Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Those grip exerciser things are great

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Those grip exerciser things are great

Been thinking about one of those. I think they're about $20

Before my dad's cousin passed away, he left me his model 1816 Harper's Ferry musket, made in 1832. I've got it broke down and am going through the cleanup process. At some point it was converted to percussion cap from flintlock. Some work with steel wool, 409, WD-40 and metal polish is having good results after less than an hour.

I'll have to see about getting the percussion nipple off to replace it.

The barrel looks to be in good shape and is probably shootable.

I finally have something older than my model 1866 Springfield.

ZF-

...You realize that by 'refurbishing' it like that, you've basically killed any re-sale value it had, right? I mean, if you're going to be using it as a legit hunting/shooting weapon and don't care at all about the historical value of it, that's fine, I suppose. But by stripping the original patina, you've probably halved or worse the collector's value of it.

Anvildude wrote:
...You realize that by 'refurbishing' it like that, you've basically killed any re-sale value it had, right? I mean, if you're going to be using it as a legit hunting/shooting weapon and don't care at all about the historical value of it, that's fine, I suppose. But by stripping the original patina, you've probably halved or worse the collector's value of it.

If it was originally a flintlock, much of the resale value was already gone when it was made into a percussion cap firearm.... There may have been a bit of value remaining in it due to age and relative condition, but I do agree that cleaning it definitely killed ANY value as a collector's piece.

dont clean it! I can hear the patina screaming from here!

argh too late.



beautiful peice either way, if you are not too worried about it, then who really cares, Id probably keep it rather then sell anyways.


really nice wood on it,

the pictures you took are well done as well, great layout and focus ensis

Sometimes, it's not about resale value though, it's about continuing to actually use something that's been in your family for a long time.

I feel like an inoperable firearm is a sad thing. However, if it's just the finish though then a little character doesn't hurt.

The operation of a firearm is all on the inside, especially for a muzzle loader. You can clean the barrel and firing hole, make sure the mechanisms still work, without doing anything to the outside of the piece. It's not like it's covered in cosmoline.

I hate patina. Armory bright is the way it's meant to be. Why grease and grunge is considered value is a mystery to me. Patina ain't "original"

The percussion conversion was a period thing, happening in the late 1840s or 1850s, so I doubt that would detract the value much, though I could see the value in it's original flintlock state. It's quite possible it saw action in the first year or so in the Civil War, when various militias had all sorts of obsolete stuff. Could very well have gone to Mexico, too.

It's not like I'm sanding down the stock or something.

I'm looking forward to trying buck 'n ball with it. Don't expect a lot of long range accuracy with it, being smoothbore.

One thing with these old muskets that you don't see in the reproductions... the steel at the muzzle is quite thin. I almost want to say paper thin, but not quite that much. New ones seem to stay thick all the way to the end.

easysauce: I just used my iPhone 5 camera for this. As long as this firearm is, it's tough to get a whole pic.

I would have a seriously good smith look at that before firing it.

With the discussion on the Scorpion Evo I thought I should share this news; http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/04/jeremy-s/cz-usa-announces-scorpion-folding-stock-922r-compliance-kit/

The condensed version is that CZ USA will be producing kits for the rifle to make it compliant with 922(r) so the pistol may be converted to a SBR

Anyone own a Remington rifle? If so 7.85 million triggers are being replaced
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/04/robert-farago/breaking-judge-orders-remington-to-replace-7-85m-rifle-triggers/

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
With the discussion on the Scorpion Evo I thought I should share this news; http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/04/jeremy-s/cz-usa-announces-scorpion-folding-stock-922r-compliance-kit/

The condensed version is that CZ USA will be producing kits for the rifle to make it compliant with 922(r) so the pistol may be converted to a SBR

My interest in this is maximum.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
With the discussion on the Scorpion Evo I thought I should share this news; http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/04/jeremy-s/cz-usa-announces-scorpion-folding-stock-922r-compliance-kit/

The condensed version is that CZ USA will be producing kits for the rifle to make it compliant with 922(r) so the pistol may be converted to a SBR

The concept of a semi-automatic firearm in a pistol caliber confuses hell out of me, but it is pretty.

