Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23

Thread: 1856 Tower Musket proof marks

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    691

    1856 Tower Musket proof marks

    Hi all,

    A few months ago I made some posts about a old gun on my grandfathers stairwell wall. It has been hung up there since the early 80s and I always wondered what it is.

    Anyway found out it is a genuine 1856 Tower musket. My grandfather was given it by a friend way back in the 70's.

    It is in lovely condition and I am positive it is still usable, hardly any pitting, almost museum quality (bar all the dust...)

    It has a series of proof marks along the side of the chamber, here are the images:

    https://i.imgur.com/Ell85Pk.jpg

    https://i.imgur.com/VwY4JAW.jpg

    Any one know what they mean and can you date the gun from them ect? Would love to know as much about it as I can.

    Also it is a shame but it is missing the rear sight (has the base, just missing the rest) and I also found out today that it is missing the nipple, though my grandfather might still have it since he said he used it in the past to train his gun dogs. But either way im sure you can by spares for these old rifles today since I have heard they are very popular, granted they will be reproduction parts but thats ok. Would love to surprise my grandfather for Christmas and get it cleaned up and put together.

    Anyway thanks for reading.

    cheers

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    chelmsford
    Posts
    694
    try henry kranks for the nipple, may be worth asking about the sight as well

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Huntingdon
    Posts
    9,253
    The two opposing arrowheads - looking like this * show that the arm was sold out of service to a dealer. The other marks are those of the proofing.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    691
    I have read up on the internet that the 21 is most likely the mark for the caliber? Now I thought they were all .577 but I am probably wrong, the same comment was saying that a .577 was marked as 25.

    So I wonder what 21 would be? Were these guns made in many different calibers?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Huntingdon
    Posts
    9,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Huttles94 View Post
    I have read up on the internet that the 21 is most likely the mark for the caliber? Now I thought they were all .577 but I am probably wrong, the same comment was saying that a .577 was marked as 25.

    So I wonder what 21 would be? Were these guns made in many different calibers?
    The 21 is not the bore, it is number of lead balls of the same diameter as the bore that weigh one pound. Your 21 bore musket works out at .60cal. It is therefore not a converted Brown Bess - that's .69cal.

    Can you post images of the lock, please?
    Last edited by tacfoley; 10-12-2018 at 04:13 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    691
    Quote Originally Posted by tacfoley View Post
    The 21 is not the bore, it is number of lead balls of the same diameter as the bore that weigh one pound. Your 21 bore musket works out at .60cal. It is therefore not a converted Brown Bess - that's .69cal.

    Can you post images of the lock, please?
    ahhh ok I get it now. I do have images of the lock but it was way back and they are not good quality, ill send a link anyway but I am there again on Wednesday so ill get some better pictures then.

    Also what nipple thread are these? or does it vary between guns?

    Here are the images of the lock, like I said, it is pretty dark and not the best images but i will get more:

    https://i.imgur.com/gSBYxZo.jpg

    https://i.imgur.com/vvfUcoA.jpg

    https://i.imgur.com/DICYGOR.jpg

    Also as a bonus, here it is on my grandfather wall along with two shotguns:

    https://i.imgur.com/Prl4mrs.jpg

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Huntingdon
    Posts
    9,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Huttles94 View Post
    ahhh ok I get it now. I do have images of the lock but it was way back and they are not good quality, ill send a link anyway but I am there again on Wednesday so ill get some better pictures then.

    Also what nipple thread are these? or does it vary between guns?

    Here are the images of the lock, like I said, it is pretty dark and not the best images but i will get more:

    https://i.imgur.com/gSBYxZo.jpg

    https://i.imgur.com/vvfUcoA.jpg

    https://i.imgur.com/DICYGOR.jpg

    Also as a bonus, here it is on my grandfather wall along with two shotguns:

    https://i.imgur.com/Prl4mrs.jpg
    Many thanks for the images, and yes, they ARE pretty awful. The piece is a Pattern 53 musket or rifled musket, with a 1856-dated lock. For some reason it was sold out of service, and reproofed after boring out to a smoothbore shotgun. The lack of backsight is because shotguns do not need a backsight. Enfield-style nipples can be bought from Peter Dyson, as noted before, but you can only get the Musket or Top Hat caps as they are called, by showing your SGC to the dealer. I'm not familiar with shotguns, and I'm not sure if you have to note it on the SGC - more experienced advice is on the way, I'm sure.

