H&P Lock

[ian45662]

If I wanted to pick up a spare lock for my H&P would any 1816 springfield lock work if I just remove the area where the flash pan once was or would it require fitting?

[Rich Foster]

Are you saying that you have a 1816 springfield manufactor lock in your H&P now or are you using 1816 springfield lock as example? Because there is differences between contractors. Some are closer than others. Like a early Whitney lock is close to a Harpers Ferry lock when it comes to size but fitting is still required. Rich

[ian45662]

Springfield is what's in it now. I assumed it would have to be a Springfield plate that would be used as back up. My question is were was any material removed to make room for the bolster or was the flash pan simply removed

[stevierayvaughn]

You need to talk directly to a Small Arms Committee inspector if not John Holland himself. I have an original H$P (I got it right) and it sure looks like not only was the flint gear cut off, but a notch was cut for the bolster as well. This may be a problem in that you have to destroy one lock to make another. There was a lot of fuss about this last August through October. I wouldn't do this without a full Small Arms Committee discussion.


Just my two dollars,

Steve Vaughn

[Rich Foster]

The halt of taking a original M1816 and converting it into a 1862-63 H&P Smoothbore was to preserve a original civil war firearm. Now you can still build a H&P smoothbore. You will need a repop (Dunlop or other) stock because if you had a original M1816 stock it would have to be used to build a M1816. So original stocks are out. Also you will need a H&P barrel. A Repop could be used. You can pick up parts for a H&P from the many sources of M1816 parts. Now what prevents a person from taking a complete M1816 junking the barrel, stock and using the parts? The intergrity of the N-SSA member following bylaws. Taking a lock that is used as a part is not a GUN. Repop lock parts for a M1816 will never be made because all lock parts were hand fitted and different sizes from contractor to contractor. even a single contractor changed the parts sizes during the years they made the M1816. The chance of somebody making a lockplate and parts for a H&P with a original stock would probably not happen because all lock mortises are different from gun to gun. Although they could be produced to fit a dunlop stock but until then there is no other choice but to use a original M1816 lock. Makes common sense to me. Having a extra complete lock for a gun is nice to have when your gun lock breaks during a match. You could look for lock parts that come close to fitting a m1816 as spares and that is what most people have. Me I just carry a extra smoothy just in case a teamates gun breaks down. Rich

[Bruce Cobb 1723V]

I don't agree with everything that was been said above as far as Dunlap stocks is the only way to go. But, the best lock solution I think is to buy a H&P lock or build one up from a H&P lock plate. Show it to a member of the Small Arms Committee to verify its an original H&P type, THEN make modifications to fit it to the barrel if needed. Don't make the modifications first. I believe it follows our rules as I understand them. Ask John Holland !!!

[John Holland]

Ian,

What Rich Foster has explained to you is quite correct, the M-1816 lock plates and lock parts are far from being interchangeable. Hunting up a set of spare parts is a much better way to go.

The interchangeability of parts did not begin until the advent of the M-1842 muskets, and even then it can be "iffy".

John Holland
Chmn. SAC

[Phil Spaugy, 3475V]

Iffy ???? Why John Holland that sound you hear is Jame Burton turning over in his grave !!!! :p:p:p:p

[John Holland]

Of course I was referring to the M-1842's made by Waters......

[Dave Fox]

Was the M.1835/40 musket not fully interchangeable?

[Rich Foster]

Some M1840's are very close to M1842 in some parts. I have used a M1842 bridle, a M1842 sear and M1842 hammer screw in a M1840 springfield. Your answer to your question is no. Rich

[Dave Fox]

In positing the question about the M.1835/40 being fully interchangeable, I meant among those particular model arms, made exclusively at Springfield and and by two civilian contractors. The literature seems to unanimously nominate the '42 as the first U.S. interchangeable musket, but I wonder....