M1842 w/Brass Barrel Bands ???

[Tiger_rifles]

Hello All,
About three years I picked up a Dunlop 42 stock and just for fun built what i call a M1842 CS re-build/re-fit musket. I used original parts ,(ex. the stock was already cut for a repro barrel), and used repro brass barrel bands. Being in Colorado, I have used this musket at AOT, ATM, and even ANM events w/no problems/comments. Just today someone stated they would call this a "Eastern", (ANV), musket only.

I would love to hear from you educated Gents if you think this style musket would lock one into a certain impression/ area of the war.
Many thanks, Paul.

[Phil]

I could be very wrong, but the only CS weapon I've heard of that would come close to fitting that description would be the South Carolina-produced "Palmetto musket."

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

And "CS" use is complicated as the muskets were made in 1852 and 1853 for the U.S. state of South Carolina.

Although a William Glaze 1861 rifled and sighted Palmetto Armory M1842 musket might be more "Confederate."

It is interesting, but unknown, whether out of the 6,000 made between 1852 and 1863, did Glaze get all of the surviving 3,720 muskets still left in 1861.

;) :)

CHS

[Tiger_rifles]

Thank you gentlemen,
Yes i know about the contract for State of SC w/muskets dated 1852-53, and i must admit to being a little low on research for the W. Glaze contract/information. When i made this musket up, I did it on four points:

#1, Contacts were issued to A.H. Waters and B.Flagg&Co., both of Milburn, Mass. for M1842's with known samples that have brass bands.

#2, Southern armouries repaired and re-fitted many more captured and out dated muskets then they ever produced. Many of these repairs included replacing iron parts w/easier and cheaper to made brass. Such as butte plates, nose caps, and Barrel Bands.

#3, An article i read back then. Basicly the author had found many M1842's that had odd stocks,(not SF or HF factory production), and a mix of "US" and "Palmetto"/SC parts. He believed these muskets to be parts captured by Jackson at Harpers ferry and sent to SC to be built up. AND/OR a system of sending M1842 muskets that were broken/captured to SC to be repaired. He went on to say that many "Richmond" muskets have "US" parts on them for the same reason.

#4, The Dunlop stock I got had been over sanded and whatelse could I do with it but made some odd,(but not a one of a kind), Southern re-fit/re-work.

So my point being........ The use of captured parts to rebuild muskets was done from Richmond to Tyler, Tx. And with the high number of M1842's around I am sure someone made brass bands or used M1841 bands for replacements. Not common, but I would think it was done.
What say you?

[Rob Weaver]

I'm in way over my head here, not being well-versed in any of the muskets mentioned. However, there's a philosphical drift you should avoid in the phrase: "not common but I would think it was done." Some items of militaria vanish after 150 years: clothing, accoutrements, newspapers and written ephemera. Hardware like guns take a lot longer. Can you pinpoint a surviving example of the musket repair you outline? Or perhaps orders for the same (at least then you can argue that it was planned, but perhaps not executed)? If not then this repair, although effective, is no more historical than wrapping the barrel in leather strips and carpet tacks like an Indian gun. Not to sound mean or anything, but before I went to a lot of trouble on a high dollar item like a unique musket, I'd want very good research to substantiate it.

[Blair]

Paul,

The photo comparison may show that the furniture on the M-1841 (Mississippi) Rifle is too small to be interchangeable with the M-1842 Musket counter parts.

http://www.cwreenactors.com/forum/album.php?albumid=79&pictureid=547

The hammer and lock plate on the top are from a repro '42 Musket.
The hammer and lock plate on the bottom are for a repro '41 Rifle. The Rifle parts are roughly 1/4th to 1/3rd smaller in size, depending on the part.

Some of the A.H. Waters M-1842's and the Palmetto Armory are the only two known manufacturers of the Model 1842 to have used brass in the making of the furniture.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

It is believed by some that when Asa Waters finished up his M1836 flintlock pistol contract in 1844, he scrambled to find something to keep the business in operation- and looked toward setting up some prototype M1842 production to secure a large government contract (that he did not get).

The scarce all brass mounted M1842 made by Waters is also believed by some to be tied in as sample arms sent to William Glaze and James Boatwright, owners of the Palmetto Armory.

As already shared, IMHO, this is definitely a "philosophical" or Mental Picture discussion.
Meaning, anything is possible, but not everything is probable. And it depends where one's philosophies or Mental Pictures lie on the scale between possible and probable. And, is further complicated by the scale of whether one chooses to lean toward the researched and documented in portraying or presenting a likely or common impression. Or, a fiction that is possible but not so probable such as when I met Samuel Richardson, he gave me his
jaguar chaps.

Not knocking the choice, just pointing out the differences.

Yes, it is "possible"... that a brass mounted Waters made M1842 or better yet a brass mounted Palmetto musket or later rifled and sighted PAlmetto musket ended up damaged and in a CS armory or contracted gunsmith to be broken down for repair parts- particularly a South Carolina one. And later ended up recycled in such-and-such unit at so-and-so place, at this-or-that time.

