Making a reproduction H&P 1816 Conversion

[Maillemaker]

All the hoopla in the other thread about the 1816 H&P conversion has got me thinking again about how difficult it would be to make a reproduction of it.

Pedersoli makes an N-SSA approved 1816:

http://www.davide-pedersoli.com/sche...ers-ferry.html

They also make a sort-of Colt Conversion:

http://www.davide-pedersoli.com/sche...onversion.html

From past discussions as I recall the answer was that the Pedersoli 1816 and/or its conversion have inaccuracies and if they went through N-SSA approval today they might not be approved.

What are the inaccuracies, and are the addressable?

Since the H&P conversion was made, as I understand it, by sawing off the breech end of the barrel and screwing in a new breech with the bolster/cone, and since most reproduction barrels are made this way anyway, it seems like having the barrel made would be the easy part.

I suppose new reproduction hammers would have to be made? And I suppose reproduction rear sights would have to be made.

What else would need to be addressed to make a passable H&P conversion replica?

LOL I was googling this and found my old thread on this subject:

http://www.n-ssa.net/vbforum/archive...p/t-10832.html

Steve

[Maillemaker]

Here is an interesting old thread over on the Authentic Campaigner:

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/...nversion/page2

I note:

H&P was contracted during the war to convert several thousand flintlock Springfields to rifled muskets, both by the US government and the state of New Jersey. By 1862 they got permission to omit the rifling process to speed up production, yet they retained the distinctive rear sights and iron front sights in spite of this. So while an 1861 dated H&P conversion would be rifled, an 1862 or 1863 dated one would not but would still look like the rifled version. Incidentally the H&Ps used a method identical to today's barrel makers of screwing on a cast breech to the end of the barrel to replace the flint breech. The replacement bolster in their cast breech was identical to the 1842.


Does this open up the possibility of using an 1842 barrel as part of the custom build of a reproduction H&P conversion?

It also seems that the rear sight used was the M1855 rear sight, which is also commonly available.

Steve

[gemmer]

I'm not sure that the bolster configuration on an H&P is the same as on a '42. As I understand it, there were several versions of the H&P breech plug/bolster, with at least one of them having a clean out
screw, which the '42 never had. I also believe that the bolster fit in a notch in the lock plate, again, not on the '42.

[jonk]

If you haven't seen it yet, this is a great article:
http://americansocietyofarmscollecto...33_Altemus.pdf

As you can see, there were a number of bolsters used, some with cleanout screws.

Whenever this comes up, my own reaction is: the cost involved would mean you could buy an H&P, put a Hoyt barrel on it or have it lined, and still come out ahead cost wise.

Now, if you could find an off-the-shelf breech and bolster that fit an otherwise in spec barrel, that would be a possible approach that would merit consideration.

[Maillemaker]

Whenever this comes up, my own reaction is: the cost involved would mean you could buy an H&P, put a Hoyt barrel on it or have it lined, and still come out ahead cost wise.

Maybe. But most of the "shooters" people offer for sale look pretty ragged out. If you want something in fine or very fine condition it looks like you are going to spend upwards of $2000. Of course, such pristine condition would not have been seen even during the ACW, since these guns pre-dated that event by some 20-40 years. Still, if you want a "like new" gun, it's going to cost you some coin whether new or original.

From your article, which is very good, (though I think this might be the one that John Holland talked about earlier as being dated), it appears that not only did some of the sighted H&P guns have 1842-style snails, but also used 1842 hammers. Combined with 1855 sights, this is starting to sound promising! I'm trying to sort out the snail types with non-rifled conversions and 1842 hammers:



It looks like there are 3 viable candidates, which are made from 2 basic configuration. Large Snail, and Small Snail (Late Type).

I am not sure which of these, if any, are identical to the 1842 snail. I'm still reading the details of the paper.

The stock problem, as I understand it, is that Pedersoli used or based their 1816 off of the 1777 Charleville. So I guess you'd have to start with a Dunlap 1816 stock. Perhaps reproduction 1816 barrel bands would suffice, perhaps not. If not, things do indeed start to get pricey fast. I saw original 1842 front bands going for like $280 at the Nationals.

I don't know how good a reproduction their lock is. It might be possible to use their Colt Conversion lock as the basis for mating to a barrel with an 1842-style snail and an 1842 hammer.

The upshot of this thought experiment is that it does not seem too far-fetched to contemplate being able to build a faithful reproduction sighted H&P smoothbore that could pass the SAC.

But my real thoughts turn to continuing to pester Pedersoli or Armisport to make one.

Steve

[Maillemaker]

I wonder what this means?

Steve

[Maillemaker]

An H&P snail:


An original 1842 snail:


Armisport 1842 snail:


I wonder if the barrel bands on the 1816 and 1842 are interchangeable?

Steve

[MR. GADGET]

At one time I was talking to DP about building a repop

Was sending pictures and info on what was needed to build them.
They were talking about some kind of build using the 1816 they build changing parts needed and combination of 1842 parts.

If they needed to do all new castings and work from the ground up it would not sell enough or cost too much.

I know John Holland was in contact also with them as they stated he was to forward more info for them.

Anyways it would be really nice if we could get them to build a repop and the cost of a real one in the shape I want would cost a lot and would not want to shoot one that was that nice as much as I do.

Repops are nice, they cost less, no risk that a real one is stolen or damaged.

[jonk]

I wonder what this means?

Steve

Well, it means what it sounds like. The standard 16 flintlock gun and most non H&P Conversions (no rear sights) had the front sight blade on the rear of the band. The HP conversions of the 16 had a new band with the 'shark fin' front sight moved to the front of the band. I have seen H&Ps with the standard 16 type band, but unless documentation of this as a standard production variation were available (with at least 100 issued as such) it would be a moot point.

[Maillemaker]

Well, it means what it sounds like. The standard 16 flintlock gun and most non H&P Conversions (no rear sights) had the front sight blade on the rear of the band. The HP conversions of the 16 had a new band with the 'shark fin' front sight moved to the front of the band. I have seen H&Ps with the standard 16 type band, but unless documentation of this as a standard production variation were available (with at least 100 issued as such) it would be a moot point.

Thanks, my impression from the passage was that the sight was maybe on the barrel, and they moved it to the barrel band.

What they are actually saying is they moved it from the back of the barrel band to the front of the barrel band, as it is on the 1842.

At one time I was talking to DP about building a repop

I emailed both Pedersoli and Armisport yesterday. Pedersoli responded with:

Dear Mr. Sheldon,

Thank you for your suggestion.


It will be useful to know the dimensional variations compared with the model we currently produced.

Also pictures of the front and rear sights will help.

We look forward to read from you.

Best regards,
Customer service

Honestly I don't know why these guys don't just buy a good quality H&P and copy it. Anyway I guess I'm going to have to dive into learning the ins and outs of the 1816 H&P conversion like I did with the Enfield to help guide them along.

Steve