Making a reproduction H&P 1816 Conversion

[Maillemaker]

All the hoopla in the other thread about the 1816 H&P conversion has got me thinking again about how difficult it would be to make a reproduction of it.

Pedersoli makes an N-SSA approved 1816:

http://www.davide-pedersoli.com/scheda-prodotto.asp/l_en/idpr_69/rifles-1816-harpers-ferry-1816-harpers-ferry.html

They also make a sort-of Colt Conversion:

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

From past discussions as I recall the answer was that the Pedersoli 1816 and/or its conversion have inaccuracies and if they went through N-SSA approval today they might not be approved.

What are the inaccuracies, and are the addressable?

Since the H&P conversion was made, as I understand it, by sawing off the breech end of the barrel and screwing in a new breech with the bolster/cone, and since most reproduction barrels are made this way anyway, it seems like having the barrel made would be the easy part.

I suppose new reproduction hammers would have to be made? And I suppose reproduction rear sights would have to be made.

What else would need to be addressed to make a passable H&P conversion replica?

LOL I was googling this and found my old thread on this subject:

http://www.n-ssa.net/vbforum/archive/index.php/t-10832.html

Steve

[Maillemaker]

Here is an interesting old thread over on the Authentic Campaigner:

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?32699-AS-M1842-or-Pedersoli-1816-22-Conversion/page2

I note:

H&P was contracted during the war to convert several thousand flintlock Springfields to rifled muskets, both by the US government and the state of New Jersey. By 1862 they got permission to omit the rifling process to speed up production, yet they retained the distinctive rear sights and iron front sights in spite of this. So while an 1861 dated H&P conversion would be rifled, an 1862 or 1863 dated one would not but would still look like the rifled version. Incidentally the H&Ps used a method identical to today's barrel makers of screwing on a cast breech to the end of the barrel to replace the flint breech. The replacement bolster in their cast breech was identical to the 1842.


Does this open up the possibility of using an 1842 barrel as part of the custom build of a reproduction H&P conversion?

It also seems that the rear sight used was the M1855 rear sight, which is also commonly available.

Steve

[gemmer]

I'm not sure that the bolster configuration on an H&P is the same as on a '42. As I understand it, there were several versions of the H&P breech plug/bolster, with at least one of them having a clean out
screw, which the '42 never had. I also believe that the bolster fit in a notch in the lock plate, again, not on the '42.

[jonk]

If you haven't seen it yet, this is a great article:
http://americansocietyofarmscollectors.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/B033_Altemus.pdf

As you can see, there were a number of bolsters used, some with cleanout screws.

Whenever this comes up, my own reaction is: the cost involved would mean you could buy an H&P, put a Hoyt barrel on it or have it lined, and still come out ahead cost wise.

Now, if you could find an off-the-shelf breech and bolster that fit an otherwise in spec barrel, that would be a possible approach that would merit consideration.

[Maillemaker]

Whenever this comes up, my own reaction is: the cost involved would mean you could buy an H&P, put a Hoyt barrel on it or have it lined, and still come out ahead cost wise.

Maybe. But most of the "shooters" people offer for sale look pretty ragged out. If you want something in fine or very fine condition it looks like you are going to spend upwards of $2000. Of course, such pristine condition would not have been seen even during the ACW, since these guns pre-dated that event by some 20-40 years. Still, if you want a "like new" gun, it's going to cost you some coin whether new or original.

From your article, which is very good, (though I think this might be the one that John Holland talked about earlier as being dated), it appears that not only did some of the sighted H&P guns have 1842-style snails, but also used 1842 hammers. Combined with 1855 sights, this is starting to sound promising! I'm trying to sort out the snail types with non-rifled conversions and 1842 hammers:

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

It looks like there are 3 viable candidates, which are made from 2 basic configuration. Large Snail, and Small Snail (Late Type).

I am not sure which of these, if any, are identical to the 1842 snail. I'm still reading the details of the paper.

The stock problem, as I understand it, is that Pedersoli used or based their 1816 off of the 1777 Charleville. So I guess you'd have to start with a Dunlap 1816 stock. Perhaps reproduction 1816 barrel bands would suffice, perhaps not. If not, things do indeed start to get pricey fast. I saw original 1842 front bands going for like $280 at the Nationals.

I don't know how good a reproduction their lock is. It might be possible to use their Colt Conversion lock as the basis for mating to a barrel with an 1842-style snail and an 1842 hammer.

