Why are the repro muskets so heavy?

[David Fox]

Re: Why are the repro muskets so heavy?

Jim: if that's so, and it may be part of the answer, why do the same companies that produce clunky Springfields and weight-challenged Enfields also produce not-so-clunky replicas of the Sharps, Henry, '51 Navy, '73 Winchester or Schofield? Why don't they manufacture nothing but ten pound replica Colt Peacemakers? For whatever compilation of reasons, what is sold off the rack to tourists in Gettysburg and to reenactors from a sutler's tent at Shiloh is viewed differently from what is sold from a case in a gunshop in Iowa. It's market perception, likely accurate, of what the consumer will tolerate that constitutes the chief driving force, I submit. Purchasers routinely pay 'way up in four figures for a Sharps replica. A 17-year-old weekend reenactor blanches at $600 for an Enfield. you want a Spencer? Prepare for a nose bleed experience.

[Blair]

Re: Why are the repro muskets so heavy?

Here are two links that may help folks get a better understanding of what steel actually is, and how varied it can be.

The composition (Metallurgy) of various modern steels are based on what the intended use is, for that particular steel.

Gun barrel steels vary greatly in their composition and properties depending on the type of gun that steel is meant for.
The steel used in an Italian made Enfield barrel would not be suitable in an M-16. Due to the differences in the pressures requirements, wear and durability qualification of the two types of barrel steels.
During the smelting process of recycling various steels, the composition of the steels may be modified to make that type of steel more suitable for either application. The same would be true when smelting down and recycling old tank armor. The weight, by equal volume, of such steels varies very little.

http://www.keytometals.com/page.aspx?ID=SteelComposition&LN=EN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_steel

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Why are the repro muskets so heavy?

The Romano Spencer is a pretty cool $2200, last time I checked. And the non-standard sized ammo might
prove a challenge, too. Repro Enfield/Springfield makers could do better. We buy their stuff and defarb it
if we want it better than it is out of the box so they have little economic reason to improve.

Not sure what Blair is saying on the steel--so the recycled tank steel is or is not heavier than whatever
other machine grade steel the Italians were using?

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Why are the repro muskets so heavy?

Hallo!

Both true.

"These pieces were never intended to be otherwise, certainly never intended to be parts-interchangable, and there is no particularly pressing economic reason for the corporations to rethink their original decisions: for their business purposes, chiefly economics, vaguely close is close enough."

A good point. The Italains can certainly make a more exacting "reproduction" of a "Springfield." (I won't drift into a discussion of .54 Italain Sharps or .54 German Gallaghers). :)

The difference is economic, because...

Replica firearms have evolveld in a bastardized relationship with reenacting, NOT living history. We have taught the Italians how to treat us. OVer the decades sicne the 1970's we have taught the Italians that tens of thousands (and maybe hundreds of thousands according to some sources) lads will line up to buy their products no matter how "close" or how 'far" from a reproduction they are.
Sometimes we are trapped, such as with no .44 RF ammo for a Henry so we "go" .44 WCF or even .45 Long Colt. Sometimes we accept a M1865 Sharps Carbine repro and call it close enough for the CW.

And the other side of the coin, is that our "reenacting culture" has gotten in bed with that. Meaning, even our "Hardcore/Authentic" end of the spectrum that strives for the Gold Standard for clothing, kit, and activities, accepts so-called "de-farbed" Italain replicas at a lesser and lower level than we do for say a uniform jacket or cartridge box.

IMHO, if the "price of admission" into the world of CPH or "HA" had to be a custom-built reproduction and not a "de-farbed" replica, would more lads have ONE custom-built versus the many lads who have say 3, 4, 6 Italain replicas who total costs exceed what a custom-built costs new or much less used?

Hmmm. What is a Romano Spencer Rifle up to these daze? $6,000? ;) Is a center fire, .50 Spencer... worth it? ;) :)

But seriously... IMHO, as long as we (continously) line up to buy whatever the Italians serve us, the "economics of profit" is the chain and "reenacting culture" is the ball. And while some few may grouse and complain, too many thousands and thousands like dragging that ball and chain around to break free.

Curt
Heretic

[Blair]

Re: Why are the repro muskets so heavy?

Craig,

What I am saying is, that by the time it (the steel) has been recycled, there is no appreciable difference in the weight based on equal volumes.

Changing a warn rifling cutter with a new one will effect the weight of a barrel more than the composition of the various steels used for that purpose.

A new rifling cutter may account for "maybe" a .05 oz difference in the weight of an Enfield length barrel.
Whereas the composition of the properties of the steel make up itself, based on weight, may have to be measured on an atomic level.

