What is the earlies date for an 1842?

[B-Davis]

To All:

I am curious as to the earliest known production date on the lock plates for the Model 1842 musket. I just happened to come across this auction on e-bay, and the lock plate is a Harpers Ferry marked 1843. Is it real? I have a Springfield that has an 1843 marked barrel with an 1845 plate.
I could be the devious type and put that plate on my musket and try to pass it off, but I would have no respect for myself if I would do that!
With that being said, maybe someone on the board may be interested in purchasing the lock for a project or a spare?
What do the experts here think?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1843-Harpers-Ferry-U-S-Civil-War-Musket-Lock-Complete-Parts-/360678244417?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item53fa194041#ht_186wt_917

[Richard Hill]

Looks more like 1848 to me.

[R. McAuley 3014V]

I believe much the same question arose two or three years ago and it was noted that according to the Ordnance Office returns that Springfield Armory led in the production of the Model 1842 musket commencing its production in the last quarter 1843, while Harpers Ferry continued producing other models until 1845 when it commenced production of the new percussion musket. There is evidence, like the lock featured, that both armories produced a few parts for the new percussion arm but not complete arms until these were reported in 1844 and 1845. As Lt-Col. Talcott reported in the return from 30th September 1842 to the 30th June 1843: “progress has been made in the fabrication of parts of the percussion muskets” but provided no details beyond noting the expense and materials were provided, no completed arms had yet been produced as of that date.

http://books.google.com/books?id=OoAFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA251&dq=u.s+ordnance+department+returns+for+1843&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eHnAUZTSNMXC0gHJ8YG4Cw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=u.s ordnance department returns for 1843&f=false

Page 253
The expenditures at the armories, from the 30th September 1842 to the 30th June 1843, have been as follows:
There have been manufactured at these armories, and delivered into store, during the same period, 7705 muskets, 301 rifles, and 1001 carbines; and progress has been made in the fabrication of parts of the percussion muskets, the expense of which, and the providing of materials, are embraced in the above statement.

C. Talcott, Lt-Col, Ordnance, Ordnance Office, Washington, November 1, 1843.

[jonk]

Well, you've got me; mine has an 1843 dated lock but an 1851 dated barrel, suggesting at least to me that a large portion of parts were made that continued to be utilized for production of finished arms for quite some time; it is also possible that my lock was swapped out, but given that the musket in question didn't appear to have seen much use, I'd rather doubt the need for that.

[B-Davis]

Which makes me curious as mine is Springfield marked with 1845 on the lock and 1843 on the barrel.

[Muley Gil]

My 1842 is a Harpers Ferry with a 1844 lock and 1845 barrel.

I'm hoping it wuz used on Mexicans AND Yankees! :D

[RaiderANV]

An 1843 dated one for sale on eBay

[Southron Sr.]

There is a reference in the papers of James Burton, who served as "Acting Master Armorer" in the early 1850's about a flood that submerged a good part of the town and armory at Harpers Ferry. The building that a large number of M1842's were stored in was flooded. Duiring recovery operations AFTER the flood, the armory workers had to disassemble the 42's; clean, dry and oil them and then re-assemble them.

Hence, IF you have an original M1842 made at Harpers Ferry there is a good chance that that musket "came form the armory" with dates on the lock and barrel that don't match thanks to that flood!

In addition, anyone that has been in the military and has participated in a rifle cleaning session on a squad, platoon or company level knows that soldiers just LOVE to swap parts of their disassembled weapons. Then they re-assemble them with the "mix-matched" parts!

[R. McAuley 3014V]

As Southern Sr alludes, the flood at Harpers Ferry that occurred on April 19-20, 1852 was responsible for the armory's suspension from all manufacturing operations for a period of two months during which some 9,000 M-1842 muskets that had been flooded in stores had to be unpacked, disassembled, their parts thrown into a common pile, thereafter cleaned and oiled, the stocks dried and refinished, and then reassembled... none of which required any special fitting or filing during their re-assembly.. all went back together albeit not all of the parts were matched to the original musket, hence there were some muskets with mismatched dates on the barrel or lock. Typically, the lock date was later than the barrel date due to the normal sequence of manufacture and assembly.

With respect to what was stated above, according to a statement of expenditures at the United States Armory at Springfield, manufacture of the first 2,956 percussion muskets was reported for the fiscal year extending from 30th June 1844 to 30th June 1845. That same year Harpers Ferry produced its first "model" percussion musket, followed by 2,225 percussion muskets produced the following year. By 30th June 1844, Springfield had manufactured some 3,200 percussion arms. The delay in commencement of the new percussion arm at Harpers Ferry had been due to so many of the workers having protested their working conditions under the military superintendency begun in 1841-42, such that all those who had marched in protest before Congress were not permitted to return to work, and rather than hire replacement workers the military superintendent diverted funds and materials to construct his new residence and furniture for the same.

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Question. Were the workmen as cheerful and contented under one system as under the other? and state the effect of the two systems upon the workmen as citizens.

Answer. Under the civil system they were cheerful and contented, because they were permitted to exercise all their rights as citizens. Under the military they are not, because they dare not exercise all those rights, for fear of dismissal. As an evidence of this, Col. Craig dismissed men because they went to Washington to complain of the piece-workmen being placed upon the same level as day-workers, relative to time. He took some back, but not until they signed a solemn obligation not to hold any consultations or meetings relative to anything that might occur in the armory, or to sign any petitions to Congress relative thereto. This rule, I presume, can still be found at Harper's Ferry, though the enforcement of it gradually stopped. I saw men sign it myself.

Men's heads were cut off so suddenly, without any reason being given, that they became suspicious of each other, and were actually afraid to talk to men who had been discharged from the shop. Some of them were afraid to talk to me. Men were watched closely.

The military system decreased the value of real estate in Harper's Ferry. The tenure of employment was so uncertain in the armories, that men were afraid to invest. One woman has two stores: she used to get three hundred dollars each for them. Now she rents one for two hundred dollars, and can't rent the other.

(The government gave the privilege of purchasing their lots to the workmen, so much payable out of each month's wages. Some men who purchased these lots were dismissed by Col. Huger.) Major S. dismissed one man, a crippled soldier of the war of 1812, who was a good filer on springs. Many men were dropped, and promised that they would be taken back; but were never taken back.

http://www.wvculture.org/history/businessandindustry/harpersferryarmory05.html (http://www.wvculture.org/history/businessandindustry/harpersferryarmory05.html)