The upshot of this thought experiment is that it does not seem too far-fetched to contemplate being able to build a faithful reproduction sighted H&P smoothbore that could pass the SAC.

But my real thoughts turn to continuing to pester Pedersoli or Armisport to make one.

Steve

[Maillemaker]

http://i.imgur.com/PPkql8L.png

I wonder what this means?

Steve

[Maillemaker]

An H&P snail:
http://i.imgur.com/t4Y1ISt.png

An original 1842 snail:
http://i.imgur.com/bnjhVa4.png

Armisport 1842 snail:
http://i.imgur.com/4gVvUUL.jpg

I wonder if the barrel bands on the 1816 and 1842 are interchangeable?

Steve

[MR. GADGET]

At one time I was talking to DP about building a repop

Was sending pictures and info on what was needed to build them.
They were talking about some kind of build using the 1816 they build changing parts needed and combination of 1842 parts.

If they needed to do all new castings and work from the ground up it would not sell enough or cost too much.

I know John Holland was in contact also with them as they stated he was to forward more info for them.

Anyways it would be really nice if we could get them to build a repop and the cost of a real one in the shape I want would cost a lot and would not want to shoot one that was that nice as much as I do.

Repops are nice, they cost less, no risk that a real one is stolen or damaged.

[jonk]

http://i.imgur.com/PPkql8L.png

I wonder what this means?

Steve

Well, it means what it sounds like. The standard 16 flintlock gun and most non H&P Conversions (no rear sights) had the front sight blade on the rear of the band. The HP conversions of the 16 had a new band with the 'shark fin' front sight moved to the front of the band. I have seen H&Ps with the standard 16 type band, but unless documentation of this as a standard production variation were available (with at least 100 issued as such) it would be a moot point.

[Maillemaker]

Well, it means what it sounds like. The standard 16 flintlock gun and most non H&P Conversions (no rear sights) had the front sight blade on the rear of the band. The HP conversions of the 16 had a new band with the 'shark fin' front sight moved to the front of the band. I have seen H&Ps with the standard 16 type band, but unless documentation of this as a standard production variation were available (with at least 100 issued as such) it would be a moot point.

Thanks, my impression from the passage was that the sight was maybe on the barrel, and they moved it to the barrel band.

What they are actually saying is they moved it from the back of the barrel band to the front of the barrel band, as it is on the 1842.


At one time I was talking to DP about building a repop

I emailed both Pedersoli and Armisport yesterday. Pedersoli responded with:


Dear Mr. Sheldon,

Thank you for your suggestion.


It will be useful to know the dimensional variations compared with the model we currently produced.

Also pictures of the front and rear sights will help.

We look forward to read from you.

Best regards,
Customer service

Honestly I don't know why these guys don't just buy a good quality H&P and copy it. Anyway I guess I'm going to have to dive into learning the ins and outs of the 1816 H&P conversion like I did with the Enfield to help guide them along.

Steve

[MR. GADGET]

John can send them a spec sheet for the most common or the best one that would fit all the parts they already make.

[Maillemaker]

John can send them a spec sheet for the most common or the best one that would fit all the parts they already make.

Are these spec sheets available for download from the N-SSA web site? In the meanwhile I have emailed John.

Thanks,

Steve

[MR. GADGET]

No
John keeps them so he can update them.
Send him an email or call and he will get you hooked up.

I have them but they are on a drive at the house and not sure I got the H&P stuff at the time.

[Maillemaker]

I purchased the Moller ebook and am reading about the H&P conversions now. Looks like they had 1858 3-leaf sights.

Steve

[Maillemaker]

From Moller:

http://i.imgur.com/yVxy2YU.png

I am confused here. In the section for US Contract H&P conversions, it says all models examined had 1858 sights. But the picture says 1861 sights.

What is the difference, if any?

Thanks,
Steve

[Maillemaker]

Interesting reading here.

It appears that Hewes and Phillips performed 1816 conversions for the federal government, and for the state of New Jersey.

Here is the information concerning the New Jersey conversions:


NEW JERSEY STATE ARSENAL-ALTERED MUSKETS 188.252

At the outbreak of the Civil War, New Jersey had cone-in-barrel–altered muskets that had been
altered at the state arsenal and that had been received under the 1808 Militia Act allocations The state
also had 1,978 muskets that had been altered to the Maynard system at Frankford Arsenal. The
January 1, 1861, inventory of the state’s arms showed it owned 3,328 percussion muskets and more
than 1,000 percussion rifles. This inventory also showed the state still owned 7,446 flintlock muskets
and some flintlock rifles.