Facepalm (edit): I meant to say that the concept of a semi-auto rifle in a pistol caliber.

 Stonebeard wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
With the discussion on the Scorpion Evo I thought I should share this news; http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/04/jeremy-s/cz-usa-announces-scorpion-folding-stock-922r-compliance-kit/

The condensed version is that CZ USA will be producing kits for the rifle to make it compliant with 922(r) so the pistol may be converted to a SBR

The concept of a semi-automatic firearm in a pistol caliber confuses hell out of me, but it is pretty.

EDIT: misread original statment

Really, they're just nifty little things that can be cheaper to shoot that larger rifles in some cases with easier recoil (plus the CZ looks amazing), and for any sort of "home defense" type thing I prefer that size, gives you a little more punch and more capacity than a handgun, while not quite as likely to blow your ears out in enclosed spaces and less overpenetration.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

If it was originally a flintlock, much of the resale value was already gone when it was made into a percussion cap firearm....

Actually that's wrong in this case. It was converted to percussion along with most of the armory's stock in the 1840's and 50's. It's most likely a Confederate Civil War piece. He really screwed up.

 Zad Fnark wrote:

I'll have to see about getting the percussion nipple off to replace it.

It's like watching someone cut up an illuminated manuscript to sell the individual pages on ebay..

You don't have enough of it in the picture to tell you more about your musket other than the following:

Leave the damn percussion hammer on there before you make this any worse. Your date makes it a Type 3, meaning that the patina is a little less important as the armory at that time stopped putting any browning, etc on the muskets in that year, so there's no original finish to remove. The patina though should have stayed. These muskets tend to brown with age.

Do not assume the barrel is shootable. You clearly have no idea how to properly maintain this weapon, let alone shoot it. Do not, under any circumstances, TRY TO DO ANY MORE 'WORK' ON IT. Take it to a trained gunsmith, or, better, an expert in caring for and maintaining historic weaponry. If you don't know any, contact your local museum or Civil War re-enactment organization. They should be able ot push you in the right direction.

 Zad Fnark wrote:
I hate patina. Armory bright is the way it's meant to be. Why grease and grunge is considered value is a mystery to me. Patina ain't "original"

Actually in the case of Harper's Ferry muskets from the years before yours, it is, actually. The armory deliberately gave them patina to reduce rusting. 'Armory bright' does not exist for these. Please learn something about muskets before you do any more damage.

 Zad Fnark wrote:

It's quite possible it saw action in the first year or so in the Civil War, when various militias had all sorts of obsolete stuff. Could very well have gone to Mexico, too.

Unless there's a Dagger shaped armory mark on the barrel, it probably didn't go to Mexico.

 Zad Fnark wrote:

I'm looking forward to trying buck 'n ball with it. Don't expect a lot of long range accuracy with it, being smoothbore.

Well, at least we can be sure that other muskets will be protected from you.

 Zad Fnark wrote:

One thing with these old muskets that you don't see in the reproductions... the steel at the muzzle is quite thin. I almost want to say paper thin, but not quite that much. New ones seem to stay thick all the way to the end.

And yet, he wants to load her up with buck and ball...
You make baby flintlock cry.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Stonebeard wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
With the discussion on the Scorpion Evo I thought I should share this news; http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/04/jeremy-s/cz-usa-announces-scorpion-folding-stock-922r-compliance-kit/

The condensed version is that CZ USA will be producing kits for the rifle to make it compliant with 922(r) so the pistol may be converted to a SBR

The concept of a semi-automatic firearm in a pistol caliber confuses hell out of me, but it is pretty.

EDIT: misread original statment

Really, they're just nifty little things that can be cheaper to shoot that larger rifles in some cases with easier recoil (plus the CZ looks amazing), and for any sort of "home defense" type thing I prefer that size, gives you a little more punch and more capacity than a handgun, while not quite as likely to blow your ears out in enclosed spaces and less overpenetration.

