Charles Moore Flintlock Target Pistol

[Rat]

That's honestly one of the best looking firearms I've ever seen, I love it.

Those cosmetic flaws are nothing that wouldn't have been found on a hand fitted period piece if you really broke out a fine tooth comb. I have S&W revolvers from the 1920's with some minute fitting flaws , no big deal.

The only flaw I see is that horrible dot matrix factory stamping on the barrel. My Pedersoli .45 Kentucky has that and I hate it.

It looks like it shoots, I'd just keep it and enjoy it. Especially if you got a good deal on it, after a few thousand rounds it will have handling marks and dings anyway.

Have to disagree a little here, I don't think we could find any pistol with the ramrod and thimble standing a 1/8" away from the underlug. You should not even be able to see any light between the rod and underlug.

Here's the fit of my Plains Pistol, a VERY inexpensive, mass produced pistol. I would expect Pedersoli to finish a pistol at least on the level of a Lyman Plains Pistol.

 

[Stantheman86]

Honestly it all depends on how good the "deal" is to how much cosmetic flaw I'm willing to accept.

I got a new in box .45 Pedersoli Kentucky for $250 , it has a muzzle outer edge that's pretty sharp and the rear sight has some "glaring" from where a Pedersoli tech looks to have pounded in a stubborn sight. Theres daylight visible under the front sight blade and its overall not "perfect" but we're talking mass produced repro shooter grade firearms here,made to be enjoyed and fired not $12,000 hand made Museum quality customs by Master gun makers. I'm perfectly happy with a "B" grade $250 Pedersoli Kentucky pistol.

A quick Google turns up an average retail of $750 for these , which isn't cheap but most places show "back ordered" so a replacement may not be easy to find given a refund.

At the end of the day it's up to you, I'm just saying what I would do.

The OP saved a couple hundred bucks if I recall , maybe the gun was in fact an unannounced "factory blem" or a customer paid $7-800 for it and returned it , so Cherrys marked it down to make a quick turnaround on it.

If it were me and I got this sweet shooting pistol in the $500s range I'd fix the issues myself and just shoot the heck out of it, maybe compete with it in some matches and really 'bond" with it. Some of my favorite firearms are ones I was initially let down by but they evolved into faithful range companions.

 

[Stony Broke]

I was shooting 20 grains in mine as well. I thought about dropping down to 17 grains but think I will stick with 20.

How is the wood-to-metal fit on your pistol? Does your pistol have any issue with the nose cap like mine?

There was a small gap on the nose cap on my Kentucky like yours, but I just try to ignore it. The Moore is fit nicely. Pedersoli does a fair job of fitting most of the time, but it's still a production firearm no matter what and I've seen some with similar irregular fitting just like other production line stuff.

 

[TFoley]

Your pistol is already at least seven years old - CH =2012.

 

[Enfield58]

I got the reply for Pedersoli this morning:

"Thank you for the continuous preference you are having towards our guns, inspite the uncertain departure.

The Charles Moore pistol has usually a good fitting between metal to wood.

We see that the pistol was made some years ago. We are sorry for the mispelled word "powder". In recent years, we use the laser machine marking the barrels, it should never happen again.

We appreciate you advised us.

Best regards,

Customer service"

I'm not going to make a big deal out of it. Besides, I shot it already. Another one is on it's way from DGW. I liked the first one so much I want to get a 2nd one. If able, I'd like to make a cased dueling set with both of them.

So we'll see what the one from DGW looks like.

 

[Rat]

Interesting indeed, but kind of sad. "We appreciate you advised us" Code for: Don't call us, we'll call you. I agree, at this point no sense entering into a long drawn out fight with Pedersoli. Judging from that response, I'm sure they would refuse any compensation on the grounds it has been fired. I think we can say that Pedersoli customer service is not "great", regardless if others have had better luck.

Stan has some good points, and the rest of your pistol is beautifully finished, which makes the ram-rod/nose cap issue stand out even more. But I'll stand by the idea that there's no excuse for Pedersoli failing to fit the ram-rod-underlug and nose cap on a $800 pistol at least as well as a $300 (sometimes less) Lyman Plains Pistol.

