Making a reproduction H&P 1816 Conversion

[Maillemaker]

Let us suppose we wanted to try and make a reproduction H&P conversion for the benefit of having a reproduction variant of a sighted smoothbore musket for N-SSA competition.

Suppose we started with the Pedersoli Colt Conversion of the M1816:

http://www.davide-pedersoli.com/scheda-prodotto.asp/l_en/idpr_71/rifles-1816-harpers-ferry-colt-conversion-harpers-ferry-colt-conversion.html

Suppose we remove and save the breech plug with tang, and then cut off a portion of the rear of the barrel, to make room for a new screwed-in breech with H&P style snail, as was done originally.

http://i.imgur.com/myd5reC.png

The reproduction barrel would be threaded to accept this new breech, and the original reproduction tang and breech plug would be screwed into that, completing the barrel assembly with the addition of an M1855 rear sight.

It seems that perhaps the existing reproduction lock plate could have material removed near the front of the snail to make it conform to our new H&P reproduction breech.

See original on left, Pedersoli Colt Conversion on right:

http://i.imgur.com/1rSpLtK.png


In such a manner a reproduction H&P conversion might be relatively easily accomplished if a new breech could be fashioned and made available for a competent gunsmith to mate with the existing Pedersoli 1816 Colt Conversion barrel.

Also perhaps a new hammer would be needed.

It seems to me in this day and age of CNC machining with services like Protolabs that such a breech plug could be manufactured relatively easily. Of course acquiring the breech and having it mated to a Pedersoli barrel is probably a $500 or so proposition, making the total cost of acquiring a Pedersoli musket and accomplishing the conversion being a $1500 or so proposition, which may make just finding an original H&P preferable.

What do you think?

Steve

[Eggman]

We don't need no stinkin' rear sight!!

[jonk]

It could certainly be done; however, I don't see Taylors selling the 1816 conversion yet. Dixie has them for $1425. Add to that a new breech, rear sights, the lock plate work, new trigger guard (or modification of existing), new hammer, possible stock/barrel work (dunno the length of the existing) new barrel band... I suspect you'd be well over $2k.

Far easier to just get an 1816 original and go from there. Or get a Potsdam, or one of those British smoothbores (baker I think?) that all have rear sights, are approved, and usually pretty reasonable in price.

I have an 1842, 1816, and a Potsdam. I've shot all in competition. All 3 would post gold medal scores if I did my part. That said, I KNOW that I get nervous with the 42. I can take it out in practice and drill the ties out of the pigeons one after another, I get it out on the bird board at a match and I fall apart. I would say that the need for a rear sight is a (very real) mental thing; if you can function without it, the gun will do fine.

One of these days I'm going to get that thing doing what I want it to and shake my nerves.

[John Holland]

To all: There is a major problem with converting the Pedersoli M-1816 percussion musket to any other version. The problem is that the Pedersoli M-1816 was submitted a long, long, time ago when things were quite different regarding Small Arms. I was but a fledgling SAC Inspector at the time and could only observe the production approval process, which went something like this: "Well, it certainly isn't a Colt type alteration because it isn't rifled and sighted! But, it looks like many of the Model 1816's that were drum converted in the South early in the Civil War! It appears to be very well made, too. All in favor....All opposed....Passed." It was never dimensionally checked for accurate dimensions, band locations, etc. Today it is known that the Pedersoli M-1816 Musket, in percussion, is quite far off in most dimensional requirements. Therefore, this arm falls into the category of the Mississippi Rifles that were approved with a short OAL stock length. That is, if these arms are modified in any way, shape, or form from the configuration in which they were originally granted approved, all dimensions and specifications must now come into compliance with an original arm.

John Holland
Chairman
N-SSA Small Arms Committee

[Eggman]

Always fun to read John's hysterical, I mean historical, content.

My post should have read, "REAR SIGHTS?? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' REAR SIGHTS!!!" to be historically compliant.
(The Treasure of the Sierra Madre/Blazing Saddles)

[Maillemaker]

That is, if these arms are modified in any way, shape, or form from the configuration in which they were originally granted approved, all dimensions and specifications must now come into compliance with an original arm.

Is the Pedersoli 1816 close enough to a historical 1816 to meet N-SSA approval?

Steve

[MR. GADGET]

Is the Pedersoli 1816 close enough to a historical 1816 to meet N-SSA approval?

Steve

I wish people would stuck to the question ask and not always go off on the sights no sights.

Yes as I know it the DP 1816 in on the approval list.

I have been in talks with DP about building an H&P conversion. They are looking into the cost and numbers that can be sold.
I hope they will do it and John Holland should have been Cc about some of the info to DP about the project.

If they do not want to do it production I plan to talk to them next about a small batch done and I will buy 10 to 15 and get them imported to sell.

[Maillemaker]

I have been in talks with DP about building an H&P conversion. They are looking into the cost and numbers that can be sold.
I hope they will do it and John Holland should have been Cc about some of the info to DP about the project.

I email them from time to time also. Hopefully they understand that evidently they can't just modify their existing 1816 if that is now not a close enough reproduction for the N-SSA.


If they do not want to do it production I plan to talk to them next about a small batch done and I will buy 10 to 15 and get them imported to sell.

This would be cool.

Steve