New Jersey sent three regiments of infantry to Washington, DC, on June 28, 1861. On August 3,
Abraham Lincoln requisitioned five more regiments of infantry from the state. On September 8,
another regiment was added to the federal requisition.

In order to modernize the state’s arms, the New Jersey legislature authorized the construction of an
addition to the state arsenal on May 10, 1861. A 150″ by 20″ building was constructed. Its ground
floor was a machine shop and its second floor was for storage. The machine shop was equipped with
“machinery for altering, rifling, repairing, and polishing guns.”

Two rifling machines were purchased from Alfred Jenks & Son. These were installed at the
arsenal; 2,666 muskets were rifled during 1861 and 4,100 were rifled during 1862.
Most of the state’s flintlock muskets that were altered to percussion were altered by the firms of
Hewes & Phillips and Field & Horton and are described later in this section. Only a relative handful
of muskets are known to have been altered by the New Jersey State Arsenal’s machine shop, all in
1862 and 1863:

1862: 340 muskets altered from flintlock
1863: 60 muskets altered from flintlock
Total: 400 muskets altered from flintlock

No muskets attributed to alteration by the chambered breech piece by the New Jersey State Arsenal
are known. Knowing that the state’s quartermaster general’s office preferred chambered breech
alterations to cone-in-barrel alterations, and because known state arsenal–altered flintlock rifles are
known with chambered breeches with cleanout screws in the nipple bolster, it is speculated that this
form of alteration may have been accomplished on the 400 muskets. If true, it is possible that the
chambered breeches and hammers were procured by the state from Hewes & Phillips or Field &
Horton, and are essentially identical to the muskets altered under state contract by those firms.

The quartermaster general’s reports indicate that flintlock muskets were used for drilling the militia
during the Civil War. His annual report for 1865 stated that there were still 2,167 flintlock muskets in
the arsenal, all classified as unserviceable.

The second to last paragraph is confusing to me. First they say that no chambered breech alterations were known to be performed by the New Jersey State Arsenal. But then they go on to speculate that they were, using breeches and hammers procured from H&P or F&H.

[Maillemaker]

Moller continues:


NEW JERSEY STATE CONTRACT-ALTERED MUSKETS 188.258

http://i.imgur.com/ZC9L85u.png
188.258–1 The nipple bolsters of the breech pieces of the earliest Hewes & Phillips and Field & Horton altered muskets for New Jersey
had nipple bolsters with a convex outer surface. They were also equipped with a reversed Model 1858 rear sight and a front sight similar
to that of the Model 1842 rifled and sighted musket.

As previously noted, in 1856 the New Jersey state legislature authorized the quartermaster general to
alter a limited number of muskets each year. The quartermaster general had 1,978 of the state’s
muskets altered at Frankford Arsenal to the Maynard lock system. These altered muskets had
chambered breeches. In his 1859 annual report, the quartermaster general stated that an arsenal-style
cone-in-barrel alteration would cost $1.60 each, and a chambered breech alteration, with sights,
would cost $2.30 each. He recommended the chambered breech alteration because it resulted in a
“sightly, reliable, and durable arm.”

However, no further alterations were made to New Jersey flintlock muskets until after the outbreak
of the Civil War in April 1861. A January 1 inventory showed the state still had 7,446 flintlock
muskets. On May 10, the state’s legislature authorized the immediate alteration of all the state’s
muskets for the several regiments that were raised from New Jersey for federal service.

Recognizing the superiority of the chambered breech system, the quartermaster general contracted
with two firms, Hewes & Phillips of Newark, New Jersey, and Field & Horton of Trenton, New
Jersey, to alter the serviceable flintlock and arsenal-altered muskets to this system. Hewes & Phillips
agreed to perform this alteration at $2.95 per musket. The quartermaster general later reported that a
total of 7,481 muskets were altered by both companies during the year at an average alteration cost of
$3.12 per musket. It is believed that Field & Horton altered slightly more than 430 muskets, and
Hewes & Phillips altered more than 7,000 muskets.

In 1845, Hewes & Phillips began their steam engine manufacturing company in New York. It
moved to Newark, New Jersey, the following year. In addition to the alterations for the state of New
Jersey, it manufactured armor and other iron items for the U.S. Navy during the Civil War. Following
the war, the firm continued to produce steam engines until it was sold to Essex Engine & Machine
Corporation in 1920.

