Not a trapdoor but close- Miller Conversion of Parker Snow musket

[carlsr]

I have been looking for a Parker Snow conversion, seen two at Allentown Saturday but both had issues.
Seen one online that’s really nice but it has an incorrect ram rod. How hard would it be to find a correct cleaning rod and what would be a decent price for a Parker snow conversion?
Thanks in advance.

[Dick Hosmer]

That's the Miller, right? I think values are about on a par with equivalent-condition trapdoors. Millers are much scarcer, but also much less in demand.

IIRC, full-length three-banders are seen FAR less often than ones which have been shortened, and so would command a premium.

Ed Hull (fellow member here) is THE go-to guy for these!

[carlsr]

Well, I went to the Allentown gun show yesterday and low and behold there was the Miller conversion I was looking at. There were a couple other rifles there that I was thinking about, and much more inexpensive but just had to get the Miller conversion.
It's the nicest one I've ever seen as most are beat up with cracked stocks.
Took it apart this morning and gave it a good cleaning and oiling. Looks to have a much nicer design than the 1st Allin
I noticed a P mark and initials along with the number 260.
I believe the initials are from when the barrel was a musket??
The #260, well I guess that could be anything but I'm thinking maybe it was #260 out of the 2000 produced??
Here's a couple pictures.

IMG_20230709_123909.jpg (59.26 KiB) Viewed 10686 times

IMG_20230709_123923.jpg (228.72 KiB) Viewed 10686 times

IMG_20230709_124101.jpg (131.3 KiB) Viewed 10686 times

You can still see the breech plug threads.
I'll post some pics of the rifle when it's reasembled.

[John S.]

The 260 is probably just a batch or assembly number for parts matching, not at all related to a "serial number." No telling how they started off on a batch number, possible first digit is a worker ID, or week, or crate they came from or???? Useful for a few days during the conversion process and since then, they only serve confuse obsessive collectors like us.

[Dick Hosmer]

Certainly the interlocking breech parts had to be kept together during manufacture, but I'd also like to hear what Ed Hull has to say about this . . .

[carlsr]

You may be correct Dick??
I found the same # on the backside of the breech block. I had not disassembled it nor even looked for a number on the breech block.

[carlsr]

The 260 is probably just a batch or assembly number for parts matching, not at all related to a "serial number." No telling how they started off on a batch number, possible first digit is a worker ID, or week, or crate they came from or???? Useful for a few days during the conversion process and since then, they only serve confuse obsessive collectors like us.

Probably just to confuse us John
But I did find the same number on the back of the breech block, now I’m tempted to disassembled it to see if the other parts have a number?

[Dick Hosmer]

Now that you have the rifle, I'd strongly suggest getting Ed Hull's Miller book. It is not expensive (kinda like mine) and chock full of a lifetime's work. It will answer all your questions.

[carlsr]

Now that you have the rifle, I'd strongly suggest getting Ed Hull's Miller book. It is not expensive (kinda like mine) and chock full of a lifetime's work. It will answer all your questions.

What's the name of the book Dick?
The only one I found is on the Roberts conversions. Thanks

[Dick Hosmer]

Well, Burnside, Lindner, and Peabody, too. I was sure he wrote a Miller book, but maybe it was just a lengthy Man-at-Arms article. I'll have to re-check. Do you subscribe to MAA? If you don't, I can try to find the article and copy it for you.