With the decision in 1840 to go to a percussion a cone inserted (Fig. 3,4). The third type percussion system of ignition for U.S. , it became im- cap conversion encountered is the application of a perative to assay the situation as it existed at that bolster to the side of the barrel above the plate time. In order to facilitate this, as you all know, (Fig. 5). This is seen in two types, either the flintlock muskets were broken down into four classes: the first barrel is removed in its lower portion and a new class being those made since 1831, the second class breech threaded into the barrel or in rarer instances, being those from '21 to '31, the third class being those the bolster is brazed, or welded, onto the barrel made from '12 to '20, and the fourth class being covering the previous vent hole. The first and second those made prior to 1812 and all unserviceable arms mothods of alteration were used primarily during the since then. Without going into detail with this in- 1840's and early '50's. With the advent of the idea of spection, it became obvious that the Federal Govern- rifling the barrel in these muskets and applying long ment had on hand in its armories in 1848, 586,513 range sites, the first and second methods became un- muskets. Of these, 50% were the first class, 20% serviceable due to the increased level of gas pressure were the second class, and approximately 20% were and also due to the position of the cone on the barrel. third class, and approximately 10% were fourth class. These problems lead to the wide use of the third On hand in private armories of contractors at that method or rebottomed barrels. time were approximately 120,000 with the same per- It should be pointed out that large numbers of centages. It therefore becomes obvious when you class one and class two arms were converted by these review this situation, that the Federal Government several mothods and proved to be very serviceable was confronted with having approximately 300,000 arms during the 1850's and the hostilities of the first class completely serviceable flintlock muskets. 1860's. There were many contractors For these con- This then is the hackgrotlnd that militated for some versions. It appears that a lot of this work was done system of converting these flintlock muskets to per- in National Armorics both at Harper's Ferry and cussion. Springfield, probably with Springficld leading in the These conversions may be grouped for discussion volume produced. No exact figures of the numbers of into two major categories, those being: (I)standard muskets converted by the contractors or either the conversions, and (2) mechanical National Armories are available to me. It would ap- systems. Of the standard percussion cap con- pear that the most prodigious converter on a contract versions, we sec today three standard basic types. basis wor~ldbe Mr. Hewes and Phillips who ap- The first type conversion, which is seen on muskets, parently converted something in the range of 20,000 but more commonly on pistols, is the so-called "first class one 1816 muskets to the percussion system method" or the French style in which a drum is in- using the new breech method. There will be seen as serted into the previous vent hole and a cone seat you look over these muskets, many types of bolsters. drilled into the drum with a new fixed to Somc of the bolsters have clean-out screws which the stripped off outside of the lock (Fig. 2). The probably indicate their confirmation to the types "second method" or so-called Belgian type exhibits 1855-61. Others without the clean-out screw would thc same type external lock conversion, but the lead us to bclieve that these conversions were ac- previous vent hole is filled with a brass plug and a complished during the early part of the Civil War new cone seat drilled into the top of the barrel with probably prior to 1863. Figure- 3 Cone conversion of The U.S. Flintlock an 1816 musket as It Is Converted for Use of the Percussion System by Edgar V. Howell, Jr., MD.

E. V. Howell, Jr,

Figure 5 H 6. P conversion of an 1816 musket Reprinted from the American Society of Arms Collectors Bulletin 25:30-33 Additional articles available at http://americansocietyofarmscollectors.org/resources/articles/ Figure 1 Figure 2 Flint hammer striker conversion Colt conversion Drum type of on 1808 Musket of un 1816 musket

Figurc 4 Cone alteration of an 1816 musket Figure 6 Figure 7 Butterfield alteration of First Maynard alteration of an 1816 musket on 3840 musket

Figure H Figure 9 Remington Maynard conversion Word Primer olterotion of (second type) of an 1816 musket. an 1816 musket

