1861/63 Savage Contract Musket.

[TBiddy]

I have an original one I picked up a couple years ago that hasn't been cut down to turn into a parade gun. One of 25,000 made. It's pretty sweet. Has some surface rust and pitting. I've never tore into a musket before. The action is still in perfect shape. Besides not cleaning this down to bare metal, what's the skinny on antique musket cleaning?

Read More

 

[solv3nt]

@Andy54Hawken

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Bronze / brass wool and some cleaning oil of your choice will be your friend here

A proper sized nipple wrench will be useful too....you may need to coat the nipple area with oil and let it sit for a day or two...
If the nipple ain't been off in a awhile.

Proper fitting screwdrivers are a must...no need to gouge wood or metal ...or bugger up screw heads .

A mainspring vise is needed to take the mainspring off of the lock
( If you to take apart the lock...not needed to remove the lock from the stock )

A light rub down on the stock with a rag is good...please don't take away stock ( or metal ) patina by sanding or steel wool use.

Andy

Edit to add...
You have what is known as a Rifled Musket...not a musket.
Muskets are smooth bore...

 

[TBiddy]

Yep, Rifled Musket. My bad. Good call on the screw drivers, hadn't thought that far into it yet.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Sure wish we were closer...
I have taken apart many original 1861 / 1863 pattern Rifled Musket...cleaned 'em....
And more importantly...got 'em back together without having 'extra parts" at the end of the day....
Andy

 

[TBiddy]

Another question....how "clean" should I get that metal? Just a knocking off of the loose surface rust and call it good? By knocking off, I mean a quick scuff with the brass wool and oil? I don't want to go too far with this, lol

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Oil and bronze or brass wool to get rid of the active rust...then call it good.
Leave the patina alone.
Andy

 

[TBiddy]

That's a great big 10-4

 

[PommyB]

Just to be picky, what the OP has is a Rifle-Musket rather than a Rifled-Musket.....yes, pedantic, but there is a difference. A Rifled-Musket was (typically) a smoothbore musket that was later rifled, whereas a Rifle-Musket was originally manufactured with a rifled barrel. The Springfield Model 1842 is a good example, originally built as a .69 caliber smoothbore musket, many were later rifled & fitted with an adjustable rear sight. The later model Springfields (1855, 1861, & 1863) were .58 caliber Rifle-Muskets.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I have seen both terms used...both in original period sources...and modern when referring to arms of the OP's type.
As an example :

Claud E. Fuller uses the term Rifled Musket ...in his most excellent book The Rifled Musket...
Which is all about firearms of the OP's type....
With that said....
In the same book....there is reprinted from 1863 :
Rules For The Management And Cleaning Of The Rifle Musket , Model 1863....

However...as noted above...a Rifled Musket is just that...a musket that has been rifled..and usually given rifle sights...
As well as a class of firearms all of their own.

I prefer the term rifled musket for arms of the OP's type...since it is used by some of those more well versed than me on the subject...
And rifle musket...sounds weird to me.... KInda like Jumbo Shrimp....
Which is it ...Jumbo or shrimp.... Well which is it a rifle...or a musket...

And yes...
I do understand that it is actually neither ...
It is a shoulder fired , muzzle loading rifle barreled , rifled sighted firearm with a musket style stock and furniture...
Which was made that way from the start , not to be confused with a musket that has later been altered to a rifled barrel..
Along with , most of the time , rifle sights.
( Whew )

Also worth considering is that during the time period when these were actually issued and used...
There were :
Muskets...( Smooth bores )
Musketoons...which can also be found as rifled arms...
Rifled Muskets...
Rifle Muskets...
And Rifles...
All were issued often at the same time , and in the same army.
Albeit often to different troop types.

Not to forget the earlier terms : Fusil...Fuke..."Elegant Fusil" , used by William Clark....Fuzee....
All of which may mean. :
A light weight , light caliber / smaller bore sized musket for a NCO or Officer...
Or...
A light weight sporting , single barreled smooth bore ....
Or a smooth bore trade gun.....

All of which gets muddled and confusing when researching firearms...since many period sources use the terms interchangeably or for the wrong type of firearm altogether.
Andy

 

[PommyB]

Let's not forget the Winchester Models 1866, 1873, 1876, 1885, 1892, 1894, & 1895 Muskets, that received that title due to their full length military-stlye stocks.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I was trying to keep my post to firearms that are similar to the OP's....
Not cartridge guns.....sigh.

In any event I am done here with this thread....hate being nit picked to death.
Andy

 

[PommyB]

I apologize, I wasn't intending to nit-pick.

 

[TBiddy]

What about wax? What oil should I use for the stock?

 

[TBiddy]

Just to be picky, what the OP has is a Rifle-Musket rather than a Rifled-Musket.....yes, pedantic, but there is a difference. A Rifled-Musket was (typically) a smoothbore musket that was later rifled, whereas a Rifle-Musket was originally manufactured with a rifled barrel. The Springfield Model 1842 is a good example, originally built as a .69 caliber smoothbore musket, many were later rifled & fitted with an adjustable rear sight. The later model Springfields (1855, 1861, & 1863) were .58 caliber Rifle-Muskets.

Just to be picky, what the OP has is a Rifle-Musket rather than a Rifled-Musket.....yes, pedantic, but there is a difference. A Rifled-Musket was (typically) a smoothbore musket that was later rifled, whereas a Rifle-Musket was originally manufactured with a rifled barrel. The Springfield Model 1842 is a good example, originally built as a .69 caliber smoothbore musket, many were later rifled & fitted with an adjustable rear sight. The later model Springfields (1855, 1861, & 1863) were .58 caliber Rifle-Muskets.

Dude. I get it, semantics don't answer the question(s) though.