Now I am very curious to see what your DGW pistol looks like. You are a braver man than I, (and more patient and forgiving) to buy another one without inspecting it first. I'm especially eager to see if the forward ram-rod thimble is inset into the under-lug, which I notice it is not on your present pistol, but should be. That alone will cause the rod to stand off from the under lug.

I guess my last thought would be that the pistol can be fixed, and should be, but it might be wise to have someone who is familiar and experienced with in-letting to do it. The rear thimble will have to be re-in-letted. I think that if you don't fix that, you'll be sorry in years to come, and if you make a nice cased set, it's really going to stand out with another pistol right there to compare it to.

Good luck. I'll be as eager for the DGW pistol to arrive as you. Well, almost.

 

[TFoley]

I got the reply for Pedersoli this morning:

"Thank you for the continuous preference you are having towards our guns, inspite the uncertain departure.

The Charles Moore pistol has usually a good fitting between metal to wood.

We see that the pistol was made some years ago. We are sorry for the mispelled word "powder". In recent years, we use the laser machine marking the barrels, it should never happen again.

We appreciate you advised us.

Best regards,

Customer service"

I'm not going to make a big deal out of it. Besides, I shot it already. Another one is on it's way from DGW. I liked the first one so much I want to get a 2nd one. If able, I'd like to make a cased dueling set with both of them.

So we'll see what the one from DGW looks like.

It amazes me that Signore Pedersoli, whose spoken English is VERY good, should have sent out a letter that looks as though it was written by somebody for whom English is on a par with Hittite. But then it was 'customer service', and who knows if they use Gargle to do the translation?

 

[FishDFly]

For those who encounter problems with Pedersoli, contact the following:

Service points & Warranty service
LEE SHAVER GUNSMITH
404 East 17th St. - P.O. Box 570 - 64759 - LAMAR, MO.

 

[dave_person]

That's honestly one of the best looking firearms I've ever seen, I love it.

Those cosmetic flaws are nothing that wouldn't have been found on a hand fitted period piece if you really broke out a fine tooth comb. I have S&W revolvers from the 1920's with some minute fitting flaws , no big deal.

The only flaw I see is that horrible dot matrix factory stamping on the barrel. My Pedersoli .45 Kentucky has that and I hate it.

It looks like it shoots, I'd just keep it and enjoy it. Especially if you got a good deal on it, after a few thousand rounds it will have handling marks and dings anyway.

Hi Stan,
What you said about imperfections is true for many guns at the time, particularly American ones. However, British dueling pistols get as close to perfection as any hand made object can. Usually, they were not ornate but everything was of the highest order possible at the time. Charles Moore would never let even a livery pistol go out of his shop with a nose cap installed like that. The link below shows a pair of duellers by one of the best, Joe Manton, a contemporary of Moore.

http://www.flintlockcollection.net/wp-content/uploads/No386Manton8.jpg

 

[Stantheman86]

Those are some really good looking pistols.....I assume "dueling" sets is more just a term given that I'm sure most of these weren't used for actual dueling.

This is why experienced shooters advise using Cimarron and paying a few dollars more, because whether they admit it or not Pedersoli sorts their guns according to which distributor it's going to. Cimarron or Taylor's may have refused that gun while a smaller dealer would just put that on the shelf and sell it. Pedersoli isnt going to ship guns to a distributor they know is going to reject them, they send the "cream" to those places.

Just like how Chiappa makes their 1842 muskets to a higher standard , because they are heavily used by skirmishers and European match shooters , so you dont want to ship crap to your most valued and sponsored customers.

 

[FishDFly]

"This is why experienced shooters advise using Cimarron and paying a few dollars more, because whether they admit it or not Pedersoli sorts their guns according to which distributor it's going to. Cimarron or Taylor's may have refused that gun while a smaller dealer would just put that on the shelf and sell it. Pedersoli isnt going to ship guns to a distributor they know is going to reject them, they send the "cream" to those places."

Folks may not agree with you, but I do.

When it comes to Pedersoli, I order from Flintlock's Etc. Richard has treated me more than fair.
In years past, some of the Charles Moore's were sent over with the wrong rear sights. Mr. Pedersoli admitted to Richard that was the case. I received a flint and percussion with the wrong sights and Mr. Pedersoli sent the correct sights to Richard and then on to me.

