- --- In WarOf1812@y..., "ebclemson" <ebclemson@w...> wrote:
>Very cool - glad I could help.
> Fitz, Yes the ram rods worked well. They were a Little thick for the old Japan Charllevilles, but we had the channel widened. They were really not too long, just a tad. Thanks!
It has been a touchy job, but I've got the Pedersoli brought up to Type
2 standard, excepts for the stamping on the lock plate - right now it
is blank, but I've found a company in Massachusetts that will make
custom steel stamps. I'm going to need the eagle and the US and dates
in sarif lettering to do the job right. If i can swing the custom
stamps to do my musket, I would be happy to lend them to you so that
your people can use them too - why waste the resource on only one
If any of your people want to upgrade from a Type 1 to a Type 2, I can
put together the instructions for you on the round pan and the reshaped
spur on the hammer. I'm seriously considering putting together some
"conversion kits" that would contain the right ramrod, the re-shaped
pan and hammer, the lock plate with the proper markings for a
Springfield musket, the barrel band spring for the lower barrel band, a
tapped lower barrel band so that the spring locks in, the proper sling
swivels and screws, a replacement bayonet lug, and an illustrated
instruction sheet that shows where everything goes and how to reshape
the comb on the buttstock to the right angle. Unfortunately, I can only
do this for the Pedersoli Charleville, since that is the only one that
I have to work with that has a spare parts supply available. The upside
is, of course, that Pedersoli makes the best Charleville around - I've
seen the Navy Arms Charleville and theier so-called springfields, and
they are simply not worth the money being charged, imho.
Let me know if such kits would be useful to you and your people.
> --- In WarOf1812@y..., "alaidh" <alaidh@y...> wrote:
> > Good to hear from you, Dave - I trust the ramrods worked for you?
> > Okay, we now have the following info on the subject:
> > 1. Andrew's experiements indicated that untreated paper used for the
> > standard b & b cartridge fouled the barrel so completely after just a
> > few rounds that the weapons were practicaly useless.
> > 2. Dave's info on the 1st Infantry indicates that they were able to
> > fire 70 rounds without completely fouling the barrel, but that the
> > cartridges were bigger and louder than that used by other battalions
> > present.
> > 3. Tim's info indicates that there actually is a grade of rag paper
> > made that is called "cartridge paper", it is not the same as news sheet
> > rag. It is much closer to that used in books of the period.
> > This now raises the following questions:
> > 1. What was the difference between the cartridges used by Andrew and
> > those used by the 1st Infantry?
> > 2. If cartridge paper was the equivalant of book paper, was the paper
> > coated, and with what? (I seem to remember from somewhere that the
> > paper used in books at the time were coated with something to keep the
> > ink from bleeding through the page - don't recall with what, or by
> > what process)
> > It is starting to be obvious, when looking at the assembled info, that
> > there is something about period cartridge manufacture that we are
> > currently unaware of.
> > Open to the list - any theories, guesses, voices from Ramtha???
> > F