Austrian lorenz

[Griebz]

Hey all, I know a few companys are importing sub standard indian repro's of the lorenz, I was wondering if anyone knows of anyone making custom lorenz's that are of decent quality?

Peter Griebel

[GaWildcat]

http://www.therifleshoppe.com/(698).htm

The Rifle Shoppe carries all the parts to build one, but I dont know if they offer completed rifles or not

[Pvt. Richardson]

Loyalist Arms is now offering a Lorenz in the correct cal. The have their old version but they also have one with a barrel that is made in America, I think it comes from the Rifle Shoppe.


Greg Richardson

[Pvt. Richardson]

The barrel comes from the muzzle loader shop in Arkansas.

Greg Richardson

[flattop32355]

Loyalist Arms is now offering a Lorenz in the correct cal. The have their old version but they also have one with a barrel that is made in America, I think it comes from the Rifle Shoppe.

Has anyone who is familiar with the originals had a chance to review/look over the Loyalist Arms Lorenz with the 54 cal barrel?

[Craig L Barry]

Yes, avail yourself of the SEARCH feature for all you could ever want to know on this topic. As Wicket(t) puts it "The Loyalist Arms reproduction only looks like a Lorenz if I squint at the screen." I have seen a number of them, and they don't look that much better in person. The worst features are (in order):

1. Smoothbore .62 barrel (rifled barrel available for significant upcharge)
2. Stock proportions (too long in the wrist) cannot be easily remedied
3. The hammer is misshaped

Blair Taylor does not list a Lorenz among his "custom made" offerings, but I bet he could build you one that was a lot better than what Loyalist Arms is offering. The custom route, or better still a "put together" of disassociated original parts with a Hoyt or Whitacre barrel is the best way to go. Better have deep pockets, though, and the closer the weapon is to an original the clunkier it is likely to be. The M-1854 Austrian Rifles (Lorenz) were mostly second class weapons to start with.

[LibertyHallVols]

I have a very nice Lorenz restoration and I got it at a very resonable price. Not only does it LOOK like a Lorenz, but it shoots like a dream (former owner used it competitively in the NSSA).

If one purchased all the repro parts from the Rifle Shoppe to have a custom-built rifle, you'd pay at least 50% more than what I did. However, there are still "beater-grade" relics out there at a reasonable price that can be used for some of the parts. Heck!... A couple years ago Tim Prince had a VERY nice "put together" Lorenz on his website that looked like a mint original! :cool:

So, in a nut...
For a decent Lorenz, you will end up somewhere on the line between originals and custom guns. But, its do-able and not too pricey if you are patient.

I will disagree with Mess'r Craig on one point:
I am disturbed less by the 62-cal bore of the Indian repop than I am by the fact that it doesn't LOOK LIKE a Lorenz. To me, it looks like the offspring of a '63 Springfield papa and a Lorenz mama. I gotta squint hard to see the traits from "mama's" side!! But, that's just me. ;)

[Don Dixon]

Craig,

In the late 1850s Cadimus Wilcox spent a year of the U.S. Army's time in Europe studying European military firearms. He was regarded as an expert observer. The U.S. Army bought 1,000 copies of his book, enough to issue to every commissioned officer of the U.S. Army, with some left over. He regarded the Swiss and Austrian military weapons as the most accurate in the world (Rifles and Rifle Practice: An Elementary Practice Upon the Theory of Rifle Firing, Explaining the Causes of Inaccuracy of Fire and the Manner of Correcting It, New York, D. Van Nostrand, 1861, page 202). Based upon my testing, he was right on point. His observation about the Springfield rifle musket, on the other hand, was that "Nevertheless, in material, manufacture, and appearance, the United States arms are inferior to none." (Also page 202) You will notice, that he made no representations regarding the accuracy of the Springfield rifle or rifle musket, just the quality of manufacture.

When the U.S. Army Ordnance Corps performed foreign materiel exploitation on the four Austrian rifles and the ammunition the Delafield commission brought back from Europe following the Crimean War, they did not use the same testing protocol they had used during the development of the Model 1855 Springfields. Intelligence exploitation of foreign weapons is useless if you don't use the same protocols you use on your own weapons. But, it would have been very embarrassing for the Ordance Corps if a foreign weapon had out shot the new Springfield.

