1763 Heavy Model Charleville Barrel Comparison to a 1766

[FlinterNick]

Here is a copy of a heavy model 1763 barrel i had made by Rice barrel co. Side by side with a 1766 barrel.

I viewed four original barrels and the came up with an average concept of what a heavy model 1763 barrel is.

the largest barrel was 1.610 tall and 1.525 wide, (moller’s 1763 now owned by another collector)

The smallest 1763 barrel was 1.389 by 1.401, the middle two were around 1.425 - 1.445.

All four barrels had calibers over .70-72, per documented research i obtained by collectors museums, the. French mandated a caliber range of .69 - .72, no more no less.

This barrel is .72 caliber.,

The length of the barrel is 44 7/8”

The breech measurements are 1.450 round, the barrel tapers to a muzzle diameter of .860, the weight of the barrel is 5.25 lbs.

 

[Billy-by-gosh]

Love your concept and the side-by-side pics. It would be nice if you could add side-by-side measurements to compare the new '63 barrel to the 1766 one.
Thanks

 

[FlinterNick]

Love your concept and the side-by-side pics. It would be nice if you could add side-by-side measurements to compare the new '63 barrel to the 1766 one.
Thanks

Sure i can do that, off the top of head i can tell you that the 1763 vs. 1766 breech is 1.450 to 1.275 and the muzzle is .860 and the 1766 is .840. The heaviest 1766 barrel I’ve seen was on the later models 1768, the barrels get larger as they move towards the 1770 era but not by much, the 1774 original barrel i have here has a breech of 1.289. By 1.315 with a muzzle of .845 - 850.

One major difference between original charleville barrels and repro’s is the calibers, nearly all of the original barrel’s I’ve measured were .71 - .725 caliber, I’ve measured original 1728 - 1779 barrels, at least a dozen, only one was .69 caliber and it was a 1777 barrel.

I’ll follow up with the measurements.

 

[Clark Badgett]

Nick, on the breech measurements that you list as 2 different numbers, is this from measuring on the round and on the small side flats?

 

[FlinterNick]

Nick, on the breech measurements that you list as 2 different numbers, is this from measuring on the round and on the small side flats?

The measurement on the 1766 is because of the flat for the lock and there’s a tiny very small flat on the opposite side.

My 1774 barrel is out of proportion side to side top and bottom and corners.

the top to bottom measurement is different from the side to side, its almost like an oval shape the same way springfields and Harper’s ferry muskets were done.

The 1763 is much more round and even with a very small flat for the lock after i assemble it. I debated on going with out of proportion measurements like moller’s 1763 but chose not to. Most of the 1763’s i measured were in the range of 1.400-1.500, much like the breech on a brown Bess.

Moller’s 1763 is very out of proportion, which is very normal for a lot of original gun barrels, we sometime imagine things as they should or ought to be in our minds but find out very differently when we examine things.

That’s how it was for many of these original barrels.