Review of a Pedersoli 1763/66 Charleville Musket

FlinterNick said:

Get a Pedersoli in place of the Miroku.

Click to expand...

wiscoaster said:

For @1General_Grant if he's still not got his Miroku Charleville the way it should be might be interested in contacting Paul Ackermann at https://www.ackermannarms.com/ because he fabricated a new frizzen spring for my Charleville and seems to be extremely knowledgeable and competent on the various Charleville repros.

Click to expand...

FlinterNick said:

In the past few month’s i have a few requests to defarb these muskets into authentic 1763 or 1766 with the following questions?

Why does this musket weight over 11 lbs?

Why is the comb so high?

Why isn’t there a third barrel band spring on this musket?

To start with the history of the 1763 musket.

In early 1762 the French resigned their series 1717 muskets for a few reasons.

1. They were fragile, stocks often broke.
2. The 1754 latest model was thought to have been too heavy at around 9 and 1/2 lb of weight was added with a slightly heavier ramrod, and slightly bigger lock and thicker barrel bands. The heaviest previous design was the 1717 with a heavier lock and upgraded iron rammer, weighed around 8 1/2 lbs.
3. The rammer often slid passed the middle barrel band, causing it jam up. In the French drills the soldier almost always had to have their left hand on the forearm guiding the rammer’s return securely.
4. Barrels were considered needlessly too long at nearly 47 1/2 inches, the dragoon models proved successful with 44” barrels.
5. The barrel flats were ground in mills with the peasants facing downward ward on a skid, many peopled died during this process, and stone wheels exploded, so a full round barrel was prescribed that was shorter. By shortening the barrel 3” and leaving the breech round made the barrel very heavier which was widely accepted as higher quality. Breeches measured at nearly 36 - 37mm, George Moller’s collection had one that was nearly 38mm tall. A small flat was filed to fit the lock.

With all of these changes taken into consideration the 1763 was born into existence, around 80,000 were made from three factories.

The 1763 model per Jean Boudroit was considered too heavy and awkward however accepted as very sturdy and efficient in terms of overall quality.

The 1763 had some very unique features, a new lock with a double throated cock, elongated plate and a heavier straighter stock design with a comb that rose passed the breach, often called the boat ore by french troops, this comb was nearly 4” tall and 2: thick with a dished in fluting, it was designed this way for a few reasons 1. French soldiers suffered in hand to hand combat, 1717 series stocks were so fragile, many were return broken, 2. Many stocks broke drilling, 3. More stocks could be cut from walnut slabs.

The barrel hand system was the biggest change, three bands were made wider and heavier, with two springs holding in the middle and forward with the third being friction fit. A rammer spring was pinned to a large lug beneath the barrel 8” from the breech, a sheet metal rammer guide was riveted to the front band that extended to the middle band’s T shaped final, this guide was 12” long which meant the middle and front band needed to be less than 11” apart making the need for more wood to support the guide, so the forearm was thicker. It’s unclear if the guide was intended to be a spring or guide, originals I’ve view appear to be made of iron not spring steel, so I’m calling it a guide. The guide. Was a half round shapped tube that was shaped from a guillotine die press with the rammer assigned to the musket being the mandrel. The reason for this system was 1. Rammer’s jammed up on previous models and rammers and had to be sent to armors to be corrected or rammers slid out of the gun after firing and were lost.

Late in 1763 the french sent back these muskets (some not all) to be retro fitted to be lightened, mostly the stock) with the last 20,000 made with a simpler barrel band system. The guide was abandoned and the upper band had a lip added to it that projected upward guiding the rod, this improvement stayed with the charleville’s all the way through 1822. This is often called the Leger model 1763, but somehow ended up being heavier than the initial 1763 ! GEEZ what’s going on ! The weight remained in the barrel and lock and the stock was given more drop to bring down the comb, instead of shaving it down. So the french designer for this gun was replaced.

