Antique musket identification, Please help.

[Jeff03263]

I am reaching out to anyone that can help identify the make and model of this musket. I would like to know as much as I can about it.

Ever since I can remember, this antique musket hung over the doorway in the family room of my parents house. My father recently passed the musket on to me and I am trying to identify it. I would like to make an informational plaque to display along with it in my own family room.

I Googled around the internet and found a web page that shows a replica of a French 1728 Model Infantry Musket that looks very similar.
http://www.militaryheritage.com/musket5.htm

Of course my musket is in much worse condition and clearly not made to modern manufacturing standards. The ramrod is missing as is the middle barrel band, the butt plate is worn through, and there is a crack in the muzzle. It is really showing its age. You can see pictures of it here.

 

[okawbow]

French infantry musket. Probably 1763 model. About .69 caliber.
Maybe a leftover captured musket from French & Indian war. Or one provided by France to US in the American War of Independence.

Great gun!

 

[okawbow]

Careful! it might still be loaded.

Check it with a long rod. Put the rod down the barrel, and mark it at the muzzle. then lay the rod along the barrel and see it it comes close to the breech. if it is an inch or two short of the vent hole; it's loaded!

Don't do a thing to the gun. Leave it just like it is.

 

[54ball]

It looks more like a pattern 1728, note the Roman nose comb and the hoof foot shaped stock not unlike some French Trade Fusils.

The 1717 was replaced eleven years later in 1728 with the improvement of three barrel bands to hold its 46 3/4 inch barrel in place.

The 1728 musket, with modifications made in the 1740's, was the musket carried by the majority of French troops during the French and Indian War (see images of the Compagnies Franche de la Marine and the Regiment de Bearn). The only changes between the two models were that in 1746 they removed the pan to bridle completely for war time economy and that in 1743 the metal ramrod became standard. The lock now has a pan to frizzen bridle instead of the earlier vertical frizzen bridle. This famous weapon was a contemporary with the "Brown Bess" used by the British. Until the end of the French & Indian Wars, it was manufactured in large numbers by French Arsenals at St. Etienne, Maubeuge, and Charleville. The French muskets were all iron mounted however, there are a few surviving brass mounted models which were made for the French Navy, incorporating a different style of butt plate. There were three arsenals making the 1728/1746 models: Charleville, Maubeuge, and St. Etienne. St. Etienne was the largest producer and because of this the 1728 is often called the St. Etienne musket. It was St. Etienne that provided the bulk of the arms to the Navy for the Compagnies Franche de la Marine in the late 1740s.

The French system allowed for any changes in the weapon to be given a model year designation according to the year the changes were approved. Also starting in the late 1750's, they made the front barrel band slightly longer. The barrel is 46 3/4" octagon to round in .69 or .72 caliber. The lock measured 6 1/2" x 1 1/4". On May 1, 1743, an order regarding the marking of the arms in arsenals of the King of New France states that: "...all the soldiers' arms will be stamped with the words "Au Roy" (and) with the mark of each captain." (Rapport des Archives canadiennes, 1899, supplement, p. 147.)

Link French Musket

 

[pargent]

+1

 

[54ball]

The center band is missing. That gun has had some restoration work done to it. The fore stock has been replaced about 2 inches ahead of the lock. At least on the lock side. It's possible that the whole forestock my be a modern replacement or possibly from another musket. That may be why the place for the center band is not evident...hard to tell from photos other than the forestock is a replacement.

It looks as if someone attempted a poor clean up job around the wrist and whole buttstock. The date and initials...to me are suspect. Why 1785? also it looks little too fresh for 1785 and little too primitive.

With that said I think I would seriously consider having the gun restored, mainly to stabilize it, by someone who really and I mean really knows what they are doing....not your local centerfire guy or even your local museum but a real expert in the field.

 

[Jeff03263]

Thank you 54ball, you have given me much to digest here. Let me try.

The 1717 was replaced eleven years later in 1728 with the improvement of three barrel bands to hold its 46 3/4 inch barrel in place.

This makes mine 1728 or later because mine clearly had a center barrel band because I can see the black marks on the stock that were on either side of where it was. My barrel is 46 3/8” long, measured from the muzzle to where the breach plug meets the stock. It measures 45 7/16” inside the barrel to where my measuring rod bottoms out on the breech plug.



The 1728 musket, with modifications made in the 1740's, was the musket carried by the majority of French troops during the French and Indian War (see images of the Compagnies Franche de la Marine and the Regiment de Bearn).

