Rebuilding a 1728 French Musket

Today I finished filing the entire barrel into a tapered octagon. Phew, that was a lot of work!
Next weekend my plan is to round out the barrel to the appropriate amounts, leaving the octagonal flats at the breech. I'll try to look at as many pictures of original barrels in this area as I can so I can try to get the 1728 look right (well, as right as it can be for what I've got to work with).



As you can see in the picture below, when the barrel was originally made, the craftsmen must have gotten a little bit too zealous with their belt grinder when rounding out the barrel. I don't think this will be an issue for me to fix when I finish rounding the barrel however, since it looks like a lot of M1728 flats only extend a few inches (like 4-5) from the breech. This rough transition here is about 6in from the breech at the moment.


One other issue on the barrel that I may attack next time is the bayonet lug - it's a bit off center, so I may need to braze a new one on in the right spot (removing the existing one will definitely make polishing the barrel much easier as well).

Other than that, the plan for (hopefully) next weekend is to complete the barrel, then get it re-bedded into the stock. I'm thinking of trying Acruglass or some other epoxy for that. I've never bedded a barrel before, so I'm looking forward to giving it a try.

Also, I've got another question for the French Musket experts! About what thickness would the barrel bands be on a M1728? Would these roughly be the same thickness of material as the later M1766 style muskets, or something thinner or heavier?

Thanks for all of the great feedback everyone, it's been super helpful as I'm learning!

Just looked it up. Moller’s 1728 has 7” flats, except the top flat carried forward to 33”

Millford_P said:

I intend to either replace the barrel bands on my musket, unless I can somehow refit and reweld the ones that came with it. The ones it has now are quite thick and would require quite a bit of filing to get them down to a reasonable thickness. Right now, I'm leaning towards at least remaking the bottom and middle bands, I may just rework the front band. We'll see once I get to that point though!

Click to expand...

I doubt there are any barrel bands out there that will meet the exact specifications you need for a friction fit. You need to remember that the 1728 band set up works with a friction fit, not a spring fit, and there are not steps on the stock and barrel, it needs to be tight with the band matching the outside taper of the stock and barrel.

The best way to make your project work is to cut and weld then bands closer to fit the barrel and stock after its been worked on. Then fit to the exact taper of the barrel and stock. The taper isn’t a perfect taper, it’s only slightly tapered enough to stop the bands from moving out of place downward with friction locking them.

The rifle shoppe bands are larger because their barrels they use are taller and the width is slightly narrower, this isn’t something you can simply bend to get it to, only other option is the shim the bands with something (the simple and stupid way).

I think the top band on the Indian 1728 is fine, not much needs to be done to it.

Clark Badgett said:

Just looked it up. Moller’s 1728 has 7” flats, except the top flat carried forward to 33”

Click to expand...

Yes, French infantry guns had flats that were around 7-8 inches from the breech.

Grenadier and marine muskets had flats that were 12” from the breech.

Millford_P said:

I started working on the barrel today - and this is certainly a learning process. A very slow learning process!

As it was, barrel's octagonal flats end abruptly before going into the round section. You can see in this picture.
View attachment 350092

I'm hoping to bring the exterior dimensions of the barrel down to be closer to the measurements from two of my antique muskets (a M1766 and a M1766/68). Since the caliber of these muskets was the same as the M1728, I'm (making the assumption) that the exterior proportions are generally close.

Here's a table of my measurements of the three musket barrels measured at 6in increments:

Barrel Dimensions:	Replica 1728	Original 1766	Original 1766/68
Breech	1.21	1.23	1.21
6in	1.17	1.108	1.08
12in	1.086	0.985	0.98
18in	1.033	0.895	0.92
24in	1.01	0.863	0.913
30in	0.99	0.88	0.89
36in	0.974	0.86	0.84
42in	0.95	0.86	0.85
Muzzle	0.9	0.86	0.82

My plan is to basically extend the flats across the entire length of the barrel so I can keep an eye on holding to those dimensions as closely as possible. After getting the octagonal flats on all sides of the barrel to the right dims, I'll go through and round out the barrel up to the appropriate point. At least that's what I'm thinking in theory!

I'm aiming for:
Breech - 1.2in
6in - 1.1in
12in - 1.0in
18in - 0.95in
24 - 0.915in
30 - 0.90in
36 - 0.85in
42 - 0.85in
Muzzle - 8.85in
View attachment 350093
I started today with the left and right sides of the barrel. And after several hours of filing, I got the dimensions pretty close.
I think a belt grinder, like the type used for knife making would have made this a lot easier... and several times faster. I suspect that if I keep filing down the barrel by hand this way, it would take me a whole lot more time than I anticipate. Has anyone found better solutions, that don't require investing in new tools? At the very least, I may need to buy a heavy duty rasp to move some of this metal more efficiently.

