Posted this in Flintlock for no response. Gonna try here. A good friend acquired this Charleville and we are trying to get more information on it. Your input and opinions are appreciated. Thanks.
A little help please...
- Thread starter THBailey
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
A few more:
oldsarge79
32 Cal
I don't know what your musket is but I can tell you what it isn't....neither British or American in origin . That pretty much leaves mainland Europe or Russia.
Interestingly, the bayonet (with retaining ring) was made at least a decade after flintlocks became obsolete, so the two were not together from the beginning. It may even be a mere coincidence that the bayonet fits on the gun.
Interestingly, the bayonet (with retaining ring) was made at least a decade after flintlocks became obsolete, so the two were not together from the beginning. It may even be a mere coincidence that the bayonet fits on the gun.
Trev
40 Cal
I thought that "Charleville" by definition denoted French origins?
Weren't they in service for something like 40 years with a few modifications?
oldsarge79
32 Cal
You're right! I missed the name "Charleville" in the original post. I should read things more carefully. My fault.
My practical knowledge is limited to British and American....thus my first post. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
Trev
40 Cal
I only know a little about them because I had seen something with that name advertised someplace a while ago and looked to see what it referenced. Seems to have seen a lot of service in the War of Independence and strongly influenced American gun makers. All before my time, but one source said they were still in use up to ~1840. That's a long run for a military arm.
with that cheek cutout i would say a 1777 model
oldsarge79
32 Cal
That would make sense. The US Model 1795 was roughly patterned after the Charleville, and made in four "Types" or variations. At least one, or maybe two of those variations has that same cutout for the cheek.
I have two Model 1795's, neither with the cheek cutout but have seen others with it.
the 1777 is i believe the first model to have the cut out and a trigger guard with finger groves. our 1795 did not have the cutout from the arsenal it was modeled after the french 1766 model . i have seen many charlevilles and besses with comb mods done when in private ownership after their service was up. and yes the 1777 french bayonet did have a lock ring.
Last edited:
oldsarge79
32 Cal
Interesting information. Thanks. The early locking ring is a surprise to me but always glad to learn.
As for the cheek recess, Flayderman states of Type 2 Model 1795 muskets made at Springfield, "1813 and 1814 dated muskets have stocks with thick wrists, very short flutes by comb and very slight cheek recesses on left side of comb."
Here is one dated 1814:
https://www.aaawt.com/antique/muske...795-type-4-dated-1814-us-cartouche-in-script/
In this case Flayderman’s is wrong. The US model of 1812 (manf 1815-1819) is the first to use the cheek cut-out.
I am far from an expert on these, but to me the three barrel band retaining springs would indicate it's not the original M1777, but the M1777 An IX, modified during the 9th year of the French Revolution. Also the lock just doesn't seem quite right, and I believe the M1777 and M1777 An IX had brass pans.
You are correct about the brass pans. The plates were also rounded to the rear of the cocking piece. I’ve never witnessed an actual 1766 that didn’t have at least some vestiges of the manufacturing arsenal, even if they were heavily refinished while in our early government’s possession. This could very well be a parts gun from Europe or even France.
Last edited:
My first thought when looking at the first photo was a 1795 contract gun but with no markings so a Charleville would be the next choice.
The devil is always in the details. This is a parts gun. The front band doesn’t fit and is a later pattern. The middle band was made for a 1766-1774 pattern musket. The rear band for a pre 1768. The stock is a 1777 or later pattern and probably European. Since both of the 1794 and 1798 musket contracts were filled prior to our brief 3 year experimentation with the cutaway butt stock, I would rule out that possibility.
At best it’s an era assemblage of parts used to fill the hands of some French conscript following the French Revolution.
