Thinking about building a Fayetteville

[B-Davis]

I am thinking about the possibility of building a new rifle (over the next year, no rush) and I am interested in the possibility of building a Fayetteville. I know there are several variants, but not sure exactly as to what makes each one different. Could somebody such as Mr. Holland send me the spec. sheets for the different variants?
Also, those of you who do shoot the Fayetteville's, what are your thoughts and/or comments about them? Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thankyou for any constructive input you may have!
Bryan Davis

[Curt]

Hallo!

I have unfortunately lost my copy, but years ago, IIRC, Paul Davies did a hand written monograph on the Fayettevilles (and one on the M1855 Rifle or was that Howard Madaus?).

In brief, you would looking at a "Type I" which is essentially a late model Harpers Ferry M1855 Rifle assembled from HF parts at Fayetteville being brass mounted. AS parts were used up, minor transitions occurred such as eliminating the patchbox. Next would be the Type II going to a lower hump lockplate obtained from Richmond starting IIRC in April of 1862 and still with brass furniture but iron nose cap.
AS the HF lock parts started to run out, a new lockplate and "S" rather than "C" hammer was proposed as early as 1862, but only came into limited production, finally becoming the "standard" early in 1863. There are also sometimes called Transitional as they feature both Type II and III parts. Last was the Type IV but I would have to check the books as I am not remembering the differences between a III and a IV. I am thinking the difference is the markings and the lack of a bayonet stud for a sabre bayonet.

I had custom built a Type III and had it SAC approved. In a weak moment I sold to the wife of a friend in 2000 for $475 as a birthday present. Getting out of the hobby in 2002, he had an auctioneered yard sale, and the auctioneer got mad at the high reserves not moving stuff so he sold it for $300 to a reenactor while my pard was in the house. It is one I regret selling.

I don't know what to say about shooting one. But I would say this- IMHO it is basically the old arguments about one's preference and ability using a heavy barreled rife versus a rifle versus an 'artillery rifle" versus a rifle-musket. For me personally, I never shot well with a "rifle," and was a much better shot with the rifle-musket.
And maybe last but not least for some, the shorter rifle is quicker to load in competition than the longer RM. My shooting style had me taking 6-7 well aimed shots per minute with a RM, but 8-9 with a R. So, for me, the extra shots that missed did not balance out the fewer shots that hit.



Others' mileage will vary....

Curt

[Jud96]

I would like to see anyone get 8-9 rounds off with any muzzleloader....

[Rich Foster]

It is possible back in the early 70's in was a event for 2 minute rapid fire into a 100yd target at 50 yds with a musket. My late father Dick Foster put 21 rounds in the target in 2 minutes. When the event finally fazed out his number of hits was never beaten but many tried. Yes there are still people alive that saw it. don't know what ever happen to target or picture I think my step sister has it. It was down in Kinston Skirmish in early 70's. Rich Foster

[RSiegel]

I shoot a type III Fayetteville made by Gary Bowling. It shoots very well, much better then I can. I decided on the type III because some people have said that the high hump lock plates interfere with quickly placing a percussion cap on the nipple. This model has the basic musket style leaf rear sight.

Rich Siegel
Gen. Sherman's Bodyguard

[Curt]

Hallo!

Historical trivia...

"Capping" an M1855 was a Period issue.

For the Feds it did not matter all that much, as the M1855 was phased out of service and largely replaced by the news M1861, SM1861, M1863, and M1864 RM's.
For the Confederates, using the Harpers Ferry M1855 machinery, Richmond Armory had William Wentzel modified the machine for stamping lock plates to reduce the height of the full "hump' in 1862, as well as adding a cut-out or recess behind the cone to facilitate capping.

My main competition gun was a M1855 Type II RM. I had no problem or issue with capping, however every so often the cap would get aligned so that one of the wings lined up with the flat of the lockplate plate 'hump." In those cases, I had to push the cap down harder to bend the one brass wing- no big deal or time consumer. My normal loading routine involved a certain amount of downward force anyway to be sure to seat the cap no matter which way it went onto the cone so it did not really matter in the end.

Curt