    A word of caution - do NOT try and shoot it without getting it looked at first by a competent gunsmith, and gentle loads of BLACK POWDER only are needed.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    691
    Quote Originally Posted by tacfoley View Post
    Many thanks for the images, and yes, they ARE pretty awful. The piece is a Pattern 53 musket or rifled musket, with a 1856-dated lock. For some reason it was sold out of service, and reproofed after boring out to a smoothbore shotgun. The lack of backsight is because shotguns do not need a backsight. Enfield-style nipples can be bought from Peter Dyson, as noted before, but you can only get the Musket or Top Hat caps as they are called, by showing your SGC to the dealer. I'm not familiar with shotguns, and I'm not sure if you have to note it on the SGC - more experienced advice is on the way, I'm sure.

    A word of caution - do NOT try and shoot it without getting it looked at first by a competent gunsmith, and gentle loads of BLACK POWDER only are needed.
    Just found a similar one on gunstar, that one is a 1857 Tower so only a year difference. That too is a 0.60 caliber.

    I know you said you think it was re bored but I would of thought there would be traces of the old inspection mark for the gauge if it was re proofed. So could it be that some were indeed made to 0.60 caliber from the factory? Maybe a certain unit requested this specific caliber? Either way I dont plan on shooting it anytime soon and it very much a S58 wall piece. Might be different in the future but yes, I rather like not being blown up so i would get it checked out before hand

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Huntingdon
    Posts
    9,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Huttles94 View Post
    Just found a similar one on gunstar, that one is a 1857 Tower so only a year difference. That too is a 0.60 caliber.

    I know you said you think it was re bored but I would of thought there would be traces of the old inspection mark for the gauge if it was re proofed. So could it be that some were indeed made to 0.60 caliber from the factory? Maybe a certain unit requested this specific caliber? Either way I dont plan on shooting it anytime soon and it very much a S58 wall piece. Might be different in the future but yes, I rather like not being blown up so i would get it checked out before hand
    There has never been a .60 smoothbore gun in British service. No unit would have requested a different bore or calibre arm than the rest, except the Light Division who were equipped with the Baker rifle in the late 1790's and early 1800s - and they were flintlocks.

    David Minshall notes -

    A government rifle will NOT carry the commercial marks of the London or Birmingham Gun Barrel Proof Houses with their usual marks and double 25 bore size marks. However these can sometimes be found IN ADDITION to the defaced original government proofs showing that the rifle has been correctly (and as required by law) submitted for proof prior to civilian sale.
    Last edited by tacfoley; 10-12-2018 at 07:54 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    691
    Quote Originally Posted by tacfoley View Post
    There has never been a .60 smoothbore gun in British service. No unit would have requested a different bore or calibre arm than the rest, except the Light Division who were equipped with the Baker rifle in the late 1790's and early 1800s - and they were flintlocks.

    David Minshall notes -

    A government rifle will NOT carry the commercial marks of the London or Birmingham Gun Barrel Proof Houses with their usual marks and double 25 bore size marks. However these can sometimes be found IN ADDITION to the defaced original government proofs showing that the rifle has been correctly (and as required by law) submitted for proof prior to civilian sale.

    This piece is a muzzle-loading antique - not a Section 58 which refers only to obsolete calibre cartridge-firing small arms.
    That is odd since I have seen many guns sell as Section 58 that were muzzle loaders and did not fire cartridges.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Huntingdon
    Posts
    9,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Huttles94 View Post
    That is odd since I have seen many guns sell as Section 58 that were muzzle loaders and did not fire cartridges.
    I've just checked. You are correct. Since you already seem to know the answers to your questions, so why are you asking them here?
    Last edited by tacfoley; 11-12-2018 at 08:05 PM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    691
    Quote Originally Posted by tacfoley View Post
    I've just checked. You are correct. Since you already seem to know the answers to your questions, so why are you asking them here?
    I was not asking whether the gun is S58 or not since as you pointed out I already know.

