The second quarter of the 19^th century was a time of substantial experimentation and advancement in the development of firearms. It was during this time that experimentation with a new ignition system to replace the traditional flintlock, or “fire lock” as the British called it, was underway and the percussion system was born. Scottish Reverend Alexander John Forsyth is credited with the invention of the percussion cap concept in 1807, using fulminates like potassium chlorate to ignite gunpowder after the fulminates were struck a blow. However, it would not be until around 1814 that Englishman Joshua Shaw is credited with the invention of  the actual percussion cap, initially using iron, then pewter and finally copper for the material to surround the fulminate. Due to legal disputes between Forsyth and Shaw, Shaw would seek patent protection for his idea in America, rather than England and received a US Patent in 1822 for the percussion cap. Early percussion caps were inconsistent in their ability to reliably ignite the powder charge, and as use it would be the latter part of the 1820s and the early 1830s before the various militaries of the world would start to consider and even experiment with the new percussion system. It would be the US military that appeared most anxious to at least try the new ignition system and utilized the percussion cap on their Model 1833 Hall Carbines that were produced by Simeon North. Field trials were successful enough that the next Hall Carbine design, the Model 1836 would also be percussion and by 1841 when the Model 1841 Rifle was adopted into US service the percussion cap had become the official ignition system for the United States military. The following year, in 1842 the Model 1842 Musket was adopted in percussion as well, the flintlock period was over for the United States.

In Great Britain experiments with percussion ignition began in 1833 as well, with some 32 India Pattern “Brown Bess” Muskets being altered to percussion for initial trials. By 1836 additional testing was going on with a back action percussion musket conceived by The Board of Ordnance’s Inspector of Small Arms George Lovell, as well as with several other designs. The competing concepts included Lovell’s newly developed back action lock percussion musket, several percussion alterations of flint muskets, and eventually an underhammer design with an automatic priming system that has been developed by Baron Charles Louis Stanislaus Heurteloup (1793-1864).

Heurteloup was a French physician and urologist who had a penchant for inventing. He developed improvements to medical instruments, most notably to the lithotrite, which was an early minimally invasive way to crush kidney stones. He also developed an “artificial leech” to bleed patients in sensitive areas. Heurteloup was also interested in firearms technology and developed an automatic percussion based priming system that he described as “a small pipe or tube made of soft metal or other substance which may be easily divided, containing the priming.” Interestingly another medical professional, Dr. Edward Maynard would patent a similar automatic priming system using paper tape based, rather than metal tube-based primers in the United States in 1845.

In 1834 Heurteloup received English Patten #6611 (1834) and the following year in France for the firearm with the above-described priming mechanism. It used a conventional side action percussion lock with a toothed wheel that fed that primer tube onto the nipple of the gun when then the hammer was cocked. Heurteloup would go on to receive additional firearms patents in England (#7980 of 1839 and #9084 of 1841) and Scottish patent #55 of 1837. He received two patents in France in 1835 and 1838, one in Belgium in 1843 and one in the United States. The US Patent #2,203 was issued on 29 July 1841 and antedated to February 23, 1839. All for improvements in firearms design based around his original mechanical priming system.

His next innovation was to incorporate his priming system into an underhammer musket design that he referred to as a Koptipeur Lock. The name derives from the Greek words meaning to cut and to strike. The explanation for this terminology can be partially understood when reading this excerpt from his US Patent application for the design:

“Several years have elapsed since I discovered that a tube of soft metal-as, for instance, of lead or pewter-when filled with detonating powder, formed an excellent priming for firearms. I also discovered that a small portion might be cut off or separated from the remainder of such tube by a sharp instrument without exploding the other part of the tube, and that by means of a cock provided with a cutting-blade projecting from that part of it which is meant to act as a hammer a small portion might be cut off or separated from a tube made as before mentioned, which portion, when struck by the flat part of the cock upon the nipple of the gun, would produce the ignition of the charge therein. The discovery of this phenomenon appeared to me to offer a ready solution of the problem how to explode fire-arms; and having studied with much care the mechanical means by which this description of priming could be acted upon in the most satisfactory way, I am now about to describe as clearly as possible a new method by which I' propose to effect this object.”

