Norwich Musket reproduction

[RSiegel]

I recently purchased at an auction a very high quality reproduction Norwich 1861 Contract musket. The lock plate is properly marked as is the barrel. There are two inspector marks. One is below the lock bolts on the left side of the stock, just to the rear on the stock flat. I believe the initials stamped are E L A. There is another stamp just between the lock bolt heads in very fancy script. As best I can tell, the letters are J B (?) J B. No other marks are on the gun except for those that would have been on an original.

The gun appears to be unfired. Does anyone have an idea who may have made it?

Thanks,

Rich Siegel

[John Holland]

Rich, any chance the marks on the stock are "JRA"?

JDH

[ms3635v]

I believe you may have an original or one made with original parts. ELA - Erskine S. Allen (armory sub-inspector). Could the JB be JM? Also, look carefully at the hammer (side that faces the barrel) for an R. An original Norwich should also have OBG stamped on the barrel below the VP. OBG - O.B. Graham. There should also be the letter M on the center of the trigger guard bow. If you take the look off, you may see the following stamps: R - body of tumbler, 2 - on stirrup, M - on sear, R- on the bridle, 1 - on the long arm of the mainspring. The rear sight should have a letter M on the left side of the base and 6 on the back of the long blade.

[John Holland]

With all due respect, the stock cartouche for Erskine S. Allen is "ESA". If the musket in question is not a James River Armory reproduction, some of which were very well done, then study it very closely for it being put together from an assortment of interchangeable M-1861 parts. The discussions of what actually belongs together are endless.

JDH

[ms3635v]

John, you are absolutely correct about the cartouche, it was a typo when responding.

[RSiegel]

John,
You are right as always, the inspector mark is ESA but I can't make out the other mark. Just from the look of the stock and metal to wood fit, I doubt it's a James River gun but did they put any marks of their own on their guns.

Mike,
I don't believe the gun could be original, and neither did the auction house. It's just too new. I believe it has original lock parts. Judging from the very low half cock position, the tumbler could be from a trapdoor. No builder marks on the inside of the lock or on the hammer.


Thank you both very much for your thoughts!

Rich

[John Holland]

Rich, JRA is the only company to have produced a repro Norwich, so don't sell your musket short just yet....you just might have a good one!

Some years ago at a public auction, I looked at a Sharps Carbine that was "too good to be true", or so the crowd thought. When it came up I was the successful bidder at $175, because everyone else in the house thought it was a repro! It wasn't.

Study your Norwich very closely, or better yet, bring it to the Spring National if you can!

John

[B-Davis]

Hello!
I have been reading this thread, and I can not say if your musket is an original or not, but I just wanted to give you another avenue to look at. There is a gentleman who is re-stamping reproduction lock plates. I checked his posting on the CW re-enactors webpage, and he has a Norwich plate (with photo) listed. MAYBE this is the type of lock you have. I hope this may help, and not just muddied up the waters!
http://www.cwreenactors.com/forum/showthread.php?30333-US-Rifle-Musket-1861-Contractor-Lockplates&highlight=lock+plate+stamp

Bryan Davis

[John Holland]

Thanks for the link, Bryan, very interesting. At least they aren't hard to tell from an original.

JDH

[RSiegel]

After closely examinig the lock plate on my musket to the lock plate Bryan referred to, my plare has a period after NORWICH. while the other plate does not. My plate also dies not have the screw holes by the 1863 date in line going down. My bottom screw is about 1/16" in front of teh top screw.


The marking are stamped, especially as can be noted on the 1863 date on the barrel. It appears the number has been struck twice, the first strike was very light. The breech and barrel end does not appear to have any seam.

Thanks for all your comments.

Rich

[B-Davis]

Does the plate look like this? If so, it is an original. Please note the period at the end of Norwich, and the bottom screw is slightly forward.

http://www.relicman.com/weapons/imageweapon/W1089C.JPG

[RSiegel]

Yes Bryan, that's exactly what the plate looks like.
Rich

[RSiegel]

Photos of the musket.
Rich

[Lou Lou Lou]

Beautiful, congratulations

[Bruce Cobb 1723V]

Does yours have an inked stamp on the left opposite the lock? One of these had an ink stamp of the inspectors mark instead of the common steel pressed in style.

[John Robey]

Bruce, I have one of those. The stamp says "James D. Mowry, Norwich, Conn." Mowry bought some completed arms from the "Norwich" company to fill out his contract. He was required to stamp them to identify him as the vendor, since he was not the manufacturer. There are other arms out there with the lockplate marked "Mowry".

[Maillemaker]

In the second picture, the rear sight base appears to be a casting. Not sure if that is correct or not.

Steve

[John Holland]

Even though Edwards said the stamp was an ink stamp, everyone I've ever seen was an actual stamp into the wood.

JDH

[Fire18WFD]

Even though Edwards said the stamp was an ink stamp, everyone I've ever seen was an actual stamp into the wood.

JDH

I have a Norwich Contract Musket and it has the Ink Stamp. No other markings on the wood.

[geezmo]

Rich,

Most of the parts I see appear to be original. Not sure, from the photos, about the stock. I believe I've seen Mowry stamps in both ink and wood stamped. As far as initials in the metal, or wood, it may not matter. An elderly gunsmith up my way, now deceased, apprenticed after he got out of the navy after WWII. He worked for a company named Redding which was the predecessor of Numerich Arms. One of his first jobs was to sort original parts, purchased as surplus from the government, into piles of good, better and best. Once sorted, his job was to put muskets together in those categories of condition. So, parts markings didn't necessarily match known makers marks.

I'd say it was a good deal. If the bore is good, shoot it and enjoy it. Just my 2 cents.

Barry

[Curt]

Hallo!

I may be entirely wrong, but...

The lockplate looks to me like Cross' work. Did not Rich Cross make a bunch of U.S. and a number of lock plates a while back?? (Sold by himself direct, S & S, and may be Bill O. at Lodgewood?)

Curt

[Dave Fox]

I'm pretty-much with Curt, my opinion being worth what you paid for it. Rear sight's a replica as is the rear sling swivel, too.

[John Holland]

I am fairly certain Rich Cross never made any Norwich plates. The reason being Rich made plates that were in high demand....and Norwich was/is not in demand.