Hewes & Phillips alterations for New Jersey have chambered breeches with a cleanout screw. All
known examples are equipped with Model 1858–style rear sights and iron front sight blade similar to
those of the Model 1842 rifled and sighted musket. This blade is brazed to the front barrel ring of the
upper barrel band. Two nipple bolster configurations, both extending beyond the lockplate’s surface,
were used. What is believed to be the earliest bolster has a convex outer surface. Later bolsters’ outer
surface has a small flat in the middle. The barrel section of the breech piece used in the alteration of
flintlock muskets is 1″ to 1 1/8″ long. The breech piece’s barrel section is usually 1 ¼″ long when it is
used in the realteration muskets previously altered by the arsenal cone-in-barrel method. The bores
are usually, but not always, rifled with three grooves. This rifling may have been accomplished by
Hewes & Phillips or at the New Jersey State Arsenal.

HEWES & PHILLIPS NEW JERSEY (TYPE I) ALTERATION
Barrel: When viewed from the side, the bolster’s profile is generally circular and its outer surface is
convex. There is no flash shield at the rear. Because of the bolster’s lateral length, the nipple is
centered about ¼″ to 5/16″ from the side of the barrel. The Model 1858 rifle musket rear sight is
usually reversed on the barrel. The sight’s mortise is about the same distance from the breech as
the Hewes & Phillips U.S. alteration, but because the 1 5/16″-long sight base extends rearward, it is
just 2″ from the breech.

http://i.imgur.com/bqCheva.png
188.258–2 The spherical shape of the nipple bolster required that a piece of the original flintlock’s pan be retained just forward of the
bolster. The hammer’s body and thumbpiece were similar to those of Model 1855 rifle muskets.

Lock: The lock’s original pan recess was deepened and extended rearwards to serve as a seat for the
nipple bolster. Due to the bolster’s circular profile, a small section of the brass pan is visible in
front of the bolster. The original frizzen, frizzen spring, and pan retaining screws have been ground
flush with the plate’s surface. The Model 1861–style percussion hammer is 3 7/16″ long. Its
thumbpiece is not checkered and its cupped nose does not have a notch at the top.

Alteration and State Ownership Markings: The barrel’s left breech flat is stamped “N.J.” just
forward of the breech piece. “H&P” is stamped at where the top of the breech piece joins the
barrel, and “1861” is stamped on the breech piece’s tang. A primary mating mark, consisting of a
single letter such as “D,” is stamped into the underside of the barrel, breech piece, and stock’s
barrel channel in order to serve as a mating mark. A secondary mating mark consisting of numerals
such as “12” is stamped into the underside of the barrel, front of the nipple bolster, stock’s barrel
channel, inside of hammer, and the rear tang of the upper band. Roman numeral “XII” is cut into the
inside of the pan stub.

HEWES & PHILLIPS NEW JERSEY (TYPE II) ALTERATION
Barrel: When viewed from the side, the nipple bolster’s lower profile generally curves downwards
towards the front. The front profile is vertical near the bottom, then curves rearwards and inclines
upwards at the top. Its outer surface has a large flat centered in its convex surface. There is no
flash shield at the rear. Because the bolster’s lateral length is shorter than the (Type I) alteration,
the nipple is centered about 1/16″ from the side of the barrel. The Model 1858 rifle rear sight is
usually reversed on the barrel. The sight’s mortise is about the same distance from the breech as
the Hewes & Phillips U.S. alteration, but because the 1 ¼″-long sight base extends rearwards, it is
just 2 1/16″ from the breech.

Lock: The lock’s original pan recess was deepened and extended rearwards to serve as a seat for the
nipple bolster. Due to the bolster’s profile, the brass pan is not visible in front of the bolster. The
original frizzen, frizzen spring, and pan retaining screws have been ground flush with the plate’s
surface. The Model 1861–style percussion hammer is 3 7/16″ long. Its thumbpiece is not checkered
and its cupped nose does not have a notch at the top.

http://i.imgur.com/YRI9MNw.png
188.258–3 Later percussion altered muskets delivered by Hewes & Phillips were equipped with breech pieces having bolsters which
were contoured to fit the pan recess in the Model 1816 musket’s lockplate. The bolster’s outer surface was flattened and had a cleanout
screw. The hammer more closely resembled those of the Model 1861 rifle musket.