Click to expand...

Your work is looking great so far Milford_P. One bit of (unsolicited) advice from the voice of experience: if you do choose to introduce power tools into your project, work slowly and stop/take measurements frequently. I’ve derailed more than one project by not realizing how quickly they do the job. Looking forward to your project updates!

FlinterNick said:

Yes, French infantry guns had flats that were around 7-8 inches from the breech.

Grenadier and marine muskets had flats that were 12” from the breech.

Click to expand...

What is funny is that Moller’s 1746 has 8” flats and a top flat that is full length to the bayonet stud.

Clark Badgett said:

What is funny is that Moller’s 1746 has 8” flats and a top flat that is full length to the bayonet stud.

Click to expand...

Top flat is 47? That can’t be correct I’ve got two barrels here that are for the 1728 through 1754. The flats measure exactly 7 1/4 on the 1728. The original the flats fade at around 8 and end at 11(barely)

Clark Badgett said:

What is funny is that Moller’s 1746 has 8” flats and a top flat that is full length to the bayonet stud.

Click to expand...

1728 barrel

FlinterNick said:

1728 barrel

Click to expand...

1754 barrel unfinished

FlinterNick said:

1754 barrel unfinished

Click to expand...

Original 1740s grenadier barrel .72 call 46 7/8 “

There’s a lot of incorrect information in Mueller‘s book. He says the 1763 breach is nearly 2 inches tall that’s almost rampart size. The largest originsl 1763 I’ve measured was 1.446

Bud1863 said:

Your work is looking great so far Milford_P. One bit of (unsolicited) advice from the voice of experience: if you do choose to introduce power tools into your project, work slowly and stop/take measurements frequently. I’ve derailed more than one project by not realizing how quickly they do the job. Looking forward to your project updates!

Click to expand...

Great advice. I'm definitely being sure to be extra careful on the barrel - don't want to cause a weak spot! I did try using a grinder in a couple areas, but I found I had more control just doing it by hand. If I ever did another one in the future, I think I'd just take it to a machinist - or spend the money and just buy a proper barrel!

Tagging in on this.

Cool.

Millford_P said:

Great advice. I'm definitely being sure to be extra careful on the barrel - don't want to cause a weak spot! I did try using a grinder in a couple areas, but I found I had more control just doing it by hand. If I ever did another one in the future, I think I'd just take it to a machinist - or spend the money and just buy a proper barrel!

Click to expand...

Just want to be mindful that the Indian made barrel was not really made to be reduced the way you desire it to be, French barrels from the models 1717-1754 were not small in the breech area for a reason, they ranged between 1.30-1.35 with some even as high as 1.37 across the flats. The tapering was faded out because there was more meat on the barrel as it tapered towards the round section, the wide belief is that Indian barrels are heavier, this is not true, they’re skinner so be careful with the grinder. Also make sure you don’t overheat that barrel in small sections.

FlinterNick said:

Just want to be mindful that the Indian made barrel was not really made to be reduced the way you desire it to be, French barrels from the models 1717-1754 were not small in the breech area for a reason, they ranged between 1.30-1.35 with some even as high as 1.37 across the flats. The tapering was faded out because there was more meat on the barrel as it tapered towards the round section, the wide belief is that Indian barrels are heavier, this is not true, they’re skinner so be careful with the grinder. Also make sure you don’t overheat that barrel in small sections.

Click to expand...

Great advice! I'm thinking of leaving the bore a bit small for safety. That way (at least a little bit) it can look cosmetically more "OK" from the outside, but still offer a bit of extra thickness from the inside. I'll just be sure to safely test the barrel before I fire it myself.

FlinterNick said:

Top flat is 47? That can’t be correct I’ve got two barrels here that are for the 1728 through 1754. The flats measure exactly 7 1/4 on the 1728. The original the flats fade at around 8 and end at 11(barely)

Click to expand...

No. I think he listed something like 45”. I’ll look again when I get home. I’ll even look and see what he listed the 1754 as.

Hello everyone,

After 4 more hours of filing, the barrel is now "done". I removed the bayonet lug (it was in the wrong spot and a bit off center), so a new one will need to be added later - probably once I find a bayonet to fit to the musket. I'll also need to do a final polish eventually - so one more afternoon to go.


The eight flats were chamfered to create 16 flats, and then everything was rounded off, draw filed and sanded to 80grit.

I tried to keep the dimensions of the flats as close to the original as possible, but it's definitely not a 100% match. Thanks to everyone who supplied photos and measurements to help!