When it comes to revolvers for the most part, I wait until I can make a road trip to Cimarron. If not, I order from Taylor's.

Years ago my mentor was convinced that kits were composed of parts that did not fit together as they should. His theory was that folks putting guns together when they ran into parts that did not fit or were imperfect would cast them aside. Later the rejected parts would be assembled for kits and shipped to the U.S. Looking a CVA at kits then I agreed with him.

I did live near Trail Guns Armory in League City, TX, I could go there and pick out what I wanted and the wood I wanted.

Unfortunately, now to receive guns it is the internet, hard to find a stocking dealer near a person.

 

[F.G. Ford]

I thought the adjustment screw behind the trigger was to set the pull weight.

I tried the set feature out this morning and thought I heard angels singing when I pulled the trigger.

Just so I don't mess it up can you tell me about the adjustment screw? Can I assume that I turn it clockwise to increase the let off for the set feature and counter-clockwise to reduce it?

In addition, what powder charge are you using?

Hi again,
My Pedersolli Charles Moore likes a charge of 28 grains of 3F, with a .437 round ball, and a .015 patch lubed with 70/30 bees wax and olive oil.
I damp wipe with windshield washer between shots.
I did have problems at first with the light trigger. First two shots went in the air, the third hit right in front of the shooting bench. Had to back off the light setting a bit.
With that set trigger concept, you can practice for some time at home away from the range,without loading the gun. Needless to say, you do not cock the hammer.
Keep on shooting your pistol, you will be amazed how accurate it is. But don't shoot your foot with that light trigger.
Fred

 

[Gene L]

Those are some really good looking pistols.....I assume "dueling" sets is more just a term given that I'm sure most of these weren't used for actual dueling.

This is why experienced shooters advise using Cimarron and paying a few dollars more, because whether they admit it or not Pedersoli sorts their guns according to which distributor it's going to. Cimarron or Taylor's may have refused that gun while a smaller dealer would just put that on the shelf and sell it. Pedersoli isnt going to ship guns to a distributor they know is going to reject them, they send the "cream" to those places.

Just like how Chiappa makes their 1842 muskets to a higher standard , because they are heavily used by skirmishers and European match shooters , so you dont want to ship crap to your most valued and sponsored customers.

 

[Gene L]

Actually, those Manton pistols were designed for dueling. How often they were used in actual duels is unknown. Well-off "Gentlemen" would have owned a pair as a status symbol, if they never used them. As pistols, they weren't suited for anything else...they were smoothbore, had no real sights on them, and at the time, there was very little other non-military use for pistols.

 

[Many Klatch]

The Pedersoli Website has recommended target loads for all their blackpowder guns. My flint pistol would shoot their recommended load but I needed a 4# beater to get the ball down the bore. You might want to experiment with different size ball.

 

[dave_person]

Actually, those Manton pistols were designed for dueling. How often they were used in actual duels is unknown. Well-off "Gentlemen" would have owned a pair as a status symbol, if they never used them. As pistols, they weren't suited for anything else...they were smoothbore, had no real sights on them, and at the time, there was very little other non-military use for pistols.

Hi Gene,
Who knows except the owners how many duels they were used in. However, I want to correct a major misconception that keeps hanging on. British dueling pistols were very accurate despite most (and I mean most not all) being smooth bored. Keith Neal demonstrated their accuracy by hitting the centers of playing cards at about 15 yds with a pistol by Mortimer. Almost all British dueling pistols had front and rear sights. I don't know where this persistent myth comes from that they did not. All that is required to bust that myth is look at photos of dueling pistols on www.flintlockcollection or any books on British dueling pistols. The link below shows the top of those pistols. Note the rear sight at the breech.
http://www.flintlockcollection.net/wp-content/uploads/No386Manton13.jpg

dave

 

[Rat]

Methinks the pistols could have been used for any purpose, that any other pistol might be used for. Smooth bore? Load some shot, and shoot some grouse. Self defense...carry one in the coach with you. etc. I have pistols I have owned for 30-40 years, have been used extensively, and still show close to a brand new condition. (it's all about the holster) Pretty hard to determine if an old set of duelers had ever been used or shot much. Indeed, a smooth bore pistol at pistol range, is about as accurate as a rifled bore...so that does not matter, or determine if the pistol has a rear sight or not. I believe they were perfectly suited for any reasonable purpose you would put a pistol to.