OK, so if my musket has the following changes that were made in the 1740’s then maybe it was carried by a French soldier in the French and Indian War.


The only changes between the two models were that in 1746 they removed the pan to bridle completely for war time economy and that in 1743 the metal ramrod became standard. The lock now has a pan to frizzen bridle instead of the earlier vertical frizzen bridle.

I had to Google this”¦ My lock does have a frizzen bridle extending from the pan. I assume the above “pan to bridle” is a typo and really means “pan to frizzen bridle”. Since my musket does not have this cost cutting modification made in 1746, it must have been made between 1728 and 1746. Since I have no ramrod, metal or otherwise, I cannot tell if it was made between 1743 and 1746.



This famous weapon was a contemporary with the "Brown Bess" used by the British. Until the end of the French & Indian Wars, it was manufactured in large numbers by French Arsenals at St. Etienne, Maubeuge, and Charleville. The French muskets were all iron mounted however,

So since there are no brass parts except for the two ramrod guides, it was not made for the French Navy in the late 1740s. I assume that means mine is iron mounted and therefore was made at Charleville, Maubeuge, or St. Etienne.


there are a few surviving brass mounted models which were made for the French Navy, incorporating a different style of butt plate. There were three arsenals making the 1728/1746 models: Charleville, Maubeuge, and St. Etienne. St. Etienne was the largest producer and because of this the 1728 is often called the St. Etienne musket. It was St. Etienne that provided the bulk of the arms to the Navy for the Compagnies Franche de la Marine in the late 1740s. The French system allowed for any changes in the weapon to be given a model year designation according to the year the changes were approved. Also starting in the late 1750's, they made the front barrel band slightly longer.


My front barrel band is 1 29/32” long. I don’t know if that is slightly longer or not.



The barrel is 46 3/4" octagon to round in .69 or .72 caliber. The lock measured 6 1/2" x 1 1/4".

My barrel is octagon to round and measures 46 3/8” long. As near as I can tell it is .69 or .72 caliber. The lock plate does measure 6 1/2" x 1 1/4".


Does this mean it was made in the late 1750’s? Because, it states earlier in this quote that the barrel was 46 ¾” starting in 1728 as well.

On May 1, 1743, an order regarding the marking of the arms in arsenals of the King of New France states that: "...all the soldiers' arms will be stamped with the words "Au Roy" (and) with the mark of each captain." (Rapport des Archives canadiennes, 1899, supplement, p. 147.)

Mine does not have “Au Roy” carved in the stock like some I have seen on the internet so it must not have been still in the French arsenals on May 1, 1743.

 

[Jeff03263]

Thanks. I checked and it is not loaded.

 

[Jeff03263]

Here are some better pictures of the areas in question.

 

[54ball]

The close ups help a lot. The forestock looks intact on closer look. :hatsoff: In the fist photos it looked like a joint line on the lock side where the cracks end.

You see a lot of junk on this antique forum. Most are low grade 19th Century stuff, Middle Eastern tourist bait, and 20th Century African trade stuff but every now and then a real jewel comes along. Your musket is one of those jewels.

 

[Jeff03263]

The letters ExB correspond to Enoch Brown of Epsom, New Hampshire. Enoch and his next door neighbor Daniel Philbrick went of to war together. They both were at Saratoga when General Buryoyne was defeated. As the story goes, after Enoch and Daniel returned from the war they traded muskets. I do not know why they swapped guns. If I can track down any living history minded descendants of Enoch Brown maybe they will know the whereabouts of the musket that Daniel Philbrick fought with. I am in possession of this musket that belonged someone I am not related to. I do not know the significance of the date of 1785 or why it is carved into the stock.

 

[Zonie]

I wouldn't be too concerned about the barrel length.

While 46 3/4 may have been the standard, variations of 3/8 or more were accepted as being serviceable.

As for the carved initials and date, it was not uncommon for an owner to carve things like that into their gunstocks. Especially if they liked their gun and didn't want it to be confused with someone else's.

About the only thing you can be sure of with the carving is, it was not done to the stock while the gun was still in service by the military.

Then, as now, the military takes a dim view of soldiers personalizing their weapons.

 

[Artificer]

Jeff,

Do you know how old your ancestor was when he went off to war in the AWI (American War for Independence)? It sounds like he may have been a young man to have gone off with a friend? Do you know anything about the Father of your Ancestor's Friend or his other family members during the generation or two before the one who traded for this musket? The reason I ask is because it could add even more interest to the story of the musket.

