Model 1840 Springfield Musket .69 cal.

[gopguy]

Hi Guys,


Found this at the Ohio Gun Collector Association show last weekend. The gun is a original .69 caliber model of 1840 Musket made at the Springfield Armory. Essentially the last of the muskets based on the French Charleville it was also the last of the flintlock weapons made by the US Government. Most were converted to percussion cap, and rifled with two grooves, so to find a example that is still a smoothbore flintlock is a delight. From the Mexican War to the US Civil War I am humbled by the history that passed before this gun.

In the first shot you can see the lock, dated 1841. You can also tell the previous owner polished off all the patina. He is big on Flitz now but listed off every thing he had used over the 60 plus years he owned it... pity but it did keep it from rusting, he has vaseline in the barrel, which is in beautiful shape. The fellow was well up in his 80s and bought the gun at an OGCA show in 1947. He could barely carry it, with a tremor in his hands as he passed it to me to look at... Sadly none of his kids had an interest in his antique guns. I hope my children will be more appreciative of such treasure.



Shot two shows the top, if you look hard you will again see the 1841 date, as well as the Springfield Eagle and the Verified Proof stamp.



Shot three shows the length of this heavy monster. Condition considering her 169 years is amazing. I have to hand it to the fellow he preserved her well.



A very neat piece of American history.

 

[Curator]

U. S. Model 1836 was the last flintlock musket produced for the U.S. Army. Yours was one of the last ones made if 1841 as the Model 1842 was the same gun with a percussion lock. Probably 90% of the 1816 and 1836 f;int lock guns were converted to percussion sometime after 1842. Despite the removal of patina, it should be quite valuable assuming it is not "re-converted" from percussion back to flint.

 

[gopguy]

They have a pretty good entry here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Model_1840_Flintlock_Musket

I need to get a newer Flayderman's catalog. My current one is from '01, but it dedicates most of a page to them.

 

[mykeal]

OMG. That greatly overused phrase certainly applies here.

 

[wittzo]

Dadgum! That looks better than a brand new repro. Are you sure he didn't use a time machine, because that's the first thing I would do on the way back to see the dinosaurs; pick up some big old guns and sell them when I got back.

 

[gopguy]

Thanks guys, she is indeed museum quality. I am still sitting here marveling at it and my luck.

 

[Oyeboten]

Where'sw the Ranger Report?

Where's the Target?

It's a beauty alright!! And, I bet it is chompin' at-the-Bit to be Fired again!

How long since it was last shot?

A-while I bet..!

 

[4v50 Gary]

Hit it with Rennaisance Wax to protect your bright finish and prevent a new patina from developing on that bare metal.

 

[Smokin_Gun]

Congrads Gopguy ...very nicely done. How can I tell? Cause I want it ... :O)

 

[gopguy]

Where'sw the Ranger Report?

Where's the Target?

I think I will just have to stick to shooting my Charleville repro to get that feel. lol


Thanks guys and thanks for the suggestion on the Ren. wax Gary, I will do that. Got to keep her nice for future generations.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Apply the Ren. Wax to both metal and wood. Be sure to get the areas like beneath the buttplate, lock, sideplate and barrel channel.

 

[gopguy]

New can on the way via amazon, thanks.

 

[mec]

that polish job may not be a bad thing at all. It's exactly what the original soldiers did with them. The officers, considering it their duty to be mean to the inlisted and keep them from having any fun insisted that they keep their muskets in a state of high polish.
For instance, Here is a Mr. Owen standing there with his issue 61 springfield and next to it is the same rifle patinaed a century and a half later. Obviously, the older picture shows a highly polished rifled musket

 

[hawkeye74]

It is absolutely perfect. It looks like it was never issued. Congratulations on a great find. I hate it was polished and such because you may have lost the proof marks, and such that tell part of its history. What proof marks are on the stock and barrel?

 

[Cosmoline]

The quality is almost too good. I've never seen anything like it. Even in a polished example there's invariably some pitting, and the wood is dried out and shows signs of flaking. How did the association verify the provenance? It must have been stored in some cool humidity-free place.