The problem with the Muster 1854 Austrian arms in Federal service in the "wha" was that Federal .54 caliber ammunition was .12 inches smaller than the bore of the Austrian ".54" weapons, and used 12 grains less powder, assuming that both the Federal ammunition and the Austrian weapon were both exactly on spec. That the Austrian weapons tended to be inaccurate with Federal ammunition should be no surprise, given the absolute incompetence of the Federal Ordnance Corps. Properly built and maintained Austrian weapons weren't second class, the Federal ammunition and the Federal Ordnance Corps were.

When will you be coming out with the translation of the Muster 1854 Austro-Hungarian Army manual? Its humerous that the Federals bought some 350,000 Muster 1854 weapons, and the Confederates more than 100,000 and neither side had the wit to ever translate the manual. The Austrians described in the manual how to resolve most of the maintenance and service problems the Federal troops complained of.

Regards,
Don Dixon

[Craig L Barry]

Good stuff. The .54 Lorenz was actually 13.9 mm, which was .556 and .54 Mississippi rifle balls were issued which were .535. Quite a bit of windage as they say. Oh it goes on and on. The Austrian Officers Manual “Osterrichische Infanterie - Feurgewehr, Wien, 1857,” was not translated from German into English until recently...if it had been a few fine points like the sighting being in austrian schritt (a pace) rather than yds, and so on would have assisted soldiers with more effective use of the M 1854. The "Osterrichische Infanterie - Feurgewehr, Wien, 1857,” explains all this and how to use the sights to hit a target at various distances over or under 300 schritt.

There is a regular M-1854 Lorenz cult among Civil War (re)enactors, not as many in number as the P53 defarbed Enfield cult, but perhaps more obsessed because they can't have a decent reproduction Lorenz nearly as easily.

[Blair]

Never had anybody request a custom made Lorenz. Least ways no one I ever took seriously.
Odd thing, however, I will get at least one request a year form someone wanting me to make them a Tyler, Texas Rife. Now there is a piece of junk! They don't get built either.

[Phil]

The rifles made at Tyler, Texas during the War are to this day very misunderstood, in no small part due to the abysmal treatment they receive in print. EoG and the recent book on Texas Civil War Artifacts come to mind.

[huntdaw]

Tell us more Phil. Can you give some details about the Tyler weapons? I don't know anything about them and would be interested to find out some info.

[Phil]

I've seen some good books on the topic, but unfortunately don't own any, as they all seem to be expensive! So, this is off the top of my head. I had some photocopies of the arsenal commander's letters from microfilm, but loaned those out many years ago to someone who moved way out West.

There were certainly crappy weapons produced by the Tyler Arsenal. There were some very good weapons as well. The new arms were more or less copies of existing firearms of the time, the Enfield Rifle, the Mississippi Rifle and the "Austrian Rifle" as it was termed. This last one didn't quite resemble the Lorenz. The type of rifle was stamped on the lockplate. The "Texas Rifle" and the "Hill Rifle" (named for the arsenal's commander) were cobbled together from miscellaneous new and refurbished parts, respectively. The quality of these latter two types left a lot to be desired. This is demonstrated quite effectively by the example in EoG.

The arsenal also repaired weapons, and produced other items from crates to infantry accoutrements and cartridges.

[Don Dixon]

I hate it when I make a typo. The difference between Federal .54 ammunition and Austrian ".54" bore diamter is .012 inches, not .12. Still much too large, but not as large as .12.

Craig,

13.9 mm equates to .547-8 inches, not .556 inches. The bores of Muster 1854 weapons that were not bored out to .58 caliber, and are in good condition, that I have measured with machinist's plug gauges do measure in the .547-8 inch range.

Regards,
Don Dixon

[Pete K]

A member of our unit found and original Lorenz at an estate sale for just under $600. It was issued to the 5th NJ and has all the correct inspector stampings and marks. Sometimes you find thngs in unexpected places.