Page 3 of 4
Re: Not a trapdoor but close
Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2023 4:26 pm
by Dick Hosmer
Happy to help! I've met Ed a couple of times - nice guy, and extremely knowledgeable.
Re: Not a trapdoor but close
Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2023 4:30 pm
by carlsr
Re: Not a trapdoor but close
Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2023 4:31 pm
by carlsr
Re: Not a trapdoor but close
Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2023 4:32 pm
by carlsr
Last one
- IMG_20230722_121523.jpg (156.72 KiB) Viewed 296655 times
Re: Not a trapdoor but close- Miller Conversion of Parker Snow musket
Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2023 1:44 am
by John S.
I modified the title of this thread to better identify the topic.
Re: Not a trapdoor but close- Miller Conversion of Parker Snow musket
Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2023 1:42 pm
by throck3
Thanks for posting these photos! I never really knew too much about the Miller Conversion. The photos answer a lot of questions, especially to why it was never seriously considered by the Ordnance Board. It appears as if would be very complicated to manufacture.
Rick T
Re: Not a trapdoor but close- Miller Conversion of Parker Snow musket
Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2023 2:48 pm
by Dick Hosmer
throck3 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 23, 2023 1:42 pm
Thanks for posting these photos! I never really knew too much about the Miller Conversion. The photos answer a lot of questions, especially to why it was never seriously considered by the Ordnance Board. It appears as if would be very complicated to manufacture.
Rick T
Good point, but I'm not sure the 1st Allin was any better, though it certainly
looked sleeker - the Miller is kind of ugly, though I suspect it might have been a stronger action. In any event, its' extractor lived on - and the government finally had to pay for the design.
Re: Not a trapdoor but close- Miller Conversion of Parker Snow musket
Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2023 3:47 pm
by carlsr
throck3 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 23, 2023 1:42 pm
Thanks for posting these photos! I never really knew too much about the Miller Conversion. The photos answer a lot of questions, especially to why it was never seriously considered by the Ordnance Board. It appears as if would be very complicated to manufacture.
Rick T
You’re welcome Rick T
I feel the action is less complicated than the 1st Allin. The Miller design has less moving parts and doesn’t require those 2 little screws to hold the ejector and ejector lever together, which by the way are not available anywhere. So if you have a 1st Allin I suggest not removing those screws as they break rather easily, I have experience there
Re: Not a trapdoor but close- Miller Conversion of Parker Snow musket
Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2023 3:49 pm
by carlsr
John S. wrote: ↑Sun Jul 23, 2023 1:44 am
I modified the title of this thread to better identify the topic.
Thanks John although I thought my title left a little mystery
Re: Not a trapdoor but close- Miller Conversion of Parker Snow musket
Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2023 4:08 pm
by carlsr
Dick Hosmer wrote: ↑Sun Jul 23, 2023 2:48 pm
throck3 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 23, 2023 1:42 pm
Thanks for posting these photos! I never really knew too much about the Miller Conversion. The photos answer a lot of questions, especially to why it was never seriously considered by the Ordnance Board. It appears as if would be very complicated to manufacture.
Rick T
Good point, but I'm not sure the 1st Allin was any better, though it certainly
looked sleeker - the Miller is kind of ugly, though I suspect it might have been a stronger action. In any event, its' extractor lived on - and the government finally had to pay for the design.
The extractor the government eventually paid on was on the 2nd variation pictured here.
I always thought that there was only one design but apparently they somewhat copied Allin's design
- IMG_20230723_120058.jpg (152.18 KiB) Viewed 296624 times