Mystery Musket

[J_Gillett]

Well folks, I found this ad on craigslist and wanted to know what you think this musket is or rather may have been. It appears to be marked both Tower and Charleville which is strange but heck I don't know if there is some kind of connection there.

http://losangeles.craigslist.org/wst/clt/862752581.html

Best
Jonathan Gillett

[lincolnsguard]

Looks to me like some re-pop somebody fouled up and is trying to get rid of. The barrel looks like it's thrown on top of a bunch of pieces/parts from Mississippi.

[LibertyHallVols]

Looks to me like some re-pop somebody fouled up and is trying to get rid of. The barrel looks like it's thrown on top of a bunch of pieces/parts from Mississippi.

I disagree. It looks like a Belgian musket of some sort with a funky gold plating/wash added to some of the parts, an incorrect rammer, a bunch of funky post-mfg stamps, and a trimmed-down stock. Did I mention it looks kinda funky?

Metal condition doesn't look too bad and the corners of the wood are still well-defined (though not "crisp"). So, probably not too bad, depending on condition of the bore, etc. However, given the alterations, I wouldn't pay the asking price... but that's just me.

[Craig L Barry]

Hard to say what it is...it is not really one of "anything". It appears to be a conglomeration of parts from a variety of different muskets from different places. The Belgians (Liege) built muskets this way for the third world markets out a scrap heap of parts. Cone in barrel, "belgian" alteration. Lock was obviously in flint at one time. The trigger guard assy is similar to the Potsdam type but with a different trigger. Brass bands, etc. The stock is not typical of conversion muskets as it lacks a side plate. Even the Mississippi (US 1841) had a side plate. The washers and screws look like a 1861 US Springfield or similar from the side opposite the lock. Numbered parts is a giveaway, suggesting it was built by hand and fitted with parts which were marked to work together. At least the lock and hammer. Those same numbers do not appear elsewhere that I can see.

This would have a very suspect heritage as far as any US Civil War provenance. The Tower would never have issued something like this to the British army. The British were famous for their military arms. In fact, it might even have been put together from various parts fairly recently. Some look a lot newer than others.

Wickett is barking up the same tree that I am as far as heritage. John, didn't your Piedmontese have that funky rear notch sight? This one is a mix of parts in other words. Not really even a good wallhanger.

[LibertyHallVols]

Wickett is barking up the same tree that I am as far as heritage. John, didn't your Piedmontese have that funky rear notch sight? This one is a mix of parts in other words. Not really even a good wallhanger.

No. Mine has a different kind of funky notch rear sight. It is the type that is fixed to the tang by a small screw (which is proper for a Piedmontese).

The sight on the musket pictured reminds me more of a French/Belgian model 1822 or 1842, where the sight is welded (?) to the tang.

[Phil]

He's been trying to hawk the same thing on gunbroker. I really think I've seen one of these with a more believable history somewhere, but I don't remember where or what it was.

The pieces do seem to belong together in a convoluted sort of way. It certainly isn't one of those bizarre African trade guns that some folks seem to think are worth $400 plus. It also isn't likely at all anything remotely resembling that gun saw service here in the ACW.

[J_Gillett]

Great comments. I thought it looked a bit slip-shod but couldn't quite put my finger on it. That rear sight is really something...I agree much too high a price.

Regards,
Jonathan Gillett

[Craig L Barry]

It is really worse than that because when people start throwing around terms like British military use or CS heritage it borders on fraud. There is always a maybe in there for wiggle room. I don't like gun sellers like this or this type musket, and normally I tend to be very broad minded on the subject.

[Phil]

It is really worse than that because when people start throwing around terms like British military use or CS heritage it borders on fraud. There is always a maybe in there for wiggle room. I don't like gun sellers like this or this type musket, and normally I tend to be very broad minded on the subject.

I can't agree more. It seems as if any firearm made before 1865 that's been modified from its original configuration in any way gets a "Confederate?" in the title or description. To me, it's just a signal that the seller wants to get a lot more for the gun than it's worth.

[intheblue25]

The ad states that the gun was bought from an estate sale, I am wondering with the hodge podge of parts the gun is made of, was this possibly a weapon put together during the centennial (1960's) period for use at the centennial reenactments. I have seen other estate sale items that are grossly inaccurate, people who find these items think "hey, I found something from the Civil War, it's gotta be worth something." I don't know that reenactors were striving for great authenticity at that point, only on getting numbers out to the field. That is one ugly gun by the way. Just my 2 cents.

Pvt Olsen