1754, 1770 - 1776 Charleville Musket Significances in AWI

[FlinterNick]

I recently have been doing some research on the Charleville’s use in the AWI.

Some New Jersey Groups use the 1728 / 1754 pattern for earlier period re-enacting. The groups claims are that this musket was in storage for militia use and many were sent over with the 1763’s in 1776. 1754 is an easily identifiable pattern with the cows foot stock, very similar to the Tulle shape.

Mostly obvious the 1763 and 1766 patterns were the most numerous designs sent to the Americans.

However in many auctions some 1770 and 1773 and 1774 pattern Charleville's have been showing up with American stamps and markings.

Didler Bianchi’s book shows these patterns were made in limited numbers and were phased out by the 1777 pattern in 1776 at the start of the AWI.

The significance of the upgraded 1774 pattern Charleville is higher than collectors and rein-actors think, many of the AWI groups will only accept a 1763 or 1766 pattern Charleville (probably because its all thats out there to use).

The features of the 1774 are somewhat similar to the 1777, as the 1770 serious began a slow evolution to the 1777 pattern.

The 1774 uses a round lock, a two piece trigger guard, stronger barrel bands and a unique ramrod retaining system in the rear band. The spring was riveted to the band, at around 2 inches in length. According to some collections, this spring is obviously missing and screw holes are present. Also there is a bayonet clamp / spring forward the front band, abandoned on the 1777 pattern for a locking clasp. Interestingly the barrel on the 1774 is made heavier than the 1766, offering a type of regression back to the heavier 1763 pattern as the lighter barrels were found to be too delicate.

Anyone think a reproduction of this model would hold up in a AWI group as valid ? I’m always told that the 1777 is strictly forbidden in many groups.

 

[Flintlock1640]

The 1777 honestly would not be inaccurate for late war. It was the arm currently in use by the French so it is no stretch to say some Americans had them, picked up in battle. My understanding, French arms shipments were obsolete arms and included 1774 and older

 

[DaveC]

The U.S. Army Center for Military History has a French Model 1728 musket with clear Delaware AWI provenance. So certainly older patterns of French muskets were disposed of in the arms shipments to the Continentals.

 

[FlinterNick]

The 1777 honestly would not be inaccurate for late war. It was the arm currently in use by the French so it is no stretch to say some Americans had them, picked up in battle. My understanding, French arms shipments were obsolete arms and included 1774 and older

I’ve always thought the same thing, I did own a pedersoli 1777 musket, which I was fond of but later told that it was not appropriate for my group because theres’ no evidence that this musket was used by Americans (talk about being picky ! ).

The 1774 nobody seems to comment on, only because nobody other than the Rifle Shoppe reproduces them. I would think the 1774 would be perfect for the revolutionary war. The 1777 I think is fine too personally, its a standard Charleville musket, which is how I see it and the 1777 is far more accurate than pedersoli’s 11 lb 1763 Charleville which they conveniently call the light model 1766 (very nice musket but not accurate at all).

 

[DaveC]

Apologies for the diversion from the later models of muskets (Yorktown!), but here was the Model 1728 I mentioned. I'll add the link here:
https://armyhistory.org/french-infantry-musket-m1728-charleville/

 

[FlinterNick]

Apologies for the diversion from the later models of muskets (Yorktown!), but here was the Model 1728 I mentioned. I'll add the link here:
https://armyhistory.org/french-infantry-musket-m1728-charleville/

Ive seen and handled a Rifle Shoppe kit for the 1754 Charleville, very nice looking musket, very long barreled gun and very comfortable to shoulder.

The 1717 Series Charleville were very good pattern muskets, the British and Provincial troops that served in the French and Indian War often shouldered captured French 1728 muskets.

 

[DaveC]

My limited understanding has it that there is some debate--or maybe was--about whether or not very many, or even any Model 1717 types made it to the New World? Still too British, what with the little pins to hold the stock and barrel together... The 1728 and the various simplifications and production innovations resulted in the 1746, and then with the changes in where the stock fittings and especially sling carriage should go, "voilá!" The model 1754!

Not too long ago I saw an absolutely beautiful reproduction of the Tulle Fusil de Chasse. Not my period, but a handsome gun.

 

[FlinterNick]

My limited understanding has it that there is some debate--or maybe was--about whether or not very many, or even any Model 1717 types made it to the New World? Still too British, what with the little pins to hold the stock and barrel together... The 1728 and the various simplifications and production innovations resulted in the 1746, and then with the changes in where the stock fittings and especially sling carriage should go, "voilá!" The model 1754!

Not too long ago I saw an absolutely beautiful reproduction of the Tulle Fusil de Chasse. Not my period, but a handsome gun.

The French workhorse of the F&I War was the 1728 pattern musket, or which numerous originals have been found along with parts used for other guns.

