Harpers Ferry Muskets Front Sights

[Jim Leinicke 7368V]

Over the years I have amassed a fair collection of Harpers Ferry .69 smoothbore muskets, the earliest dated 1801 and the latest 1851. From the beginning I noticed a peculiarity in the frotn sights of these muskets: They are all leaned to the left, or to put it another way, they are off-center to the left. On the first couple, I presumed it was merely error of construction, or perhaps stock warpage. However, as the collection got up to a dozen or so pieces and this fault was consistent over a 50 year period and five distinct musket models, I began to wonder if this was not deliberate. Springfield smoothbores have the front sight generally centered, as do contract muskets. Does anyone have an explanation for the Harpers Ferry sights, or is this merely coincidental? Any observations would be welcome.
Jim Leinicke
114th Illinois

[Southron Sr.]

I owned an original M1842 SB made at Harpers Ferry for years and the front sight was centered.

I have done a lot of research on the history of both James Burton (for a while, the Acting Master Armorer at Harpers Ferry) and the history of the armory itself and never, never saw anything indicating that the front sights of their arms were offset to the left.

I would suggest that you contact the Park Historian at Harpers Ferry and ask him your question.

[Jim Leinicke 7368V]

Coincidentally, I just looked at another Harpers Ferry 1842 over the weekend and its frotn sight was centered. All of my 1795 and 1822 models are offset, however. It may have simply been an error in some sort of fixture in use in that period, or just coincidence. More likely coincidence.

Speaking of Harpers Ferrys, I just bought an original M1855 Harpers Ferry rifle (Not the rifle musket but the 2-band rifle) dated 1859, all iron mounted except the brass nosecap. There is no patchbox nor was there ever a patchbox. Confederate salvage rifle with a Fayetteville stock? Any opinion?

[Blair]

Jim,

These things may help Identify your '55 Rifle,
Does your "Rifle" have the short (1 inch length) brass nose cap?

Or a brass nose cape that is "shorter" than 1 3/8th Inch in length?

Is there a date on the barrel breech? and does it match the date on the lock?
Blair

[Jim Leinicke 7368V]

Blair-
No marks at all on the barrel that I can discern through the rust and crud. The nosecap is the short type, 1", identical to that on my 1864 dated Fayetteville. This is not a mint condition gun!
Jim

[Blair]

Jim,

I am thinking you may have a Fayetteville resoration of a Harpers Ferry made "Rifle". The model "rilfe" in production at the time of Harpers Ferry capture, would have been the iron/steel mounted Rifle model.
Perhaps, damaged during the fires set to distroy the Armory when VA. State troops captured the Aromory.

Perhaps the most telling of this fact maybe the lack of a patch box in the stock.
Production "Rifles" would have had the iron/steel patck box.
Fayetteville would have eleminated this in their production of parts in the early parts of 1862.

I am not sure what else you could check except perhaps in how the nose cap is held to the stock. Harpers Ferry made guns would have two brass rivets. Fayetteville used mix matched Harpers Fery parts and the nose cap was usually help in place with a screw by late 1862.
Blair

[Jim Leinicke 7368V]

Blair- Sorry to take so long in my reply. It does not appear to be a Fayetteville, as the nosecap is riveted in place. For the moment it will remain an unsolved mystery.

Jim

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Jim,

Rivets are a good sign, and especially if they are seated properly. One or two rivets? If two, are they side-by-side? And are they iron, yellow brass, red brass or copper rivets? It still could be a Harpers Ferry stock, possibly a M1855 rifle assembled by Whitney? Can you see any remnants of the inspector's stamps on the stock flat? Also, if you can pull the butt-plate, see if it has any initials there?

Richard

[Blair]

Jim,

It is important to note that the "Rifle" length firearms (rifles with barrel band placement at 9.5 " on the rear band and 23.8 for the front band) as produced at Harpers Ferry from 1857 into 1861 are all produced with patch boxes in the stock. The butt plates all have a notch cut in them for the patch box.
This includes the early brass mounted "Rifle" type I (1857 into 1858). These have brass nose caps that are 1.375 " in length. The later iron/steel mounted "Rifle" type II (1858 into 1861, for Harpers Ferry). These have iron nose caps that are 1 inch in length.
It is this 1 inch long nose cap that Fayetteville copies, but in brass, as the captured parts from Harpers Ferry are used up.
Harpers Ferry does not produce a 1 inch length "brass" nose cap. They have no need to. It is not a design feature within the change from brass to iron within the '55 Rifles.
The lack of a patch box in letting in the stock would be the first clue to this being a Fayetteville restoration or built firearm. Using a Harpers Ferry finished 1859 dated lock plate.
These last two points are what give me reason to think this firearm is actually a build up gun and finished from Fayetteville.
Blair

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Blair,

The assumption that you are making is that of the Harpers Ferry stocks sent to Fayetteville were already inlet for the patchbox when they were not. In the September 1, 1861 inventory of the Harpers Ferry made parts sent to Fayetteville, there were some 12,768 rough stocks, and another 1,280 stocks in various stages, with only 241 stocks that were finished. Just how many of these 1,280 rifle stocks were inlet for the patchbox is unknown, but given that of the patchbox parts, Richmond received 1,000 forged patchbox covers whilst Fayetteville received none, Fayetteville they did have some 98 completed patchboxes and 84 in various stages, while Richmond had 2,000 completed patchboxes in stock. If one were to guess as to the possible number of stocks that might have been completed without the patchbox, the maths might suggest as many as 1,182 stocks could have been issued without a patchbox? The other assumption you are making is that of the stock tips sent to Fayetteville, were all the longer rifle tips when that fact is not at all a certainty. The inventory of the parts sent to Fayetteville also include 1,090 cast tips for stocks, 1,230 in various stages, and no tip screws (with no distinction of lengths). Richmond, on the other hand, received more than 3,000 stock tips and 2,500 tip screws, presumably for the rifle-musket, but this is no certainty either. Almost certainly as you note is the singular importance of the buttplate, and whether it is notched for the patchbox or not, for Fayetteville received only 14 polished buttplates and only 30 buttplate screws (assuming the buttplates were notched?). But neither Richmond nor Fayetteville had sufficient parts to assemble even a single rifle or musket without requiring other parts to be newly manufactured. Richmond received one model pattern M1855 rifle-musket while Fayetteville did not receive a pattern arm, but since the workers at Fayetteville chiefly consisted of the former workers and superintendent at Harpers Ferry, we must "assume" they knew what they were doing?

Richard

[Jim Leinicke 7368V]

I will bring the thing to the Small Arms Committee shack on Thursday morning and anyone curious can look it over. It is pretty much a clunker but an interesting clunker.

I am still favoring Fayetteville.

Jim Leinicke

[Blair]

Jim,

Here is an interesting firearm, it is kind of at the opposit end of the spectum form what it sounds like you have.

http://www.damonmills.com/images/PS%202 ... le_tii.htm (http://www.damonmills.com/images/PS%2020/fayetteville_tii.htm)

If this rifle had an 1858 dated lock in it, at first glance, I would swear it was an U S Armory made late model brass mounted '55 Rifle.
One problem with that assumption... there is NO patch box.
Blair