US MILITARY FLINTLOCK MUSKET

old-arms

I would appreciate your help in my attempt to identify the Model of this musket -- It looks like a model 1812 or 1816 but dose not have the markings or dimensions of any US musket of that time period that I can find -- The barrel is 41'' long -- There are no markings on the lock - stock - all metal parts -- The only markings are on the barrel breach -- N W above P M and the date 1834 -- Note -- The date is on the barrel breach and not on the breach plug tang
Thank You --[img][/img]




[img][/img]

rufe-snow

The late Norm Flayderman, in his antique gun bible. Addresses this, in his section on Whitney firearms.

The Whitney archives of original documents, contracts, diaries, etc. Are held by the Yale university library.

From the Whitney archives, it's Fladerman's contention. Not only Whitney, but all of the gun manufacturers of the era. Put together and sold, from surplus and rejected parts. Any thing they could, to make a buck.

My WAG, is that your Flintlock falls into this category. Long as it was functional, and didn't have to pass a government inspector. As far as specific dimensions and measurements were concerned. They would sell it to anybody.

truthful

The shape of the lock plate suggests early manufacture, 1795-1808 or so. The shape of the hammer appears to be from a model 1812, 1816, or later. The lack of markings on the lock is unusual. As Rufe-Snow suggested, this gun may have been assembled from a variety of parts on hand. All manufactures used to pull parts from bins that got topped off with new parts. In spite of what you hear, good old parts were never tossed out as long as they fit correctly. Or, during its lifetime there may have been several parts replaced as suggested by the condition of the screws.

Spider7115

quote:Originally posted by truthful
The shape of the lock plate suggests early manufacture, 1795-1808 or so. The shape of the hammer appears to be from a model 1812, 1816, or later. The lack of markings on the lock is unusual. As Rufe-Snow suggested, this gun may have been assembled from a variety of parts on hand. All manufactures used to pull parts from bins that got topped off with new parts. In spite of what you hear, good old parts were never tossed out as long as they fit correctly. Or, during its lifetime there may have been several parts replaced as suggested by the condition of the screws.

Both the hammer, stock and barrel appear to be from a Model 1816, Type II, while the lock is from a Model 1795 or 1808.Like Truthful suggested, they probably used an available lock or it could be a Bannerman gun.