Numerous advantages were attributed to the underhammer design by various gunmakers of the period, including faster and more direct ignition and moving the detonation and explosion of the percussion cap out of the field of view of the solider. From a practical standpoint, Heurteloup’s design allowed for the tube of fulminate to be carried in a channel under the gun along the length of the stock. This was convenient as the Heurteloup design did not have the advantage of being flexible like Maynard’s tape primers, so it could not be contained within a compact lock mechanism like Maynard’s primers could be. As with his original design, cocking the hammer activated a toothed wheel that moved the primer tube and put new fulminate over the percussion cone. When the hammer struck a cutting edge severed the section of tube over the cone, separating it from the rest of the tube and the face of the hammer detonated the priming compound against the cone. A wedge in the stock allowed a hinged door to be opened in the bottom of the stock to insert new primer tubes and to access the mechanism.

George Lovell and the Board of Ordnance in Great Britain experimented with the design and actually had a few muskets made up for testing in 1836-1837. By 1838 Lovell’s own back action percussion design was selected as the new musket and designated as the Pattern 1838. However,  production issues with manufacturing by contractors resulted in the Lovell musket being abandoned and the new Pattern 1839 musket being adopted, which for all practical purposes simply a percussion version of the India Pattern Brown Bess. Although a handful of Heurteloup’s guns were made up for Board of Ordnance testing, the concept was abandoned and the few muskets from the trials were mostly sold off as surplus.

However, in Belgium Heurteloup found a somewhat more accepting clientele. His musket was adopted in two different variations and in limited numbers. The Fusil d’Infanterie, Chasseur à Pied (système Heurteloup) was tentatively adopted in 1834 and it is believed that some 2,000 guns were produce by the Liège gun trade circa 1838. The guns were nominally 17.4mm (.685 caliber) smoothbore muzzleloading muskets with an overall length of just under 58” and weighing in at nominally 9.9 pounds. The guns looked like conventional muskets of the period with the round barrel secured by three, flat, spring retained barrel bands, a fixed rear sight and a blade front sight. A lug allowed the attachment of an angular socket bayonet. Due to the under-hammer lock mechanism, no lock plate was present on the obverse of the stock. The priming mechanism and lock mechanism were both contained on the interior of the stock with the hammer located forward of the traditional triggerguard. A flash guard surrounded much of the percussion cone (nipple) in the belly of the stock and the lower sling swivel was mounted on the forward portion of the priming compartment access plate, rather than on the front bow of the triggerguard. The upper swivel was located on the middle barrel band. It is not clear if the guns were browned or finished in the bright, but the handful of known examples appear to be bright, with brass and iron furniture. It is generally believed that the guns were produced by the Liège gun trade, but it is not known which contractor or contractors produced them. The guns were issued to the 1^st Regiment of Chasseurs à Pied (Light Infantry) but it is unclear how long they saw service.

A more advanced variation of the Fusil d’Infanterie, Chasseur à Pied (système Heurteloup) was adopted by the Belgian Garde Civique as the Carabine de Chasseurs-Eclaireurs de la Garde Civique (système Heurteloup – Delvigne) which literally translates to the Civic Guard Scout Rifle, Heurteloup-Delvigne System. The “Garde Civique”or “Burgerwacht” was the Belgian militia which was established in 1830 and remained a part of the system of Belgian defense apparatus until 1920. Essentially it combined all of the various local militia groups under a uniform command and control structure and relied upon the Garde help maintain social order in times of strife or calamity and had very similar duties to today’s state and National Guard forces in the United State. The Garde could also function as an adjunct to the army, if need be.