Alteration and State Ownership Markings: The barrel is stamped with the same “N.J.,” “H&P,”
and “1861” markings in the same location as the (Type I) alteration. Many of these muskets have
three sets of Arabic mating numbers. A primary mating number such as “201” is stamped into the
underside of the barrel, stock’s barrel channel, and inside the lockplate’s front pan stub. A
secondary mating number, such as “20,” is stamped into the front face of the bolster, the upper
band’s tang, the stock’s left breech flat, inside the hammer, and on the left side of the rear sight. A
tertiary mating number, such as “14,” is stamped into the underside of the barrel, breech piece, and
stock’s barrel channel.

So, what I gather from this is that there are two types of H&P New Jersey conversions. The first type the bolster was somewhat small, necessitating leaving a piece of the brass pan in the lock to fill the gap. the second type had a somewhat larger bolster that filled that gap without needing to keep the brass piece in the lock.

However, both of these types had a cleanout screw.

Additionally, usually, the H&P New Jersey alterations were rifled. But not always.

H&P altered more than 7,000 muskets. So a question is, were 1000 or more converted as smoothbores to satisfy N-SSA conditions for use? I don't see that information provided here. So based on the little I have read so far, it does not seem probable at this time that you can use an original or reproduction New Jersey H&P smoothbore if I understand the rules and the history correctly.

[Maillemaker]

Now, on to the federal contracts for H&P:


DESCRIPTIONS OF CONTRACT CHAMBERED BREECH ALTERATIONS 185.82

The percussion-altered and realtered Model 1816 muskets delivered by the contractors are generally
similar. This suggests that at least detailed instructions, and perhaps detailed drawings or patterns or
even breech pieces, were supplied by the government. Most muskets altered under these federal
contracts have integral nipple bolsters that are generally similar to that of the Model 1842 musket,
except that the latter’s curved lower profile is inclined downwards at the front. The only federal
contract chambered breech–altered muskets with nipple bolsters equipped having a cleanout screw
are those altered by Henry Leman. However, Hewes & Phillips, Leman, and Wurfflein altered or
realtered muskets for individual states and equipped the nipple bolsters of at least some of those
state-owned muskets with cleanout screws.

The barrel section of the hardened steel breech pieces are of two lengths: the shorter breech pieces
range from 1 1/16″ to 1 1/8″ long; the longer breech pieces are about 1 7/32″ long. This does not include
the 2 1/8″ integral tang that extends to the rear or the threaded part, which extends forward in the bore.
It is speculated that the shorter breech pieces were used in the original alteration of flintlock muskets.
The longer breech pieces may have been used in the realteration of previously cone-in-barrel–altered
muskets because a longer section of the breech had to be removed to eliminate not only the upset
section of the barrel, but also the extreme front of the threaded section of the nipple seat, which
inclined forward.

The lockplate’s pan recess has been deepened slightly, and its front end has been made more
vertical. This new profile provides a “seat” for the barrel’s new nipple bolster. The other alterations
to the lock are similar to those described in section 185.21 for the arsenal cone-in-barrel–altered
muskets. Two different configurations of percussion hammers were used in these alterations. One of
these, about 3 ¼″ to 3 5/16″ long, is generally similar to the hammer used in Model 1842 muskets. The
other, about 3 ½″ long, is similar to those of the Model 1855 rifle muskets and the Frankford-
Remington alterations. Both styles of hammer have cupped and notched heads.

Examination of a number of chambered breech altered muskets revealed that few of the altered
Model 1816 muskets were rifled, although most were sighted. Most, but not all, Model 1840 muskets
altered with chambered breeches were rifled and sighted. It is speculated that the altered Model 1840
muskets were rifled because their barrel walls were thicker than those of Model 1816 muskets. Their
barrels’ walls were the same thickness as the Model 1842 percussion musket.

Of those muskets equipped with sights, the Model 1858 3-leaf rear sight is usually located 2 ½″ to
3″ forward of the barrel’s breech. Many of these sights were soldered to the barrels, rather than
attached by the usual dovetail and spanner screw. The spanner screw’s shaft was shortened and its
head was soldered into the sight base. The original brass front sight on the rear barrel ring of Model
1816 muskets was removed, and an iron blade similar to those used on Model 1842 rifled and sighted
muskets was riveted and brazed to the front barrel ring.

The ongoing study of the markings of percussion-altered arms described in section 185.24 has
established some patterns and styles to the alteration and mating reassembly numbers stamped into
examples of chambered breech–altered muskets delivered under the Frankford Arsenal contracts.
However, too little is known for definitive attribution of muskets having specific markings system or
style to a specific contractor. Numerals, or letters and numerals, are usually found stamped into the
underside of the barrel and into the lockplate. The lockplate’s alteration or mating numbers are
frequently stamped into the internal pan bolster’s surface, forward of the original pan location. Other
marking patterns have these numbers stamped into the top of this bolster. One marking variation has
this number stamped into the lockplate’s exterior, beneath the hammer. The hammer’s mating number
matches the lock number, and is stamped into the inside surface of its body.

In addition to the underside of the barrel, alteration or mating numbers are usually, but not always,
stamped into the underside of the breech piece, and may be stamped or written in red or black pencil
in the stock’s barrel channel or lock recess. Generally, when the original front sight on a Model 1816
musket’s upper band was removed and a new sight installed on the front barrel ring, a number was
stamped into the band’s rear tang. Only one marking pattern or style has been observed that had a
mating or alteration number stamped into all major metal components.

The muskets altered with chambered breeches were delivered by only a few of the 23 persons and
companies that contracted with Major Laidley at Frankford Arsenal are known with a high degree of
certainty. These are the muskets altered and realtered by Hewes & Phillips, J. H. Hitchcock &
Company, and John Wurfflein. The muskets altered and realtered by Henry Leman pursuant to his
contract with the chief of ordnance and the state of Pennsylvania are also distinctive.

The muskets were altered from late 1861 into early 1863. A letter written by Chief of Ordnance
General Ripley on December 15, 1862, stated that few muskets that had not been altered or realtered
to the chambered breech system remained in Frankford Arsenal.

My main take-away from the above is that there are two kinds of federal chambered breech alterations: One was for muskets that had already had the cone-in-barrel conversion, and the other was for those that had not. For the already-altered cone-in-barrel muskets, more of the barrel had to be cut away to cut away the threaded hole for the cone, and consequently a longer breech was needed. For original flintlocks, less of the barrel needed to be cut away, and consequently a shorter breech segment was used.

I'm not sure this would matter for a reproduction as far as the N-SSA is concerned. Most, if not all of the musket reproductions have a chambered breech screwed into the barrels today, and a tiny seam is visible where the barrel and the breech join. Hopefully then the N-SSA would not care. However, in terms of numbers produced anyway, it should not matter:


Of the 35,023 muskets altered with chambered breeches known to have been delivered, at least
12,140 are identified in Ordnance Department records to have been previously percussion cone-inbarrel
muskets that were realtered by Hewes & Phillips and by J. H. Hitchcock & Company to
chambered breech. The remaining 21,975 muskets altered to chambered breech consisted of both
American flintlock muskets and unknown quantities of Austrian Augustine tube-lock muskets.

So it appears that there were many thousands of each kind produced, so both should be valid candidates for a reproduction (or original, of course).


HEWES & PHILLIPS U.S. CONTRACT CHAMBERED BREECH ALTERATION 185.83

The majority of muskets delivered by Hewes & Phillips under contract with Frankford Arsenal were
realtered from previous cone-in-barrel alterations and therefore have the longer breech piece
previously described. The hammer and nipple bolsters are of the modified 1842 configurations. The
nipple bolster’s flat outer face is stamped “H&P.” The top of the breech piece is stamped with an
“1862” or “1863” year date. A few examples have the “H&P” marking stamped in this location in the
top of the breech piece.

http://i.imgur.com/ZC9L85u.png
185.83–1 This Model 1816 musket was altered by Hewes & Phillips using a chambered breech piece with a nipple bolster similar to
those of Model 1842 muskets.

http://i.imgur.com/iiDfUbi.png
185.83–2 The rear sight of this Hewes & Phillips U.S. contract altered musket is of the Model 1861 rifle musket pattern.

All muskets examined have Model 1858 leaf-type rear sights. These may be installed as usual or
may be reversed on the barrel; they may be screwed or soldered to the barrels. The original brass
front sight blade was removed and an iron blade was soldered to the upper band’s front barrel ring.
The ramrod head has been cupped for minie ammunition.

In addition to the 12,143 muskets altered by Hewes & Phillips under the Frankford Arsenal
contract, this company also altered 8,000 arms for the state of New Jersey. These are described in
section 188.252.

Here, I think, we get to the "meat and potatoes" when talking about candidates for a reproduction H&P 1816 conversion. There were some 35,000 of them made. They have an 1858 leaf sight facing fowards the usual way.

Sadly, as we can see from the pictures in my above post, the 1842 bolster has a flat bottom where it fits into a flat-bottomed notch in its lock plate. The H&P bolster, on the other hand, has a curved bottom, and fits into a curved recess in its lock plate. So this probably blows out of the water the idea of using an Armisport 1842 barrel as the basis for an H&P 1816 federal contract conversion.

However, the N-SSA rules show that Mr. Hoyt has an approved H&P 1816 conversion barrel:

http://i.imgur.com/R0z5nor.png

Is it possible that Mr. Hoyt manufactures H&P 1816 conversion barrels? Sadly he has no web presence so I will have to call to find out. I have emailed Mr. Whitacre at Whitacre Machine Shop to see if they do/will.

It does appear, however, that you can use an 1842 hammer on the H&P 1816 federal conversion.

Interestingly the 1816 conversions had an iron front blade sight, as opposed to the brass one found on the 1842s.

So, I think I have a decent handle on the requirements for the barrel and the lock.

The next question is just how bad is the stock on the Pedersoli 1816?

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Does anyone know whether Bobby is still making the H&P conversion barrels? I had inquired some weeks back about buying one of his Enfield-Kerr barrels and was told that the man who was doing that work for him had passed away, and was no longer selling any of the Enfield-Kerr barrels? If I am not mistaken, was not the H&P conversion breech designed much like the breech for the Remington-Maynard conversion with the patent breech threaded into rather than on-to the barrel? That said, is the inside portion of the patent breech smaller than the bore or "chambered breech" (like is shown on the left)? If you are serious about making a replica patent breech, you may wish to reverse the threads to have the barrel thread into the patent breech just as the breech plug does from the rear, and thus make the vent to open onto the chamber just forward of the plug face (like the breech at right). sure, you will need to drill the vent channel through the barrel threads but this is the same method used for many of the modern replicas. The main problem with the "chambered breech" is keeping it clean and keeping the vent open. Bobby has repeatedly refused to re-barrel or re-line a Remington-Maynard for me because of how the barrel must thread on to the breech (like shown on the left). The breech model on the left was measured from an original breech and the chamber is a tapered cone recess with the face of the breech plus is a hemi-circular recess. You cannot keep them clean.

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii305/rmac1023/MaynardConv2013b_zpsvgxbirap.jpg

[Maillemaker]

I'd have to go find the passage, but I think I read that on the H&P (maybe all) chambered breech conversions the chamber in the breech was smaller in diameter than the bore, which, as you note, makes it hard to clean them.

In addition, there was no breech plug - the tang was formed with the breech.

For a reproduction, I would remedy both of these issues by having the breech bore diameter the same as the barrel (most if not all reproductions do this already today) and I would have a separate tang/breech plug. The breech plug gains you access to the entire bore if necessary.

We already tolerate hairline seems where there are not supposed to be any for other reproduction muskets, so a hairline seam at the base of the tang should not be a show-stopper.

Steve

[Maillemaker]

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

Here is a disassembled H&P, I suppose this is a federal contract rework. The actual length of the breech could vary depending on whether the conversion was of a previously-altered cone-in-barrel conversion or if it was still in its original flintlock configuration; the cone-in-barrel conversion required a longer breech.

I can't tell if the chamber of the breech is smaller in diameter of the barrel bore.

But again, all modern reproductions that I know of have threaded-on breeches and manage to have a uniform bore to the plug face so for any H&P reproduction that is what I would propose be done, historical or no.

I am interested in a definitive answer as to whether the H&P breech chamber diameter was smaller than the bore diameter - what say all of you shooting H&Ps?

Steve

[Maillemaker]

I can't seem to edit my above post on the New Jersey contracts.

Anyway I mistakenly thought you needed 1000 examples for N-SSA approval; it is only 100.

So the question is, for New Jersey contract H&P conversions, were 100 of them made as smoothbores. Moller doesn't say so far as I have read thus far.

It still seems that the Federal contract H&P conversions are the best candidate.

Steve

[Curt]

Hallo!

I would just add that sometimes things get "messed up" when it comes to things like rear sights and say barrel bands, etc., because someone in the past 150 years took a gun apart and did not put it back together "properly." Or, like a very famous collector, swapped out parts for better condition parts or replaced missing parts on one gun with those from an other. Or, collectors, gun shop dealers, antique shop dealers, and even museum staff who took things apart to clean them and then did not know the ins-and-outs to get them back 100% original configuration.