I am certainly not an expert on French Muskets, but your family musket could have come from the French unwillingly during two earlier conflicts or willingly during the AWI.

The French Fort Louisbourg on Cape Breton Island was "like a dagger aimed at New England" for many years. It was taken once in 1745 by British and British American Colonial forces, then given back at the end of the War of the Austrian Succession. Of course the captured French Arms were not given back and almost certainly retained by Colonial Forces. Your musket could have come into your Ancestor's Friend's family possession as early as this time. Here are a couple of links you may enjoy reading on this capture of the Fort.
http://www.canadahistory.com/sections/eras/englandarrives/captureoflouisbourg.htm

and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Louisbourg_(1745)

When the French got it back around 1748, they immensely re-supplied and re-stocked the Fort with a staggering quantity of Military Arms. It seems they restocked the Fort with at least some M1717 Muskets, but more M1728 and later model Muskets.

When British and British American Colonial Forces again took Fort Louisbourg in 1758, they must have been astounded to have found approximately 15,000 French Military Arms there. It seems the French had not had time to hand them out to French Marines, French Militia and their Native American Allies.

Those Muskets must have been in really good condition as the Regular British Light Infantry happily put their Carbines into storage and used the French Muskets to replace them. No doubt any Colonial Militia Force or individuals, who did not have a good Musket and Bayonet, got one there as well. The rest of the French Arms were brought back to the Colonies. As far as I know, there are no records extant on exactly how those Muskets were divvied up, though. You may find the following interesting as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Louisbourg_(1758)

Of course your Family Musket could have come here from France in early 1775 when the French already had begun secretly sending some Arms and Ammunition before the full French Alliance in 1778 during the AWI.

Gus

 

[Jeff03263]

My relative's name was Daniel Philbrick b. 04 Sep 1753, d. 18 Apr 1835. He Served 2 Apr 1775 to 1 Jan 1776 in Col. Poor's regiment and Capt Moses Leavitts Company. Later he also served as an orderly sergeant in 1777 for three months in Col. Drakes Regiment and Capt. Moses Leavitts Company, and assisted in the capture of General Burgoyne. I do not have his Musket.

Enoch Brown was the soldier fought with the Musket that I now have. Enoch Brown b. 20 Nov 1752, d. 23 Jul 1829 Served in Captain Henry Elkins's Company in the war of the revolution. He marched for Saratoga to assist in the capture of Burgoyne." Burgoyne surrendered on Oct 17, 1777. Enoch was 25 years old at the time and Daniel was 24.

Enoch's Father was Jonathan Brown b. 19 Sep 1718, d. 27 Jan 1805. I do not see any record of military service for him.

Enoch's Grandfather was Benjamin Brown b. 04 Dec 1683, d. 09 Feb 1766. He fought in Queen Anne's War.


It seems to me that Enoch and Daniel served in different companies and only returned after Saratoga, they must not have left to go to war at the same time but only returned together.

 

[Artificer]

Jeff,

That is amazing you have so much information on Enoch Brown's family. GOOD for you!!

Though it is still possible the musket you now own came from the capture of Fort Louisbourg in 1758 and kept for use by the colony, it is perhaps more likely the gun came from tne ones that France surreptiously supplied to the Patriots prior to the French Alliance.

I do appreciate you sharing the musket and the information. Quite interesting!

Gus

 

[Jeff03263]

For military service, Enoch's grandfather Benjamin was in Lieutenant Joseph Swett's Company in Hampton NH dealing with Indians. That was about mid 1707 which pre-dates this musket since we established above that it was made between 1728 and 1746.

 

[Jeff03263]

How do I find an appropriate person to stabilize my musket? Is there someone in the NH area that you know of?

 

[54ball]

I'll check with the master flintlock smith I work with to see if he knows anyone in New England.

 

[rickystl]

Can't really add to the conversation, but was sure an interesting Thread - with a super interesting gun.

For restoration/conservation you might try Brian Anderson in Bristol, VT or Jeff Miller in Waldoboro, ME. PM me if you want their info.

Rick :hatsoff:

 

[Jeff03263]

Thanks 54Ball. I appreciate you asking your gunsmith friend about this.

I feel honored to be in possession of this bit of history and I want give it the attention and respect it deserves.

I am worried about the idea that it may have been damaged by inappropriate cleaning. I don't know which part looks bad or if anything can be done about it.

I know it has been hanging on the wall for many generations. It was a family heirloom. It was not in storage in some box wrapped up and put away and forgotten. I am sure many people took it down and wiped it off without giving it a second thought.