[JimKindred]

Re: Why are the repro muskets so heavy?

A 17-year-old weekend reenactor blanches at $600 for an Enfield. you want a Spencer? Prepare for a nose bleed experience.

Having been a Thompson collector for many years I am well past the worry of a nose bleed experience.

As long as reenactors line up to buy over weight, less than authentic muskets the Italians will be more than happy to provide them.

[Blair]

Re: Why are the repro muskets so heavy?

The wood is actually the biggest culprit in causing the modern repro's to be too heavy.

None of you have to believe me in this.
All I ask is that any of you may pull your favorite "de farbed" repro of an 1841, 1842, 1855, 1861 or Richmond (I care not who the manufacture is) and look, check to see if the wood stand "proud" (higher) than the lower flat barrel band. (The wood should be flush with the metal bands/parts.)
Some of these models, new out of the box maybe as much as 1/8th. (.125) of an inch higher than these flat lower bands of these various models/patterns. This is an indication that there is too much wood, and therefore, too heavy!
Enfield's and 1863/4 Springfield's use 1/2 inch wide oval bands that should stand above the level (proud) of the stock wood. If the wood is above the level of the band, the wood is too heavy! A difference of 0.170 to at least 0.070 depending on the band location and model/pattern.
The Italian stocks are full of what I call "fish bellies". Some of these fish bellies can be so pronounced that it would be more appropriate to describe them as "Pot Bellied Pigs". All of these add weight to the firearm.
Now, Take into account that these repro woods "may" be cut from a kiln dried hard wood that "may" also be denser than the original woods used in "old" growth woods being harvested within the period period. One should also take into account that these 150 + year old shock have shrunk "somewhat" with their age!

These "Pot Bellied Pigs" can run from the butt plate to the nose cap/front barrel band. All of which add weight to the firearm.
Striping and oiling the stock does not remove these Pot Bellied Pigs". Nor does it remove any appreciate able amount of the weight problems.
Smoothing these out (removing these) can eliminate as much as 1 to 1 and 1/2 "Pounds" (24 oz.) of weight from the firearm. Additional contouring of the stock might account for as much as 6 to 8 more onces, depending on the Repro firearm you have and/or want to create.
A 6 to a 12 inch straight edge can help anyone find and identify these "Pot Bellied Pigs".
Just a siggestion on my part. Check for yourself,
Blair

[Todd Watts]

Re: Why are the repro muskets so heavy?

The current crop of Euroclub Enfields are huge. I have gotten several lately and there is a lot more wood standing above the tang, and the thickness of the butt is lumberish to say the least. Takes a lot of rasp work to thin them out enough to be passable, but even this can't duplicate the weight because like you say, these are different woods and are not 150 years old. I think both the Italy gun makers are using Turkish walnut right now, at least that is what it feels like and looks like to me.

[Blair]

Re: Why are the repro muskets so heavy?

Todd,

At this point in time, I'm not sure where their wood is coming from. In all honesty.
I know that the wood is tougher than trying to pull ten deuces from a deck of honest cards.
It is as close to being "petrified" as any stock wood I have ever worked before. So, the density is going to be heavier.
Still, it can be removed a pound to a bound and a half at a time. It is better than pretending that weight ain't there. Or blaming it on something else

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Why are the repro muskets so heavy?

Hallo!

If someone strips an Italian replica Enfield and posts the weight of the component parts...

I would be happy to strip an original and post the weight of the component parts?

:)

Curt
Postal Scale Mess

[David Fox]

Re: Why are the repro muskets so heavy?

A thought: the weight of the metal on an original musket would ever be valid, of course. But would not the stock be substantially lighter than issue after 150 years?

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Why are the repro muskets so heavy?

Hallo!

An interesting question...

IMHO, it is still a matter, up to a degree, of which is heavier- a pound of lead or a pound of feathers?
Meaning, we are weighing the differences in weight between an original and a replica, looking for the differences in weight. Weight being weight, does it matter if say the original barrel is forged iron or mild steel versus the modern cast barrel steel?

As Herr Blair has shared, stocks are NUG air-dried, kiln-dried, or sometimes a mix of the two. I am not sure, and do not know, what the moisture content was/is of say an Enfield stock in 1862 versus 2010.
However, if "Enfield" listed a P1853 RM at 8 lbs 14.5 ounces then, and one weighs 8 lbs 14.5 ounces now (with a nod toward differences minor wood densities within Period stocks of the same type), I would think that their Period drying dried the stock so that there was not appreciable water loss vis-a-vis with today's condition).
Although, I did restore an original P1853 RM once that a fungus had attacked the stock, reducing it to a crust on the outside and a featherweight honeycombed, swiss cheesed, sawdust interior. But that is not typical.

