless the hamemr is not reliably detonating caps. Originals did not necessarily center-strike either unless shimmed so one that is off-center is perfectly period-coorect. As for bending the hammer that is o.k. but be sure to heat the hammer red before tapping it over. The hammers usually are cast steel and heat-treated hard. Hitting one cold with a hammer can break them. Softening it with high heat will allow it to bend without breaking. You then just have to polish it to get rid of scale and heat-hues. As long as the nose was not heated it will be o.k. and not be so soft to cause it to wallow-out. If you want to re harden it, heat it to a dull red and hold it there for a minute or more then drop it into a can of vegetable oil or cool water. This will add soem surface hardening to the metal. A true case-hardening would be better, but unless you are set up for that it is next to impossible to do right and is very expenssive to have done professionally.

[Todd Watts]

Re: Problems with 1842 Reproductions?

This past weekend I proofed one of the .62" smoothbored Lorenz guns from Loyalist. It is one of the Injun-made guns. I found it to have pretty good wood to metal fit and a stout lock action (Craig, you'd go ga-ga over the snap of the hammer) and other than being a smooth-bore .62" it is reasonably correct enough to pass the "15' rule". I double-loaded it with 130 grs FFFg and shoved a .60" ball and wad over it and used the long string method to fire it. The owner had the honor of yanking the string after I had it all set up. Nice big boom and the gun recoiled a good 2 feet, but the hamemr did not re-cock, the barrel did not split or bulge and the stock did not crack so that one is good to go. We shot several 60-65 grs loads from it and found it actually fairly accurate with un-patched balls.

[Silas]

Re: Problems with 1842 Reproductions?

- It is reasonably correct enough to pass the "15' rule".

Please, no. Not the fifteen foot rule. Not on this forum.

There are many rules in the hobby which people are unwilling to follow, yet people are willing to follow some unwritten rule of uncertain source which perpetuates inaccuracy. Please let go of this fake rule.

[Todd Watts]

Re: Problems with 1842 Reproductions?

LOL. I am not saying it is a great idea to have the "15' rule" just saying the gun was safe and close enough to pass in lieu of an original and I may be able to defarb it fairly decently.