Not being critical or negative, but I would expect to hear that rationalization or defense from the owner of such a gun versus a non-owner/non-user. Across the CW Community, we make those choices every day. And people do what works for them.

Others' mileage will vary...

CHS

[Craig L Barry]

Yep, agree. I was going to stay out of this one, but Curt hit it right on the head. The likelihood of one of the brass mounted 42s anywhere other than South Carolina issuance is very unlikely.

Curt
Wasn't A. Waters mostly an assembly operation (IIRC)?

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Dunno, and I am not so sure it IS known.

The argument is that Waters was set up to produce the M1836 pistol and would he have retooled and refitted his works to make M1842 muskets BEFORE securing a contract? Or,
retooling only enough to produce sample arms to demonstrate to the Government that he could and was worthy of a contract?

The same being argued for the rare brass mounted M1842's- those being made as samples or "proof of product" for Glaze and Boatwright at Palmetto (which raises some interesting discussion as to whether they were model samples or whether Waters made them FOR Glaze/Boatwright so they could secure a contract with SC whichhe may have been "reimbursed" from....)

Also, as an aside, Palmetto's SC contract in 1851 was not just for the musklets, but also for rifles, pistols. cavalry sabres, and artillery swords. When deliveries were complete, the contract was amended in 1853 to be only muskets and rifles.

There is also a similar thing possibly going on with Benjamin Flagg who had worked for Waters and replaced superintendent Waters II when he died. In 1849, Flagg made a few M1842's apparently as sample demonstration that they could make muskets with minimum retooling being required, and buying additional machinery.
Flagg did not get a contract.

Waters III not getting a contract in 1844, and Flagg not getting a contract in 1849 would seem to indicate that M1842 musket "production" never passed past the sample or demonstration part of their attempt to secure contracts to replace the old M1836 pistol production.
And maybe, possibly, tie in with the Glaze/Boatwright Palmetto contract with SC by loaning, selling, or kick backing the not-needed Waters' musket samples and limited production machinery to Palmetto.

It is interesting that the firm did not "survive" even when they had had a long tradition of making muskets before the
M1836 flintlock pistol. They tried to compete with the M1842 Ames pistol by going percussion, but failed. (IIRC, they and five other family owned or private "armories" did not survive the Government's plan to shut them down in favor of just the two national armories (and select contractoras when neded).

CHS

[Tiger_rifles]

I'm in way over my head here, not being well-versed in any of the muskets mentioned. However, there's a philosphical drift you should avoid in the phrase: "not common but I would think it was done." Some items of militaria vanish after 150 years: clothing, accoutrements, newspapers and written ephemera. Hardware like guns take a lot longer. Can you pinpoint a surviving example of the musket repair you outline? Or perhaps orders for the same (at least then you can argue that it was planned, but perhaps not executed)? If not then this repair, although effective, is no more historical than wrapping the barrel in leather strips and carpet tacks like an Indian gun. Not to sound mean or anything, but before I went to a lot of trouble on a high dollar item like a unique musket, I'd want very good research to substantiate it.

Mr. Weaver, Very good point! I really did not set out to recreate a one of a kind musket. At the time I was able to tell myself there were many examples that survived and could be tied to CS use.

I found 3 examples in the collection of Ben Michel and here is one of those being sold by Collector Firearms:
http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/admin/product_details.php?itemID=19338

2nd was an article that outlined a group of 12+ muskets that had similiar characteristics.
a) Palmetto and US marked parts mixed together.
b) SC and unmarked Butte plates.
c) Unmarked/stamped lock plates.
d) Odd shaped stocks w/no comb on butte cheek.
e) brass and iron barrel bands.

3rd was a M1842 musket that I picked up in the early 1980"s.

Thanks for the input!

[Tiger_rifles]

Hallo!

Meaning, anything is possible, but not everything is probable. And it depends where one's philosophies or Mental Pictures lie on the scale between possible and probable. And, is further complicated by the scale of whether one chooses to lean toward the researched and documented in portraying or presenting a likely or common impression. Or, a fiction that is possible but not so probable such as when I met Samuel Richardson, he gave me his
jaguar chaps.

Not knocking the choice, just pointing out the differences.

Yes, it is "possible"... that a brass mounted Waters made M1842 or better yet a brass mounted Palmetto musket or later rifled and sighted PAlmetto musket ended up damaged and in a CS armory or contracted gunsmith to be broken down for repair parts- particularly a South Carolina one. And later ended up recycled in such-and-such unit at so-and-so place, at this-or-that time. CHS

Thank you Blair, Curt, and Craig for your insight and depth of knowledge. I guess this is how using too much assumption and too little research can land you in the hot house! Because Flayderman listed Flagg and Waters as contractors for the M1842 and other examples I found, led me to believe these brass mounted muskets were more common. It also made sense to me that few of these muskets would have survived to end up on a museum wall/collection do to the fact that soon after being re-worked/repaired they would have gone right back into service. Much like sky blue trousers. They were one of the most produced items, but the rarest to find now like new.