    I was simply asking about the proof/makers marks, Thank you for telling me what the 21 mark is, I was just wondering if some were made to that caliber from new since I have seen a few on the internet (ones saying that they are .600 caliber ect even some being 0.650). And the fact that I cant see any remains of another gauge mark just made me think that maybe there were a very small number made to that specification, either for the British army or the US (Both the Union and Confederates used the 1853 enfield musket/rifles but mainly the Confederates since they did not have steady access to the springfield rifles used by the north). I would of thought there would be some remains of an older mark if it was re bored. But again I am no expert.

    As far as I can also tell, it is a smooth bore but I know that when these were rifled later on, sometimes the rifling would be very thin and might have been worn away due to heavy usage (not checked too far down the barrel, only near the muzzle)

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Huntingdon
    Posts
    9,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Huttles94 View Post
    I was not asking whether the gun is S58 or not since as you pointed out I already know.

    I was simply asking about the proof/makers marks, Thank you for telling me what the 21 mark is, I was just wondering if some were made to that caliber from new since I have seen a few on the internet (ones saying that they are .600 caliber ect even some being 0.650). And the fact that I cant see any remains of another gauge mark just made me think that maybe there were a very small number made to that specification, either for the British army or the US (Both the Union and Confederates used the 1853 enfield musket/rifles but mainly the Confederates since they did not have steady access to the springfield rifles used by the north). I would of thought there would be some remains of an older mark if it was re bored. But again I am no expert.

    As far as I can also tell, it is a smooth bore but I know that when these were rifled later on, sometimes the rifling would be very thin and might have been worn away due to heavy usage (not checked too far down the barrel, only near the muzzle)
    The British Army and Navy Enfield rifles were bored to .577". The British did not use either shotguns or oversized-bore rifles after the introduction of the .577cal P53 in 1854. As I mentioned, your piece is now a bored-out shotgun, a fate that overtook about 50% of all the similar arms - both North and South, after the surrender. Many of these guns went to Japan, and were used in the various uprisings before the fall of the Tokugawa Shogunate, and the installation of the Maeiji emperor, but I think it's unlikely that your was one of those, as you live in England [?]. In the USA in 1903, Sears were selling shotguns like yours for $2.50. There were tens of thousands of P53s here in UK, too. they were either converted to the Snider breechloader, or sold off, like yours was [from the SOOS stamps] for conversion to a cheap and cheerful farmer's woking gun.

    As for wearing away the rifling and leaving a smooth bore, that is unlikely in the extreme. I have Snider rifles, upgraded from P53 rifled muskets, that were in almost continual use in one way or another from 1863 to the early 1900's by both regular and volunteer Militia units of the Canadian Defence Force, who missed out on the Martini and went straight from the Snider to the Lee-Metford/Enfield. Their rifling is as near prefect as can possibly be imagined, and, in any case, to do such a thing would also leave evidence of loading damage at the muzzle, where less-than-careful use of the loading rod would have worn a a groove or grooves.
    Last edited by tacfoley; 27-12-2018 at 06:17 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    691
    I forgot to ask about these markings as well

    https://i.imgur.com/yIS4xE7.jpg

    I read somewhere that the markings on the brass butt plate at the top correspond to what regiment it was issued to, but dont know if this is true?

    Cheers

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    leeds, west yorkshire
    Posts
    12,945
    Quote Originally Posted by Huttles94 View Post
    I forgot to ask about these markings as well

    https://i.imgur.com/yIS4xE7.jpg

    I read somewhere that the markings on the brass butt plate at the top correspond to what regiment it was issued to, but dont know if this is true?

    Cheers
    yes its the regiment.....i forward the pic to more experienced than i whom might have more info etc

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •