1854 LORENZ INFO REQUEST

[Steve Weems]

Picked up what is commonly called a Model 1854 Lorenz--typical example in most respects judging from pictures ii have looked at. This example has no markings on it other than some
numerals on the barrel bands. Looked at the lock plate under magnification and can not see that it ever had any markings at all--no 861, etc. type numerals at all. Stock unmarked
except for a couple initials --no cheek rest. Missing rear sight and ramrod. Caliber (by miking muzzle is 58-59). Is there any info out there on these unmarked 1854's? Any good books
on these Austrians? Good Sources for the Sight and ramrod? :?:

Thanks for any help.

[Don Dixon]

At present, there are no good books in English on the Civil War era Austro-Hungarian Army (K.u.K. Army) weapons.

What you have is probably a Muster 1854 K.u.K. Army rifle that was was manufactured by one of the Austrian contractors for export to America during the Civil War. The lock is not marked with the date and double headed eagle stamp because it was not manufactured at one of the K.u.K. Army arsenals, and was never inspected for acceptance into their service. Some writers will tell you that the lock is not marked because the iron was "soft" and the markings "wore off." All of the unmarked lock plates I have measured with a micrometer have essentially the same thickness as the K.u.K Army stamped lock plates. Many of the contract arms also do not have cheek pieces, perhaps because it was a bit cheaper for the contractors to build them that way (thiner stock blank, use of wood that would not pass K.u.K. Army inspection, etc?). Since American military rifles did not have cheek pieces, they presumably would not have been critical to an American inspector.

The caliber is not dispositive. Some ".58 caliber" arms were made in Austria under contract; some were bored out in Liege, Belgium; and some were bored out and re-rifled here as part of the Federal Army's attempt to standardize on a .577-.58 caliber.

The Austrians made the Muster 1854 rifles in two types, based upon the rear sights. The Type I had a non-adjustable block sight. The Type II had a folding leaf sight. The sight base cuts in the barrel for the two types are differt widths. Most of the sutlers who specialize in parts will have the block sights. S&S lists reproduction Type II rear sights in their catalogue. You can also find reproduction ramrods at Winchester at the spring national.

Regards,
Don Dixon
2881V

[John Holland]

Don,

Thank you for taking the time to craft such an informative reply for our readers.

Sincerely,
John Holland
Chairman, Small Arms Committee
N-SSA

[Dan Mastin]

You might send Tim Prince at College Hill Arsenal an email describing your gun. Tim is an authority on and dealer in imported arms. He's a nice guy always willing to share knowledge.

Dan Mastin
11th Indiana

[Steve Weems]

Mr. Dixon--Thanks for such an excellent reply--It is much appreciated. Glad I picked this up--Hope to get this shooting again!

Best to you and the NSSA--Steve W.

[S.Sullivan]

The rear sight block is readily available, the flip-up sight is also available from Lodgewood in Whitewater, WI, and is rather expensive. The two sights have different base measurements, so measure the sight base inlet space on your barrel to make sure you are getting the right one for your Lorenz.
The ramrods are a tad expensive (repro) as well as they have a neat brass collar on the tulip tip to not hurt barrel rifling.
I believe S & S Firearms has the only extant booklet on the Lorenz, but the text is in German.
S.Sullivan

[Don Dixon]

Mr. Sullivan,

While the year numerals on Muster 1854 rifle lock plates may have been fairly lightly struck, the King-Emperor’s double headed eagle was normally struck quite deeply. That showed that the rifle or musket had been accepted as government property. It is fairly common to see some wear on the year markings. But, even when the year markings are worn, the eagle strike is still generally very visible. The wear you are talking about should have thinned the lock plates to a measurable degree, perhaps to the point of unserviceability. I reiterate. The unmarked lock plates that I have measured with a micrometer do not vary in any significant degree in thickness from marked lock plates.

Many of the Muster 1854 Austrian arms shipped here were already arsenal bright. So, they were polished so much by the soldiers that the markings wore off, while soldiers polishing arsenal bright Springfields didn’t polish the markings off the Springfields?

An issue that I did not mention in my previous post: The barrels of Muster 1854 arms are normally marked with a number of proof and unit marks. By comparison, the contractor export arms will have fewer marks on the barrels.

MAJ Hagner and CPT Crispin accepted a number of bored out arms that they should have not. Before the war, government inspectors were issued a set of (to use modern terminology) "go/no go" bore gauges. .580 to .5825 inches was acceptable. Austrian arms with much larger bores were accepted by the New York ordnance office. Apparently, they believed that the need was so urgent that they were prepared to accept anything that went bang.

Regards,
Don Dixon
2881V