Curt

[JohnTaylorCW]

Re: Why are the repro muskets so heavy?

A thought: the weight of the metal on an original musket would ever be valid, of course. But would not the stock be substantially lighter than issue after 150 years?

Yes.... ish...

In short, the wood of the stock will have dried out significantly (completely?) over the 150 year period, and there will be some shrinkage, and possibly cracking, of the wood as a result. In order to have a reasonably comparison, one would need a decent size wood sample (say 2" x 2") of shrunken wood vs. the same type of wood that was 'recently' cut. "Air-drying' vs. 'kiln-drying' will also affect the wood, as will the density of the wood, depending on growth conditions. Realisticaly, one would need several samples in order to achieve an average number.

If one prefers not to destroy the original sample, one could use the Archimedes method, and using, for example, a full stock, weigh the original sample, then use the water displacement method (we all had this in high school science, right?) to calculate the volume of the sample. Find the equivalent volume in modern wood, and after it dries from the water bath to find volume, weigh it. The result is going to be a reasonable indication of the results of 150 years of drying out of the wood.

Where it becomes complicated is the density of the original trees vs their modern counterparts. Wild-grown vs. Farmed? Age of the trees and the conditions under which they grew. I'm not certain that one could document this without specialized equipment. Those who work in wood may have more and better information.

Interested persons might refer to the Fine Woodworking book "Wood and how to dry it" ISBN 0-918801-54-x.

(I'm not a woodworker by any means, I'm a project manager. I just like wood....)

[fahnenschmied]

Re: Why are the repro muskets so heavy?

I must get a strike in on this dead horse - whoever thinks the heavy barrels are "lawyer barrels" has never looked at the cylinder of a repro Colt Army pistol. Rather thin! No, i think the best explaination is due to the "bean counters". It cost a few more moments of attention to turn the barrel blanks in the long hollow curve it should have. The Euroarms barrels are straight tapered. The beginning and the end are about right, but the center of the barrel is sometimes more than an eighth of an inch oversized. It is much simpler to set up a machine to do a straight taper than a very long curve. And yes, I will attest to the fact that some wood is heavier than others. Euro arms wood, even on the older models, is sometimes very hard and dense. I reworked a twenty year old Enfield, the wood on that one was quite tough. And there is quite alot of extra wood on some stocks, I think I took almost 3/16ths off each side just to get things straight.
The old muskets are light because they are the right size. The old Miroku 61 Springfield is light because the barrel is very close in thickness to the original, the stock isn't too off in size, and the wood is American walnut, what the originals had, give or take. Take the barrel off the Miroku and lay in in a Euroarms stock - you will see right away just how different the size is. So, what others have said, but next time you cross paths with somebody carrying an original, closely compare it to your repro...you'll see alot "extra"..

[Pritchett Ball]

Re: Why are the repro muskets so heavy?

I know this thread goes back a ways...

I have an original 1861 (1862 lock plate Date) Springfield with an 1864 dated barrel. I have been comparing it to my repro ArmiSport 1861, and I can tell you, the original is much lighter!

I do not have an accurate weigh scale to compare the barrel weights, or those of the stocks. But I have to agree that the weight culprit IS the stock on the repro! Some time back I shaved a lot of wood off the repro (those"pot bellied pigs" talked of) stock around the band areas, the butt stock, and around the small of the stock behind the lock plate area.
It's STILL too heavy!

I did a measurement (dial caliper, every 4 inches) comparison on the two barrels at the same points
and here is what I came up with...

Barrel Diameter comparison of an original 1861 and reproduction ArmiSport 1861
(formatting problems, 1st column is the original, second column is the repro)
Original 1861 ArmiSport
Breech end 1.141” 1.103”
4” 1.065” 1.034”
8” .993” 1.025”
12” .940” 1.000”
16” .899” .981”
20” .865” .955”
24” .842” .929”
28” .821” .894”
32” .809” .851”
36” .801” .799”
Muzzle end .788” .746”

Lock plate thickness:
Original .301” .233”

Even with a much thinner lock plate on the ArmiSport, it's still not anywhere near the original's weight. I tried to put the repro barrel in the original's stock, and naturally it was a no go.

Would it be feasible to drill out some excess wood from inside the butt stock to get rid of some weight, but not sacrifice strength?

Kevin Dally