The Carabine de Chasseurs-Eclaireurs de la Garde Civique (système Heurteloup – Delvigne) was a slightly shorter, lighter and handier version of the Infantry Musket, with an overall length of just under 52” and weighing slightly less than the light infantry version at about 9.7 pounds. Most importantly the Garde Civique gun was rifled with six shallow, narrow grooves and used a Delvigne chamber. This chamber was slightly smaller in diameter that the bore and had a rim at the top. The powder charge was poured into the barrel, where it hopefully filled the chamber and then the conical bullet was rammed home on top of the chamber’s rim. The heavy headed ramrod allowed the soft lead to be deformed and theoretically expanded the bullet so it would engage the rifling. This was one of the first attempts use sub-caliber ammunition to load into rifled arms and then try to expand the ammunition to be able to use the rifling in the bore. As the gun was rifled, it had slightly improved sights over the infantry musket, with a fixed block rear sight for shorter range and a folding leaf with a hole in it for mid-ranges and a notch at the top for longer ranges. A brass blade front sight was located on the top of the barrel, behind the front strap of the double-strapped upper barrel band. The lug for the angular socket bayonet was located under the barrel. The Garde Civique rifles were finished with browned barrels and iron furniture with the brass furniture, like the primer magazine cover of brass. Other than being rifled, slightly smaller and browned, the Carabine de Chasseurs-Eclaireurs de la Garde Civique (système Heurteloup – Delvigne)was little different from its Infantry Musket cousin. Like the Light Infantry Musket, it is presumed the guns were produced by the It is unclear how many of these Civique Garde Rifles were produced and how long they remained in service. However, their extreme rarity on the collector’s market today suggests that very few were produced and many of those that wore were destroyed in the scrap drives of World War I and World War II, where the metal could be recycled for other uses.

Offered here is a VERY FINE condition example of the extremely rare Model 1838 Carabine de Chasseurs-Eclaireurs de la Garde Civique (système Heurteloup – Delvigne). The gun is 100% complete, original and correct and retains much of its original finish. The gun has a 36.125” round barrel secured by three flat, spring-retained barrel bands with the upper band being double strapped. The overall length is 51 ¾” and the rifle has a 12.5” length of pull. The bore is nominally .70 caliber and is rifled with four broad lands and grooves. The original fixed notch and folding leaf rear sight is in place on top of the octagonal breech, and the brass blade front sight is intact as well. Both original sling swivels are in place, the lower one on the brass primer access door in the stock belly and the upper on the middle barrel band. The original socket bayonet lug is in place under the barrel, 1” from the muzzle and the original full-length ramrod is in place in the channel under the barrel. The ramrod has the heavy cupped head typical of Delvigne chambered rifles and the threads on the opposite end are in fine condition. The full-length European walnut stock has a raised cheek rest on the reverse. 

The gun has very few markings. The number 56 is stamped into the brass forward of the triggerguard and next to the percussion hammer. This may be a serial number or simply a number to track how many guns the contractor produced. The upper left angled breech flat is dated 1838 and has a small, illegible inspection mark. The top of the breech has a small two-letter mark, possibly a maker’s mark and upper right angled breech flat has a small, crowned mark and another small, circled letter mark. A two-letter script mark that is not decipherable is stamped in the obverse butt and again on the top of the wrist behind the breech plug tang. This is almost certainly the Liège maker’s mark. There are no other external markings.

As noted, the gun remains in VERY FINE condition. The metal retains about 90%+ coverage of the original thinning brown finish on the barrel and barrel bands. It shows only some high edge wear loss and some moderate thinning, which has blended with some light surface oxidation, making the gun look like it retains even more finish. The brass furniture has a rich, dark, uncleaned patina and the hammer retains muted traces of case coloring. The bore is in FINEcondition. It is moderately oxidized with very crisp rifling. There is some very lightly scattered pitting, but the bore looks like it would shoot extremely well with the correct ammunition. The action of the rifle functions crisply and correctly. The priming system wheel advances as it should when the hammer is cocked. The stock remains crisp and sharp and shows no indications of sanding. The wood even retains some feathery texture. The wood shows scattered bumps, dings and marks from handling, storage and use, but shows no abuse and remains really crisp.

Overall, this is a really wonderful example of a very rare and very interesting automatic priming muzzleloading rifle. In more than 25 years of buying and selling antique and collectible arms, this is the only example of one of these guns I have ever owned or even seen in person. I did own one of the very rare English experimental Heurteloup Koptipeur lock muskets which is now owned by IMA and was featured on Pawn Stars a few years ago. I also handled one other example. However, I have never seen another one of these Chasseurs-Eclaireurs de la Garde Civique (système Heurteloup – Delvigne) rifles in person. This will be a fantastic addition to any advanced collection of European experimental and trial military arms, and it is a great example of a unique automatic priming system paired with one of the first military rifled arms systems, the Delvigne chamber. When you acquire this gun, there is practically no chance that any of your collecting friends will say that they have one of these also!