When I started collecting, and when a pard with a really large collection now started collecting.. we came across M1822 conversions and or alterations that had M1855 (Type II) [Moller M1858] short-range rear sights as well as M1861 ones. With our first one or two, we thought some dummy had it apart and put the rear sight on backwards- so we "corrected" the mistake.

Then, with more gun shows, purchases, museum visits, collection visits, and talks with knowledgeable experts, we realized reversed rear sights were not always wrong.

:) :)

Curt

[Maillemaker]

Curt / Anyone:

Do you know with H&P Federal Contract 1816 conversions, is the bore diameter of the chambered breech smaller than the bore diameter of the barrel?

Steve

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Steve,

The chambered breech would have to be smaller than the bore. If the outside breech dimension is between 1-1/8-in to a 1-1/4-in and the bore diameter is .69, only leaves a wall thickness of between 0.219-in and 0.28-in, which is about the thickness shown in the photo you uploaded of the detached breech just down to the face of the threads. Like is pictured of the Remington-Maynard breech, there are actually two tapers, a steeper outer taper, a little more than 1/4" deep, then the shallower taper forming the chamber. As I recall, Remington also made a wiper specifically tapered for cleaning this chamber but many of these guns today are so badly pitted, suggests that it was hard for soldiers to keep it clean. Back when I first began skirmishing in 1974, you saw more of these rifled .69's on the line, especially when we used to have the stake event or at a regional "brigade shoot" cutting a cross-tie in half with musket-fire, a 730-grain minie takes a big hunk out of a cross-tie!

The reason why I have these illustrations was because I once had aspirations of converting replica 1816's using the Remington-Maynard conversion, but even with The Rifle Shoppe producing complete locks, and using a milled breech, the prospect proved cost prohibitive. If you have someone who can mill the breech is one thing, making an investment cast breech is quite another. Back in 1977-78, Guy Owen, Dan Whitacre, and Brannen Sanders established the Fort Loudon Manufactory, and while Guy made the stocks, they began making barrels using a investment cast breech and Dan's Weiss rifling machinery. I forget what the tooling cost was to make the injection mould for the wax-cast breeches, but it was substantial. Brother Brannen may inject here and offer his advice.

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii305/rmac1023/RMBreech_zpsmmcomzkb.jpg

[John Holland]

The H&P "Chambered Breech" dimensions are as follows:

Chamfer at the mouth - 0.675"
Powder Chamber - Tapered from 0.575 at the upper end to 0.435" at the bottom, which is rounded at the very base of the chamber, as if done with a tapered ball end mill cutter.

Depth - 0.590" from the outer edge of the chamber to the center at the base of the chamber.

Threaded Section - Is 0.720" long x 0.865" across the threads x 16 TPI.

Flash Hole - Is the size of a #19 drill, and comes into the powder chamber to the right of center at approx. a 25 degree angle from the base of the nipple.

The Chambered Breech I used is from a nearly new condition H&P, and is marked on the side of the bolster flat upside down "H&P", and is dated on top "1862". There is a standard chisel cut index mark, and the breech section is #1 and matches the barrel, which is also #1.

As Richard mentioned, these breeches are difficult to clean properly and that there was a special tool for it. These tools, I believe, are the ones we used to see around that were a large jag which had the tines tapered. At the time we called them "Unknown", but today I think we know what they were really for.

I hope this answers the questions regarding the H&P breech as used on the N-SSA accepted smooth bore versions.

[Maillemaker]

Thanks for the dimensions, John.

Do you think it would be possible to make a breech assembly as is currently done with reproduction 1842 such that the bore diameter is .69 all the way to the breech plug face?

I would think if they could do it on the 1842, they they could do it on a reproduction 1816 H&P. Unless this bore modification would invalidate it for N-SSA purposes.

Basically what I'd like to see is an 1842 barrel with the bolster correctly shaped to match an H&P. This gives you an easy-to-clean bore, and a removable breech plug for inspection/cleaning purposes.

Steve

[John Holland]

Steve - The elimination of a chambered breech configuration is not an issue. The external cosmetics and configuration are much more important. The N-SSA wants a reproduction to actually look like the arm it is intended to represent.

[Maillemaker]

Steve - The elimination of a chambered breech configuration is not an issue. The external cosmetics and configuration are much more important. The N-SSA wants a reproduction to actually look like the arm it is intended to represent.

Great, that's what I hoped. I'm hoping that an 1816 Conversion barrel can be set up much the same way the 1842 reproduction already is, with a .69 bore straight to the breech face. I don't know if the outside dimensions of the 1816 conversion permit it though.

Steve