 

[dave_person]

Methinks the pistols could have been used for any purpose, that any other pistol might be used for. Smooth bore? Load some shot, and shoot some grouse. Self defense...carry one in the coach with you. etc. I have pistols I have owned for 30-40 years, have been used extensively, and still show close to a brand new condition. (it's all about the holster) Pretty hard to determine if an old set of duelers had ever been used or shot much. Indeed, a smooth bore pistol at pistol range, is about as accurate as a rifled bore...so that does not matter, or determine if the pistol has a rear sight or not. I believe they were perfectly suited for any reasonable purpose you would put a pistol to.

Hi RAT,
Yes, pistols could be used for lots of things but the British developed pistols just for dueling. Later, they transitioned into target pistols as pistol shooting ranges became popular. The fully evolved British dueling pistols almost universally have the following characteristics:
1. swamped or tapered full octagon barrels 9-12" long, smooth bored, with front and rear sights; barrels are sighted in for about 15 yds.
2. gold or platinum lined touch holes, standing breeches
3. the very best locks produced at the time, often with safety bolts
4. spring activated set or hair triggers
5. handles with either flat sides, checkering, or both
6. fine wood stocks with little decoration; custom fitted to the owner's hand
7. usually blued, browned, or color case hardened steel hardware, rarely silver or brass; trigger guards have large bows
8. made in pairs and sold with a case.
There are always some exceptions such as rifled barrels and octagon to round barrels, silver and silver wire decoration, carving, etc. However, they all were well designed, accurate, and lethal.

dave

 

[Enfield58]

I got the 2nd Charles Moore pistol from DGW today.

The wood-to-metal fit at the nose cap is a little bit better. There is still the gap with the ram rod at the thimble.

I'm wondering if the pistol that Pedersoli copied had that gap?

Anyway, the box looked liked the Pedersoli seal was cut and taped over with clear tape. There was extra news paper packing in the Pedersoli box just like there was with my Howdah pistol.

The only thing that got my attention was that there was a flint installed and the frizzen had obviously been scrapped by said flint!

There is also a trace of powder residue in the pan. I looked in the barrel and there is a slight trace of powder in the bottom of the bore.

Other than that the pistol looks good and I like it.

That fact that there is a flint in the jaws and the frizzen's been tested bothers me. I called DGW and asked if they sent me a used pistol.

When I talked with the customer service representative I told her that other than looking used that I liked the pistol. However, I expected a new product.

She offered to send me another one. I replied that if I did, indeed, get a used pistol that I would like to talk with them about maybe getting a little knocked off on the sale price. They could get it off their inventory and I could save a little money.

The customer service representative told me that these pistols are new for 2019. While I talked with her she checked the computer records and said none had been returned.

I asked her if they test the pistols before sending them out. She didn't know and the gunsmith was out for the day. It was her theory that the gunsmith might have tested it but didn't know.

So I will call tomorrow and talk with the gunsmith before coming to a decision on what to do.

 

[Gene L]

Hi Gene,
Who knows except the owners how many duels they were used in. However, I want to correct a major misconception that keeps hanging on. British dueling pistols were very accurate despite most (and I mean most not all) being smooth bored. Keith Neal demonstrated their accuracy by hitting the centers of playing cards at about 15 yds with a pistol by Mortimer. Almost all British dueling pistols had front and rear sights. I don't know where this persistent myth comes from that they did not. All that is required to bust that myth is look at photos of dueling pistols on www.flintlockcollection or any books on British dueling pistols. The link below shows the top of those pistols. Note the rear sight at the breech.
http://www.flintlockcollection.net/wp-content/uploads/No386Manton13.jpg

dave

I stand corrected. I read a long time ago that English dueling pistols were smoothbore to be limited in accuracy to allow providence a role in the duel, rather than a dedicated killing machine like the French used. They were plain but beautiful in their somber lack of decoration. I think their price was outside the range for anyone other than gentlemen or aristocracy to own them. And who needed an expensive pistol for self-defense or shooting grouse? The upper classes had guns for grouse and probably had a self defense pistol, too (I don't think they were much assaulted in their everyday life.)