Most of these conversions, particularly the first two types, were reissued during the 50's and early 60's to troops with their original bayonets. There were, how- ever, new bayonets made on the contract with H&P and with the mechanical primer systems, you will occasionally see a new bayonet. There is no doubt but what the standard percussion cap conversions were widely used during the hostilities of 1860 as evidenced by original parts for these muskets being among the battle field relics that are seen today. As previously pointed out, a number of these muskets during the middle 50's were also rifled and onot was furnished by Remington with these muskets. fixed with long range rear sites. Their performance The third type mechanical primer system en- left a little to be desired and since the new smaller countered today is the work of J. N. Ward, patented caliber muskets out perform them, this process 1856, by 1,t. J. N. Ward, U.S. Army. This musket was discontinued in the middle 1850's. conversion in essence was a mechanical accuator or I'd like to now bring up the second major category feed lever in the hammer of the musket which fed an of percussion alterations; this being the alteration to equally spaced fulminate primer over the cone where some form of a mechanical priming system. These the hammer fell. This conversion is seen on both arms are basically the Butterfield Pellet Primer (Fig. 1812 and 1816 muskets. These arms are rare. It is 6), the Edward Maynard alteration, type 1 (Fig. 7) and rather doubtful that over 150 were altered in this type 11, the Ward Mechanical Primer (Fig. 9), and the manner. Morse Conversion System. Butterfield had at least two patents on his pellet One final mechanical alteration, also involving priming system and was granted in January of 1859, alteration to breech loader, is the Morse system. In a government contract to convert 5,000 muskets. It is the year 1859-60, approximately 55 muskets were extromely doubtful going on survival rates today that alterod at the Springfield Armory to the Morse system he ever fulfilled this contract and as a general rule, using a metallic breech loading rim fire . these conversions are seen on class TI arms and some- These muskets had previously becrl rifled and sighted times on class 111 arms. It would appear to me from and converted to percussion apparently by the cone what I see that most of the mechanical priming con- seat method. This type of system saw only very versions are seen on arms in class I1 or less. Butter- limited application and I know of no instance in field conversions are seen today with the complete which it was used. The Morse system was, however, Butterfield primer unit on the outer side of the lock applied to Confederate Carbines as you all know. plate. There are a few conversions seen with a Butter- These conversions are extremely rare and I have only field numbering system throughout the musket, but seen, in the past fifteen years, one specimen and exhibiting no Hutterfield primer on the lock and heard that one other exists. One final type of altera- never having had one. I have seen a couple of these tion from flint to percussion is sucn rather infre- muskets both of which exhibited a clean-out screw quently today. There is considerable resrrrvation in on the opposite side of the barrel from the previous my mind that this is in any way a Military conver- vent hole. It is possible that Butterfield's mechanical sion, but this system involves the insertion of a strik- priming system proved unserviceable For use ing device between the jaws of the flint hammer and and some of the later portion of his contract was insertion of a cone and H drum into the vcnt hole in filled out by including simply a new breech and a the barrel. This striking device comes two ways. It standard percussion cap cone. comes the standard female striking type device or it The second type of mechanical primcr conversions comes as a male striking dcvice into some form of encountered are the conversions of Dr. Edward May- fulminate place in the small hole in the drum. These nard, the Washington dentist. Dr. Maynard's patent would appear to be rather early conversinrls from dated 22, Sept., 1845, based on a principle that small flint to percussion and may well represent civilian quantities of fulminate equally spaced on a narrow alteration during the 1830's and 40's. tape could be fed to the cone seat by cocking the In closing, let me say this: let us remember that hammer. The conversions to the first Maynard system neither the U.S. Government, at either of its Armories, seen by me have been on thc U.S. Musket model nor any of its contractors have ever mads a recon- 1840 which was a class I arm. Later in the 18501s, version. When you are dealing with a converted flint- Remington obtained a contract to convert IJ.S. Mus- lock musket, you are dealing with a historical item kets from flintlock to percussion using the pusher that has been considered serviceable on at least two accuator Maynard systcm. These muskets were ap- occasions. When you are dealing with a reconver- parently very serviceable and Remington apparently sion, you are dealing with an item whose historical did fulfill the 20,000 stand contract and those arms significance has been greatly reduced. In closing, let were widely used during the Civil War. A new bay- me ask you all to help stamp out "reconversion".

FULLER GUN OOLL~C~ION--7

Figure 10 Morse conversion system. Fuller Gun Collection.