I suppose those are good points, but the concept just isn't my bag. Much rather be throwing a 7.62 if I'm in a house. Well, at least in theory; I've never actually been in a position where I had to defend the fort, armed with nothing more than my Darth Vader boxers and a Draco, so I don't know.

I'm actually fairly certain that pistol rounds actually penetrate drywall better than .556. Small, high velocity rounds will fragment when they hit the first layer of drywall, and the second layer/studs will catch those fragments (I don't know what the caliber/velocity cutoff for this is, I could be way off). Pistol rounds, on the other hand, will just punch through thanks to their relative mass and keep going through multiple layers of drywall. Verify before you believe me on that, though, it was something I'd read on a firearms blog or something years ago and I can't recall the source.

Some people also like to standardize their ammunition across platforms, especially if they reload. Having a rifle and pistol in the same caliber allows them to do this more easily.

I must admit a fondness of pistol caliber carbines. Typically the longer barrel creates considerably more muzzle energy than an actual pistol lenth barrel. The longer sight radius and stock allow for more consistent accuracy with midrange shooting. When it comes to penetration of barriers they typically out perform 5.5~mm ammo at short range but barrier penetration drops off quickly with range. Utility? i know a few people who harvested their first White Tail deer with .44 lever action rifles.

I'm looking real close at that little CZ EVO with the SBR potential. That looks like a lot of fun. Never thought I'd go NFA...

I got a bit of a question for everyone- What exactly constitutes a "Carbine"? I thought for the longest time that it was a 'long gun' (that is, stock, two-hands, etc. etc) that fired pistol rounds, but was under a certain length, but I had a gun-nut buddy of mine say that it was something else.

A Carbine is basically a shortened version of a "full size" rifle. See the M16 and M4 for reference. It can fire either full size rifle rounds or pistol caliber ammunition.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
A Carbine is basically a shortened version of a "full size" rifle. See the M16 and M4 for reference. It can fire either full size rifle rounds or pistol caliber ammunition.

Pretty much this. What may cause confusion are the legal terms used to describe these firearms. Carbines are typically referred to as Short Barreled Rifles (SBRs), and require a tax stamp under the National Firearms Act (NFA) to own; although in some states they are prohibited.

The other confusion point is what constitutes a rifle vs. a carbine. For example the M1 Carbine is both a carbine and a rifle, being the "small" and lighter caliber version of the M1 Garand, however the term carbine really is more or less outdated for modern usage. The term was at it's most common during the age of blackpowder, where a carbine was at it's most recognizable as the weapon of choice for cavalrymen, due to it's shorter size and easier handling. The primary infantry arm of the day being the massively long barreled musket or rifle allows of to make sense of some of the odder "carbine" labels. For example the Sharps Carbine and the original lever action rifles were all termed carbines in military service.

The term's use in trade circles is even more varied, and only adds to the confusion. Using the 1873 Winchester rifle as an example, we find that the weapon had a 24" rifle length and a 22" Carbine, these being the official trade terms. This pattern in 6"-2" variations of barrel length for rifle/carbine lengths in various models would repeat for a lot of Winchester's history.

So on some level the term can mean just about anything to everyone modernly speaking. However if it's shorter and lighter than a "full size rifle" whether it has a larger variant to compare to (1873 Win, M16, et al) or just speaking as a "general" statement then it can be termed a carbine.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Anyone own a Remington rifle? If so 7.85 million triggers are being replaced
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/04/robert-farago/breaking-judge-orders-remington-to-replace-7-85m-rifle-triggers/

yes, indeedy.

oh really? is that basically everyt remington in the 700 series then?

Basically.

I've had and used my 700 forever. Even had it rebarreled twice already and it's never 'fired on its own'. So, meh...

Does anyone have any experience with the 9mm Beretta Nano? Most of the reviews I've seen have been positive but I'm curious if any Dakkaites have any first-hand experience.

 Hordini wrote:
Does anyone have any experience with the 9mm Beretta Nano? Most of the reviews I've seen have been positive but I'm curious if any Dakkaites have any first-hand experience.

I have some. It grips allright and shoots just fine, but was awkwardly top heavy, like really top heavy.