The 1717 was an outdated pattern, its not likely that many were used by the start of the F&I War. The 1717 lock has been found on American and Canadian Militia muskets.

The 1746 pattern musket was a wartime project because there was a great need for muskets in the European theater, not many of these made it to North America, records suggest that French Marines were armed with this musket and some may have been captured at Louisborg, parts for this musket, including the lock and ramrod have been found on colonial militia guns.

The 1754 musket entered production during the Seven Years War however did not make it to North America until arms shipments by the French in 1776, these muskets were shipped over in limited numbers with the early 1763 pattern and 1766 pattern. Most 1754 muskets are difficult to recognize because by the time 1775 came around, the 1754 pattern had been ‘upgraded’ to the 1763 standards, some 1754 guns were cut down to 44 inches, a reinforced cock was added and ramrod spoon / guide was added between the first barrel band and middle barrel band. The only real tell for a 1754 is the cows foot stock and shorter octagon breech.

 

[Stantheman86]

Many reenactors and historians feel the only 1777's to be used in the American Revolution were carried by French soldiers who were here as Advisors or in small detachments.

I personally think its possible that between 1777 and 1783, some were shipped from France through purchase or aid. I have a hard time believing that a shipment or two of them wasn't sold to us.

 

[springfield art]

The U.S. Army Center for Military History has a French Model 1728 musket with clear Delaware AWI provenance. So certainly older patterns of French muskets were disposed of in the arms shipments to the Continentals.

It just makes so much sense; just like we sent older arms to the South Vietnamese, the South Koreans, and many other allied nations esp. around the Cold War...

 

[Flintlock1640]

Many reenactors and historians feel the only 1777's to be used in the American Revolution were carried by French soldiers who were here as Advisors or in small detachments.

I personally think its possible that between 1777 and 1783, some were shipped from France through purchase or aid. I have a hard time believing that a shipment or two of them wasn't sold to us.

I won't say it isn't possible but I think it is unlikely that the French intentionally sent 1777 model arms to America. They had effectively emptied their arsenals by removing all or most of the older models and the 1777 was not made in numbers much above what was sufficient to arm their own soldiers. Just looking ahead 10 years from Yorktown you see the French almost panicing from critical arms shortages in the early years of the French Revolution. Granted the armies were bigger and traditional arsenals were sometimes captured. I forget the actual number but I do not think 1 million 1777s were made between 1777 and 1800 when they were replaced by the corrected model 1777 an IX.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

BEWARE of "possible" and "plausible", for these are, for those interested in representing the arms at the same degree of authenticity as the uniforms, the lubrication that creates the slippery slope.

It's pretty well documented that what were the majority of the muskets carried by actual French regulars in the AWI was a musket of a very young pattern. Obviously different than the pattern of the large amounts of muskets that were shipped to be used by the Continental Army. Different also from the muskets captured and perhaps left in the colonies from Canada during the F&I.

Since the newest pattern muskets existed it is "possible" that a very recently made French musket could've been provided to the Colonials, but with the thousands of obsolete/old muskets being sent, why would they have done this? Why are there not records of this?

Because if it wasn't documented the odds are that any American soldiers carrying the same musket as the French regulars, would immediately be suspected of having obtained stolen muskets.

So scrounging such from a "battlefield"..., you have to have had the French at a battle for the soldier to fall or desert and toss the musket away, and then you must have it overlooked by the French after the battle, or the British/Germans if the French lost that battle, to obtain it. (iirc) During the F&I a French supply ship was captured by the British (and it may have been during the AWI). Among the cargo were French muskets, and a British unit after some mishap were armed with the French muskets. That's actually more plausible than Continentals or Militiamen having them. For unlike the Brits,...after obtaining the newest French musket by whatever scenario, the soldier or militiaman would have to avoid French troops at all costs, because the French Regulars will recognize said musket, know it belongs to their king, and would recover it.

Sometimes units will specify exactly what they were issued as the preferred musket. This is pricey for some groups.
Sometimes a lone person will be given the authority in a unit to make "the musket decision" and it can be quite arbitrary...,
Sometimes the units have incomplete records, such as one Loyalist unit with which I am close, who were issued according to British records, "new" muskets, at one point during the AWI. They choose in many cases to use the SLP Bess, as they have decided "new" means the SLP musket. Well, it could also mean stored, and never fired or hardly used 1756 LLP Bess muskets, perhaps with barrels and stocks reworked to the new 42" barrel standard, but LLP's none the less. I would think that more plausible because of the vast surplus of 1756 and earlier muskets at the AWI broke out, and for the records that show the orders that the 1756 muskets would be issued out before the newest muskets should be touched...plus the unit is a provincial unit. Such an interpretation though, does allow their members to use the Pedersoli, or Jap Bess, or India made SLP muskets, and claim to be "correct".