 

[iron maiden]

Beautiful looking musket. Almost too beautiful.... But from looking at the screws, they appear to be fire blued, which would put it in the vicinity for the 1840's.

It looks like it wasn't issued. Indeed, you have a rare find there.

 

[gopguy]

that polish job may not be a bad thing at all. It's exactly what the original soldiers did with them. The officers, considering it their duty to be mean to the inlisted and keep them from having any fun insisted that they keep their muskets in a state of high polish.
For instance, Here is a Mr. Owen standing there with his issue 61 springfield and next to it is the same rifle patinaed a century and a half later. Obviously, the older picture shows a highly polished rifled musket

That is reeally great that you can track that back to the original soldier it was issued to.

What proof marks are on the stock and barrel?

Actually you can see the VP of the verified proof, eagle head and date 1841 in the middle shot.

Even in a polished example there's invariably some pitting

As noted there are some minor blemishes that you can't see in the shots very well. If you study pictures one and two you will see minor pits and dings. Sunny day and lots of glare makes it tougher to see. I know one thing, when I hit 169 years old I won't look nearly as good. lol

 

[hawkeye74]

I need to ask questions only when I am not tired.

Instead of proof marks, I meant inspectors marks. What do the inspectors marks look like?

 

[gopguy]

Unfortunately I can not make out any cartouches on the stock. I was looking at my copy of Robert Ball's book on Springfield Armory, and while he shows many cartouches on the various muskets he does not on the model 1840 in the book. I am not sure who all was there inspecting then.

 

[gopguy]

I did find one that went up for auction last year that was reconverted and brought a pretty penny. You can barely make out the cartouches on it...

http://www.rockislandauction.com/view_item.aspx?aid=48&iid=248754

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I would definately take it immediately to two museums and get it authenticated by each to secure the provenance. Simply because it was sold at the Ohio show doesn't mean it was authenticated. The screws are too perfect to be original with the gun, though they may be correct and original screws that replaced the first screws and so are fine. The screw that attaches the cock to the lock looks a bit too square compared to the other lock, reconversion or not. Fire blued screws btw do not give you a date, as the technique is easily reproduced today. 60 years of polishing and it appears all the marks are crisp and clean..., that's odd. There is no shallowing due to any polishing. It's possible though, so get two independent opinions and a certificate from at least one of them, is what I'd suggest. It would help with insurance at any rate, right?

LD

 

[gopguy]

Appreciate the advice Dave but really I am not worried, I have seen the old boy I got this from at the OGCA shows for years, I trust him and have gotten other pieces from him. As far as the screws go, they look like the one in Ball's Springfield Armory book. I have seen them with rounded and square edges in the book...

 

[Cosmoline]

I wouldn't doubt the seller, but where did the seller buy it from? And where did that seller buy it from?

Let me put it this way. If that musket is indeed what it seems to be, it may be the most intact and well preserved example in existence, period. Most of these were converted to caplocks, rode hard and put away wet through both the Mexican and Civil Wars, plus surplus market uses thereafter. So owning it isn't just a fun thing, but a responsibility. Since it was a US Army weapon, the responsibility is even greater. I think it's beholden on you to have it examined and get a provenance established to the extent possible. It probably should not have been shined up, but the phenomenally good state of the stamps tells me there wasn't much damage done in the process. And of course the patina will come back. I would not buff it any further, though, or you'll be haunted by ghosts of curators past ;-)

 

[gopguy]

That's a good point. Anyone know an expert on Springfield Armory muskets in Ohio?

 

[Jim K]

I don't want to stick ye olde neck out too far, but that is the way they were issued. The finish was called "armory bright" and the soldier was expected to keep it that way; any rust proved he was derelict in his duty. But that musket was never issued and was probably never fired after being proved. The touchhole is as new, the sharp edge above it is not marred. History? I think we have to thank a thief for that gun. I would think it was stolen from a shipment and kept by the thief or his family over the years. Alternatively, it was taken from the Armory itself at some time.

Jim