Post by prestontoprail on Apr 6, 2006 1:06:09 GMT -6
Since there are still some guys out there who have not "de-farbed" their muskets, I thought that I would throw out some details on what is needed on these repros (Euroarms, armisport) to make them appear like the original models. These compairsons are taken from period weapon pro Curt Schmidt off the AC. Just some good knowledge for comparison:
1842 Armisport vs. Original
The stock is not American Black Walnut. It can be stained, but it lacks the black walnut grain pattern. And some originals are on the lighter side of the range of American Black Walnut, so restaining is not critical.
The metal is polished too mirror bright compared to the burnished originals. It can be steel-wooled or Scotch-Brited down.
The barrel is a little thicker and a bit more massive/heavier.
The edges of the forestock are squarish, wider, and a little thicker on the reproductions, instead of “rolled over” or “rounded.” This area can be filed down and sanded smooth.
The barrel band springs on the originals are of a slightly differnt end shape and inlet along the middle or "center line" of the forestock. On the reproduction they are inletted below the center line. This would entail filling in the mislocated mortises, relocating new ones higher up on the centerline, and then disguising the repair.
The buttplate on the reproduction is thick in width from the top to the bottom. The buttplate on the original tapers from top to bottom in side view. The repro can be filed down and reshaped, but that is major and tricky. Or, an original can be refitted.
The reproduction hammer is a tad narrower in profile, with a shorter nose.
The double loop front barrel band on the reproduction lacks the brass front sight. It has one made integral with the casting. It can be filed off and a brass one made from brass stock and soldered on.
The reproduction barrel carries the usual modern stampings about using blackpowder only, and the Italian proof house stamps. They can be filed off, polished, and replaced with the correct “V P Eaglehead” proofs.
The stock lacks an inspector’s cartouche, which can be added.
John Zimmerman offers a so-called “de-farbed” M1842, with the barrel markings changed, the brass front sight added, and his own initials in the form of a inspector’s cartridge. He also restamps the “Springfield” to “Harpers Ferry” and offers a choice of different dates for the lock and barrel tang. However, the random alignment, spacing, depth, and style of letter fonts do not match the original style very closely.
1861 springfield armisport vs. original
It appears that the Italian companies keep modifying and fiddling with their offerings over time, so it makes the question very difficult without having a "sutler" such as REGIMENTAL QUARTERMASTER down the street so one can run down and have a look at the most recent offerings on the wall!
NEITHER Euroarms or ArmiSport has done a good job of reprocating a M1861. Both are "simulated copies" and differ on the size and shape of parts and furniture, and both suffer from the barrel breeches being significantly beefed up. Some parts are anywhere from 5-15% oversize, and many poor in matching the shape and configuration of the originals (so swapping original or repro-original parts to correct mistakes is very hard.
Metal parts are finished modern buffing wheel mirror bright.
The wood is something Northern Italian (maybe beech?), and oiled. (Needs stripped and restained to simulate American Black Walnut but the grain is wrong when it shows.
The barrel alone on the ArmiSport was over 1.8 pounds MORE than the original. Most of that weight coming in the taper of the flats-to-round in the breech and middle.
Both barrels AP and EA lack barrel proof stamps, substituting BLACK POWDER ONLY and the bogus Italian stuff and Italian proof house stamps as well as a modern serial number.
The bolster on the AS is squarish instead of roundish.
The rear sight is poor. And the "leaves" undersized" so they fall loose and rattle.
The ArmiSport lockplate is thinner than the original, and is inletted too deep and is flush with the stock mortise.
Lockplate escutcheons are oversized.
The stock carries a different comb profile. And the stock is heavier, thicker, and its comb wider and blockier.
The stock is heavier than original stocks.
There are no inspector's cartouche or cartouches on the stock.
The forearm edge of the stock is wider and squarer than on the original.
Band springs have rounded instead of square ends, and are centered low instead of on the mid-line as compared to the originals. The pins of the springs are attached at a different angle than the originals.
The nosecap has the wrong profile.
Sling swivels on the AS are screwed on, on the original they are riveted on.
The tang of the buttplate on the AS is too curved, and the tang itself too short and of a slightly different shape than the original.
There is no "US" stamped on the tang.
I have only examined ONE EuroArms '61. It was trash.
Although it was not as oversized as the AS, it was "less of a copy." Meaning instead of cast furniture, it had a thin stamped buttplate (of a slightly different curve and tang angle, size and shape). The barrel bands were formed of a strip of thin steel bent and welded together to form a loop.
The hammer was of a similar, but not close profile to the original, with too small of a radius and too small of a nose. The lockplate was thinner, incorrectly inlet flush to the stock, and of a different shape than the original.
The lockplate stampings were bad.
I don't know the vintage of this EA '61, but I have heard the "brand new" ones are a teeny bit better.
Although the weight of the barrel and its configuration cannot be changed easily, IMHO, the AS still lends itself better to the "de-farbing" process. It also benefits from cosmetically correctly the as many of the faults I mentioned through gunsmithing, woodworking, and retrofitting repro-original parts.
I'm trying to find a complete list of the inaccuracies in the 53 enfields from armisport, but havn't run across a list yet. If you are wanting to buy a defarbed repro or have your current one defarbed I would reccomend Regimental Quartermaster at:
www.regtqm.com/muskets_defarbed.htm
They also have a list of what they do to the repro and the cost of each addition/subtraction. However, given the information above, it would seem like there is even further work to be done AFTER the defarbing to get it closer in look and detail.