Sometimes reenactment units simply don't know, so they opt for a musket that their members can use for the current era, and can also use in other eras. THUS with multiple time conflicts where the repro musket would fit, the musket may be resold with little trouble, as well as giving the owner versatility.

LD

 

[springfield art]

Re-enactors get a bit carried away with dating; I once saw a reference to a battle enactment where the guy was fretting over the date on his lockplate, which post dated the time of the battle. It's just a fun, grown-up kids playing with real powder; no one cares if the 'battle' was in 1862 and your lockplate is marked 1863, for gosh's sake! In a major movie, it would make a difference so nit pickers could point that out, which we all like to do!

 

[Grenadier1758]

Sometimes we do and sometimes we don't. My unit reenacts a Grenadier company during the French and Indian War. We should all have Long Land Pattern Muskets of the 1743 pattern. Due to the cost involved, we have members with muskets of patterns from the 1730 pattern through third model short land pattern. In those cases we follow the rule of if it can't be differentiated at 100 yards, then it can be accepted.

By the way, most major movies go for a director's notion of appearance, reference the rifle in "Last of the Mohicans", rather than being properly correct.

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
Bill Ahearn shows several model 1774 muskets used by American troops during the AWI. I believe his examples were made at St. Etienne and I wish folks would stop referring to all French muskets used in AWI as "Charlevilles". St Etienne was a much bigger operation that lasted far longer than Charleville. However, there were some big shipments to America of muskets made in Charleville. I don't think anyone need question the fact the model 1774s were used in the war. According to Ahearn, they were the latest model produced prior to the beginning of the war. One example, marked "NH" for New Hampshire was part of a shipment of 12,000 muskets that arrived in Portsmouth, NH aboard the vessel Amphitrite in April 1777.

dave

 

[Stantheman86]

99. 99% of the public viewing a re-enactment could care less if a Regiment of Continental Army soldiers has 1730 or 1777 pattern French nor do they even know the difference . As long as it's a flintlock with bright steel and barrel bands , it's good enough for the reenactments I saw at Monmouth or Trenton NJ.

Reenactors sometimes get really picky just to have something to get picky about.

A Pedersoli 1795 is basically their 1766 Charleville with different lock stamps. I would have no problem carrying mine if someone needed me for some Continental Army living history. No one is going to care, you have a "big cool looking military musket" that's all people generally care about.

I do some Living History and even the other people involved kinda told me to calm down a little, I was getting too nitpicky with my gear.....they're like "you have a big,shiny cap lock musket and you're dressed like an 1860s farm hand , you're fine just shoot some blanks and make kids laugh"

 

[FlinterNick]

99. 99% of the public viewing a re-enactment could care less if a Regiment of Continental Army soldiers has 1730 or 1777 pattern French nor do they even know the difference . As long as it's a flintlock with bright steel and barrel bands , it's good enough for the reenactments I saw at Monmouth or Trenton NJ.

Reenactors sometimes get really picky just to have something to get picky about.

A Pedersoli 1795 is basically their 1766 Charleville with different lock stamps. I would have no problem carrying mine if someone needed me for some Continental Army living history. No one is going to care, you have a "big cool looking military musket" that's all people generally care about.

I do some Living History and even the other people involved kinda told me to calm down a little, I was getting too nitpicky with my gear.....they're like "you have a big,shiny cap lock musket and you're dressed like an 1860s farm hand , you're fine just shoot some blanks and make kids laugh"

The pedersoli 1766 is more closer to the 1763 heavy charleville, the earlier production of the 1766. Several factors stand out one of them being that the pedersoli charleville weights about 11 lbs, even the heaviest Charleville weighted only 10.15 lbs (the 1763).

And to make it more entertaining the pedersoli charleville is called the Leger model.... that’s French for light pattern.

I own a pedersoli 1766, and I love it its well built sturdy and the large comb handles well for aiming becuase of the 2 3/4 drop...but i like calling it a pedersoli charleville, a spade is a spade. In order for this musket to be a 1763 the lock needs to be larger, around 6 7/8 inches long and the barrel band system was very unique.

See the pictures.

 

[FlinterNick]

BEWARE of "possible" and "plausible", for these are, for those interested in representing the arms at the same degree of authenticity as the uniforms, the lubrication that creates the slippery slope.

It's pretty well documented that what were the majority of the muskets carried by actual French regulars in the AWI was a musket of a very young pattern. Obviously different than the pattern of the large amounts of muskets that were shipped to be used by the Continental Army. Different also from the muskets captured and perhaps left in the colonies from Canada during the F&I.

Since the newest pattern muskets existed it is "possible" that a very recently made French musket could've been provided to the Colonials, but with the thousands of obsolete/old muskets being sent, why would they have done this? Why are there not records of this?