The total weight of the barrel is now 2479g (5.45lbs). So a total of 537g (about 1.2lbs) of weight was removed! It feels much more like a musket barrel. It's still about 329g (about 3/4lbs) heavier than the original - this is due to the bore size being too small, adding to the thickness of the walls.For safety, I'll likely keep the smaller bore at this time, but if I did decide to have it reamed out I think this barrel would be close to the correct weight.

There is now a little gap between the barrel and forestock, so I'll need to fill that in. I'm thinking of glueing in one or two shavings from a plane and then setting everything in with Acraglas. I've never used Acraglas before so I'll be interested to try it out.


Only other update is the sideplate. The sideplate that came with this musket looked a bit off (almost like a M1777 style plate). I found a few images of M1728s online and traced the sideplates and printed them at the right size.


I made a few adjustments to minimize the re-inletting I'll have to do and then cut out a new sideplate out of a piece of scrap metal.

I'll probably make a few more adjustments once I actually inlet this new piece into the stock.



Next steps are to start work on the stock. I'm going to focus on the buttplate to lock for now, and address the forestock at another time once I decide the best way to close the gap in the barrel channel.

Once the complete stock is done, I'll have to figure out the best way to refit or remake the barrel bands.

Thanks for viewing!

FlinterNick said:

Top flat is 47? That can’t be correct I’ve got two barrels here that are for the 1728 through 1754. The flats measure exactly 7 1/4 on the 1728. The original the flats fade at around 8 and end at 11(barely)

Click to expand...

As an update. In Bianchi’s French Military Small Arms Vol 1, page 21, he lists that the side flats are 4.5”, the top flat of the 1728 musket extends all the way to the bayonet lug.
On page 25, he lists the side flats at 8”, the top flat on the 1746 as going to within 5” of the “front sight.”
On page 26 he lists similar with the 1754 but adds this caveat. “Starting in 1760, the top flat was brought back to the same length as the others.” Bianchi also claims M1728 production continued until 1765.
So with this information as well as other published information, we can say that top flats between 12”-45” were common, and side flats were between 4.5”-8.” At least until 1760.

Clark Badgett said:

As an update. In Bianchi’s French Military Small Arms Vol 1, page 21, he lists that the side flats are 4.5”, the top flat of the 1728 musket extends all the way to the bayonet lug.
On page 25, he lists the side flats at 8”, the top flat on the 1746 as going to within 5” of the “front sight.”
On page 26 he lists similar with the 1754 but adds this caveat. “Starting in 1760, the top flat was brought back to the same length as the others.” Bianchi also claims M1728 production continued until 1765.
So with this information as well as other published information, we can say that top flats between 12”-45” were common, and side flats were between 4.5”-8.” At least until 1760.

Click to expand...

I understand you’re using published materials Clark but the physical evidence suggests otherwise.

I have an original barrel here with flats that are 7 1/2from the breech, the rifle shoppe’s 1728, and 1754 and 1717 patterns are all 7-8 inches from the breech.

The top flat certainly doesn’t extend the full length of the barrel, with or without any taper.

I took close measurements of these at fort ligoner and ones from the Ticonderoga collection , the flats on infantry guns are no more than 8” at the most from teh breech.

The grenaider pattern’s flats are 12” from the breech.

On all the barrels I’ve seen and the one i have, the muzzle is full round, there’s no flat that extends as far as the bayonet lug.

Now There is a small flat filed beneath the bayonet lug, this was done so that when when brazed on the lug the could tire wire around it to keep it from moving. But it doen’t extend back beyond the lug.

It’s possible that bianchi’s specimens were taken from the Paris museum, which has a lot of reproductions on display.

I don’t think the rifle shoppe’s patterns are incorrect also, might want to check out their patterns.

FlinterNick said:

I understand you’re using published materials Clark but the physical evidence suggests otherwise.

I have an original barrel here with flats that are 7 1/2from the breech, the rifle shoppe’s 1728, and 1754 and 1717 patterns are all 7-8 inches from the breech.

The top flat certainly doesn’t extend the full length of the barrel.

I took close measurements of these at fort ligoner and ones from beninghof’s collection, the flats on infantry guns are no more than 8” at the most from teh breech.

The grenaider pattern’s flats are 12” from the breech.

I don’t think the rifle’s patterns are incorrect also.

Click to expand...

Yet the originals in France seem to have them. As did the originals that Moller owned. Add to that every single researcher of French arms in general adamantly says top flats were common on French barrels without wedding band transitions. Kevin Gladysz even mentions the top flat on the Fusil ordinaire a domino (1728 copy) as going to the bayonet lug.