1842 Armisport vs. Original
The stock is not American Black Walnut. It can be stained, but it lacks the black walnut grain pattern. And some originals are on the lighter side of the range of American Black Walnut, so restaining is not critical.
The metal is polished too mirror bright compared to the burnished originals. It can be steel-wooled or Scotch-Brited down.
The barrel is a little thicker and a bit more massive/heavier.
The edges of the forestock are squarish, wider, and a little thicker on the reproductions, instead of “rolled over” or “rounded.” This area can be filed down and sanded smooth.
The barrel band springs on the originals are of a slightly differnt end shape and inlet along the middle or "center line" of the forestock. On the reproduction they are inletted below the center line. This would entail filling in the mislocated mortises, relocating new ones higher up on the centerline, and then disguising the repair.
The buttplate on the reproduction is thick in width from the top to the bottom. The buttplate on the original tapers from top to bottom in side view. The repro can be filed down and reshaped, but that is major and tricky. Or, an original can be refitted.
The reproduction hammer is a tad narrower in profile, with a shorter nose.
The double loop front barrel band on the reproduction lacks the brass front sight. It has one made integral with the casting. It can be filed off and a brass one made from brass stock and soldered on.
The reproduction barrel carries the usual modern stampings about using blackpowder only, and the Italian proof house stamps. They can be filed off, polished, and replaced with the correct “V P Eaglehead” proofs.
The stock lacks an inspector’s cartouche, which can be added.
John Zimmerman offers a so-called “de-farbed” M1842, with the barrel markings changed, the brass front sight added, and his own initials in the form of a inspector’s cartridge. He also restamps the “Springfield” to “Harpers Ferry” and offers a choice of different dates for the lock and barrel tang. However, the random alignment, spacing, depth, and style of letter fonts do not match the original style very closely.
1861 springfield armisport vs. original
It appears that the Italian companies keep modifying and fiddling with their offerings over time, so it makes the question very difficult without having a "sutler" such as REGIMENTAL QUARTERMASTER down the street so one can run down and have a look at the most recent offerings on the wall!
NEITHER Euroarms or ArmiSport has done a good job of reprocating a M1861. Both are "simulated copies" and differ on the size and shape of parts and furniture, and both suffer from the barrel breeches being significantly beefed up. Some parts are anywhere from 5-15% oversize, and many poor in matching the shape and configuration of the originals (so swapping original or repro-original parts to correct mistakes is very hard.
Metal parts are finished modern buffing wheel mirror bright.
The wood is something Northern Italian (maybe beech?), and oiled. (Needs stripped and restained to simulate American Black Walnut but the grain is wrong when it shows.
The barrel alone on the ArmiSport was over 1.8 pounds MORE than the original. Most of that weight coming in the taper of the flats-to-round in the breech and middle.
Both barrels AP and EA lack barrel proof stamps, substituting BLACK POWDER ONLY and the bogus Italian stuff and Italian proof house stamps as well as a modern serial number.
The bolster on the AS is squarish instead of roundish.
The rear sight is poor. And the "leaves" undersized" so they fall loose and rattle.
The ArmiSport lockplate is thinner than the original, and is inletted too deep and is flush with the stock mortise.
Lockplate escutcheons are oversized.
The stock carries a different comb profile. And the stock is heavier, thicker, and its comb wider and blockier.
The stock is heavier than original stocks.
There are no inspector's cartouche or cartouches on the stock.
The forearm edge of the stock is wider and squarer than on the original.
Band springs have rounded instead of square ends, and are centered low instead of on the mid-line as compared to the originals. The pins of the springs are attached at a different angle than the originals.
The nosecap has the wrong profile.
Sling swivels on the AS are screwed on, on the original they are riveted on.
The tang of the buttplate on the AS is too curved, and the tang itself too short and of a slightly different shape than the original.
There is no "US" stamped on the tang.
I have only examined ONE EuroArms '61. It was trash.
Although it was not as oversized as the AS, it was "less of a copy." Meaning instead of cast furniture, it had a thin stamped buttplate (of a slightly different curve and tang angle, size and shape). The barrel bands were formed of a strip of thin steel bent and welded together to form a loop.
The hammer was of a similar, but not close profile to the original, with too small of a radius and too small of a nose. The lockplate was thinner, incorrectly inlet flush to the stock, and of a different shape than the original.
The lockplate stampings were bad.
I don't know the vintage of this EA '61, but I have heard the "brand new" ones are a teeny bit better.
Although the weight of the barrel and its configuration cannot be changed easily, IMHO, the AS still lends itself better to the "de-farbing" process. It also benefits from cosmetically correctly the as many of the faults I mentioned through gunsmithing, woodworking, and retrofitting repro-original parts.
I'm trying to find a complete list of the inaccuracies in the 53 enfields from armisport, but havn't run across a list yet. If you are wanting to buy a defarbed repro or have your current one defarbed I would reccomend Regimental Quartermaster at:
www.regtqm.com/muskets_defarbed.htm
They also have a list of what they do to the repro and the cost of each addition/subtraction. However, given the information above, it would seem like there is even further work to be done AFTER the defarbing to get it closer in look and detail.