Then came born the 1766 charleville which was basically the dragoon musket adopted in 1763, the barrel was lighter full round but efficient with a breech at 32 mm. A customary stock with a slightly smaller lock. This musket weighed 8.5 lbs with the bayonet as it was intended for dragoon use.

Pedersoli attempted to copy the leger model 1763 which has one on display in Ticonderoga, and the Paris arms museum and there is one in Williamsburg. Pedersoli’s copy is mostly correct with some minor issues. 1 the rammer spring in the breech was pinned to the barrel not the stock, the band system matches that of the later 1763’s however the rammer was button shaped, there was an anti twist lug under the front band, the lock was slightly longer at 6 1/2 inches however Pedersoli’s lock is much beefier making it weigh over 1.25lbs. Originals were around 1lb.
The lock internals are of course incorrect oringal 1763’s had a straighter profiled mainspring that was over 3” long.

The stock is too short in the butt by around 2” and about 1/4 of an inch to thin.

With that said defarbing the 1763 Charleville to a 1766 is a difficult project.

1. The stock needs to be lightened with a reduced comb.
2. The barrel can’t be lightened as it would throw off the taper.
3. The bands need to be cut and welded closed to add a third rammer spring and reduced stock.
4. The large lock can’t be lightened.
5. Add a brass blade front sight can be done rather easily.
6. Replace rammer with button style.

At best this musket can be reduced to around 9.5 lbs with 70% being the larger heavier barrel.

Defarbing to a more authentic 1763

This is even more complicated.

1. The lock can’t be changed or corrected to the right length., TRS parts are too lean.
2. The barrel while heavier still at 5lbs is too light and heavier in the middle and muzzle, not the breech.
3. The bands would need to be custom made with a lot of welding work and reshaping.
4. A rammer guide would need to be customized.
5. The stock forearm on a 1763 was wider taller encapsulating much of the barrel, the forearm would need to be made heavier to accept a rammer guide, the current stock would need to be shaved down making it too thin, this cant be changed without a new stock or cutting a new forearm. The pedersoli rammer is too large at nearly 3/16 around.
6. The buttstock is too short etc.
7. Add a brass blade sight.
8. Fill in rammer spoon pin hole and relocate with a lug beneath the breech.

With all that said, the cost in cash and details of defarbing a pedersoli into a 1766 or 1763 is pretty high considering that you’d have to modify a perfectly fine working musket into one that works less better.

Some gun shops offer a defarb on a miroku 1766 which is a lot easier to do and a pedersoli defarb, however the costs of the work on the pedersoli job do not warrant its value. At a price of nearly 1700 brand new, adding 500-700 of neutral changes to a fine working musket bring it into the custom musket range.

Pedersoli 1816’s and 1777’s are far easier and cost effective defarbs, that require the removal of modern markings, and appropriate stamps, the addition of brass blade front sight and reshaping of the lock panels.

https://emuseum.history.org/objects...t;jsessionid=BA56A18DBF1371D03AEA1EE46160C1CB

Click to expand...

smoothshooter said:

I would love to have a good Charleville repro, but the combs are so high I can’t get my face down low enough.
I think the 1795 Springfield repro has better stock architecture, especially with the lower comb.

Click to expand...

smoothshooter said:

I would love to have a good Charleville repro, but the combs are so high I can’t get my face down low enough.
I think the 1795 Springfield repro has better stock architecture, especially with the lower comb.

Click to expand...

wiscoaster said:

Oh, you don't want to do that. It's almost already perfect the way it is.

Mine:
View attachment 337868

Click to expand...

springfield art said:

Considering all the muskets France must have given us during the Rev War, wonder why they're so rare on the antique market?

Click to expand...

Clark Badgett said:

Used hard until broken, then serviceable parts were reused until we moved away from the Charleville pattern in 1816, even then they stayed in service until sufficient 1816 muskets were available.

I know it’s hard to believe, but our government used to be frugal.

Click to expand...

springfield art said:

Considering all the muskets France must have given us during the Rev War, wonder why they're so rare on the antique market?

Click to expand...