Because if it wasn't documented the odds are that any American soldiers carrying the same musket as the French regulars, would immediately be suspected of having obtained stolen muskets.

So scrounging such from a "battlefield"..., you have to have had the French at a battle for the soldier to fall or desert and toss the musket away, and then you must have it overlooked by the French after the battle, or the British/Germans if the French lost that battle, to obtain it. (iirc) During the F&I a French supply ship was captured by the British (and it may have been during the AWI). Among the cargo were French muskets, and a British unit after some mishap were armed with the French muskets. That's actually more plausible than Continentals or Militiamen having them. For unlike the Brits,...after obtaining the newest French musket by whatever scenario, the soldier or militiaman would have to avoid French troops at all costs, because the French Regulars will recognize said musket, know it belongs to their king, and would recover it.

Sometimes units will specify exactly what they were issued as the preferred musket. This is pricey for some groups.
Sometimes a lone person will be given the authority in a unit to make "the musket decision" and it can be quite arbitrary...,
Sometimes the units have incomplete records, such as one Loyalist unit with which I am close, who were issued according to British records, "new" muskets, at one point during the AWI. They choose in many cases to use the SLP Bess, as they have decided "new" means the SLP musket. Well, it could also mean stored, and never fired or hardly used 1756 LLP Bess muskets, perhaps with barrels and stocks reworked to the new 42" barrel standard, but LLP's none the less. I would think that more plausible because of the vast surplus of 1756 and earlier muskets at the AWI broke out, and for the records that show the orders that the 1756 muskets would be issued out before the newest muskets should be touched...plus the unit is a provincial unit. Such an interpretation though, does allow their members to use the Pedersoli, or Jap Bess, or India made SLP muskets, and claim to be "correct".

Sometimes reenactment units simply don't know, so they opt for a musket that their members can use for the current era, and can also use in other eras. THUS with multiple time conflicts where the repro musket would fit, the musket may be resold with little trouble, as well as giving the owner versatility.

One reason why someone might go for an Indian made Long Land, they’re more accurate in terms of size, caliber and markings than any of the higher quality Pedersoli’s or Miruko’s, only other option is a customized gun by TRS or just following an official pattern from scratch.

I’ve always tried to have the one musket for all periods however there’s always someone tapping me on the shoulder to tell me ... hey wrong period and then a 2 hour argument ensues about what where and when with google searches haha.


LD

 

[FlinterNick]

Hi,
Bill Ahearn shows several model 1774 muskets used by American troops during the AWI. I believe his examples were made at St. Etienne and I wish folks would stop referring to all French muskets used in AWI as "Charlevilles". St Etienne was a much bigger operation that lasted far longer than Charleville. However, there were some big shipments to America of muskets made in Charleville. I don't think anyone need question the fact the model 1774s were used in the war. According to Ahearn, they were the latest model produced prior to the beginning of the war. One example, marked "NH" for New Hampshire was part of a shipment of 12,000 muskets that arrived in Portsmouth, NH aboard the vessel Amphitrite in April 1777.

dave

Hi,
Bill Ahearn shows several model 1774 muskets used by American troops during the AWI. I believe his examples were made at St. Etienne and I wish folks would stop referring to all French muskets used in AWI as "Charlevilles". St Etienne was a much bigger operation that lasted far longer than Charleville. However, there were some big shipments to America of muskets made in Charleville. I don't think anyone need question the fact the model 1774s were used in the war. According to Ahearn, they were the latest model produced prior to the beginning of the war. One example, marked "NH" for New Hampshire was part of a shipment of 12,000 muskets that arrived in Portsmouth, NH aboard the vessel Amphitrite in April 1777.

dave

The 1774 is a very interesting model, it often gets passed over by pedersoli with their projects but they could easily produce one by working with the 1777 pattern and backwards by making a few adjustments. The only real challenge is how to handle the ramrod spoon, it was screwed through the bottom of the rear band, not a difficult project to do but the spring itself simply did not work well, I’d assume like their 1766 they would just pin it to the forestock (not an accurate detail for a 1766).

 

[springfield art]

Hi,
Bill Ahearn shows several model 1774 muskets used by American troops during the AWI. I believe his examples were made at St. Etienne and I wish folks would stop referring to all French muskets used in AWI as "Charlevilles". St Etienne was a much bigger operation that lasted far longer than Charleville. However, there were some big shipments to America of muskets made in Charleville. I don't think anyone need question the fact the model 1774s were used in the war. According to Ahearn, they were the latest model produced prior to the beginning of the war. One example, marked "NH" for New Hampshire was part of a shipment of 12,000 muskets that arrived in Portsmouth, NH aboard the vessel Amphitrite in April 1777.

dave

You're a guy who's read the sources! Good job!