FC Posted October 13, 2016 Report Share Posted October 13, 2016 I bought a half rusted-up musket at auction. It didn't have a hammer, ramrod, or nipple. I guessed it was a Springfield, so I bought a repro hammer, hammer screw, and nipple. I planned to rust them up with salt water. After using my handy-dandy taps, I got the nipple and hammer screw in. The action doesn't work (what do you expect for 50 bucks?). Lo and behold, the hammer showed me that this isn't a Springfield. Looking at pictures I can tell it's an Enfield, and almost for sure it was used by the south in the Civil War. I can't read any maker marks. It'll make a good-looking wall hanger. I may take pictures of it and post. BTW, I've ordered a half-rusted Enfield hammer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlunity Posted October 13, 2016 Report Share Posted October 13, 2016 Yes we do wanna see! Karl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FC Posted October 15, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2016 I'll have to add a post with the old hammer I ordered. Looks like the termites munched a bit on the butt of the stock on one side. Too bad it wasn't better taken care of. I'll keep the reproduction Springfield hammer screw and nipple, but the screw needs to be rounded, and both need to be rusted up with some salt water. The difference between hammers is the Enfield hangs over to the left and reaches further forward. I have a repro Springfield 1842. I like the lightness of the Enfield better. The stock is long for my stature though. From what I read, the Enfields were made by a number of small makers too, and parts were often not interchangeable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlunity Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 Darned if it does not look like it was dug up at Gettysburg! karl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FC Posted October 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 Or left in a barn. On the left side is a strap for the lock. From what I read there were 3 variants. The last one had no strap. I'm thinking now I shouldn't have put a nipple on. I'm going to have to rust it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FC Posted October 22, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2016 I ordered an old Enfield hammer, and took a look at more pictures this morning. I have the nipple in the wrong spot- it should be on the brass. Sure looked like it was supposed to go where I tapped it, and don't know what that rusted plug I drilled out was about? It'll never fire again (the lock is dead), but it's just for looks. I wasn't about to pay $37 to get a stinkin' hammer screw! I read that up to that point, Enfields were manufactured in various places, and a big complaint was that the parts were not interchangeable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FC Posted October 22, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2016 I've got something wrong. Now I'm doubting this is an Enfield, even a 1851. It's .69 caliber or so, with a 42 inch barrel. It may be a converted flintlock, maybe a Charleville, but I'll dig in some more later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FC Posted October 23, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2016 After carefully looking at pictures and measurements I'm now believing it is a 1763 or 1766 Charleville musket converted to percussion, and rear sight added. http://www.militaryheritage.com/musket14.htm. It could be a 1777 dragoon, but the only brass is on the lock. Good article: https://www.justcollecting.com/miscellania/antique-charleville-muskets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FC Posted October 27, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 Many moons after first trying to figure out what this is I now have it narrowed to a 1835 or 1840 Springfield. I read the Springfield was initially modeled closely to the Charleville, but I noticed the Charleville furniture was brass, while this is iron. Also, the straight line of the strap for the lock, on the left side. Additionally, the rear sight, and the rear sling swivel on the trigger guard. The hardest thing to narrow down was the front site on the very front of the barrel band. I don't see any hint of rifling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Hess Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 I think no rifling makes it a musket. And after >150 years, it could have seen plenty of "mods." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzRednek Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 I think no rifling makes it a musket. And after >150 years, it could have seen plenty of "mods." I'm with Doc on that especially anything that may have gone through the War Between the States. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FC Posted October 27, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 You can about bet on it with this gun. It's hung around SC a lonnnnggg time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.