This musket has an 1805 dated lock plate and 1806 dated buttplate tang, indicating assembly in the first half of 1806 and has a number of features qualifying it as a transition from the Type-1 to the Type-2 Springfield Model 1795 muskets that took place in the course of that year. The wood has a nice surface and is full length, showing a tad lighter on the buttstock than the wrist and forestock, but with good edges overall, good ramrod channel. The only repair is a very old one to a cracked wrist that shows a hairline angling back from the upper edge of the lockplate behind the cock and over the wrist, showing the edges of some surface chips and a couple of nail heads. Some small chipping at the breechplug tang and a very short crack on the lock apron at the rear tip of the plate and a narrow gap around the tail are likely related. Otherwise, the wood has a very good fit to the metal and shows only typical scuffs and minor handling marks.

In fact, the surface of the wood is good enough that it preserves traces of the “US” final inspection mark on the side flat, introduced in 1806, as a dark area to the rear of the side plate, above and between the pins holding the trigger and rear sling swivel lug. More legible, on the lower edge of the stock below the triggerguard tang, is a small “M” clearly stamped in the wood. Opinion is divided on the mark. One side regards it as an example of the Maryland “M” stamp used on muskets and bayonets, calling attention to the 7,600 muskets purchased by the state from the U.S. government from 1809 through 1812, and noting a June 12, 1812, report attributed to the Baltimore Whig that the state armory at Frederick Town had received “several hundred stand of arms from the factory at Springfield,” though it is not clear these were really Springfield-made guns. A different interpretation of the mark comes from Johns, Springfield Armory Muskets, pp.36-37, who shows an “M” stamp in the same position on an 1807 dated Springfield, posits that it is the stamp of the armorer at Springfield who assembled the musket and suggests Benjamin Moore and Justin Murphy as candidates. In either case, it is nice indicator of the condition of the stock surface.

The metal is very good- smooth surface overall, showing some bright metal and mostly as a muted silver gray with scattered darker gray and thin brown freckling. We see some vise marks low on the left breech, a small divot forward of the touch hole, some shallow corrosion on the middle band, etc., but nothing egregious. All bands, springs, swivels and rod are in place, as the top-mounted bayonet stud at the muzzle and the brass sight on the nose band. The markings in the metal are very good. The barrel is clearly stamped with the “P/[eaglehead/V” barrel proofs at the left breech. The buttplate tang is clearly stamped “1806.” The lock is marked “SPRINGFIELD” in an arc inclined upward behind the cock and the date “1805” stamped vertically at the rear tip- the upper bar of the 5 is rubbed, but that is clearly the numeral. Forward of the cock is a “US” in script over an eagle turned toward the muzzle, that is rubbed along the upper half, but visible, and the “US” is very good. These are the correct markings through 1805 and Johns notes them extending into 1806 when the format changed and shows an 1806 dated lock plate with “Springfield” moved forward of the cock. The side screws have the round heads correct for the date of the lock. These were replaced with flat beveled heads at some point in the year along with a new lock plate. Completely fitting with the transitional nature of this musket is the use of shorter tangs on the triggerguard. Sources are united in dating their introduction to 1806 and helping identify the Type-2 muskets. This one, notably, has the rather pointed front finial that all sources date earlier than the more rounded version, likely a result of first using up the older, longer triggerguards of the Type-1 muskets by cutting them down. The mechanics are good, though stiff. The bore is dark and dusty, and could use a cleaning. The lower trigger guard tang screw is likely a replacement.

This is a scarce musket to begin with: only 2,018 or 2,021 were produced that year from March through August (See Moller, Johns, and Schmidt for details.) In addition to its scarcity and historical interest as a western expansion and War of 1812 musket, it is also a great piece for a study collection, showing, as it does, the mix of Type-1 and Type-2 elements as improvement of the Model 1795 went on and domestic arms production at government facilities finally got on its feet.  [sr] [ph:L]

DISCLAIMER: All firearms are sold as collector's items only - we do not accept responsibility as to the shooting safety or reliability of any antique firearm. All firearms are described as accurately as possible, given the restraints of a catalog listing length. We want satisfied customers & often "under" describe the weapons. Any city or state regulations regarding owning antique firearms are the responsibility of the purchaser. All firearms are "mechanically perfect" unless noted, but again, are NOT warranted as safe to fire.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THIS ITEM, AS WITH ALL OTHER ITEMS AVAILABLE ON OUR WEB SITE,

MAY BE PURCHASED THROUGH OUR LAYAWAY PROGRAM.

FOR OUR POLICIES AND TERMS,

CLICK ON ‘CONTACT US’ AT THE TOP OF ANY PAGE ON THE SITE,

THEN ON ‘LAYAWAY POLICY’.

THANK YOU!