Charles Moore Flintlock Target Pistol

[Rat]

Got to see some pictures!

Dave would be the man to ask, but I can't imagine an original Charles Moore not having a perfect fit at the nose cap, ram-rod, and thimble. I'll look again, but on the Pedersol site, their pic of the pistol shows the proper fit. And most everyone knows how those part should fit, look, and come together.

A flint, and powder residue, that beats me. Even if it was tested at the factory, would they not clean the gun up better? Man, what are they smoking at the Pedersoi factory? (and customer service)

Okay, this is very interesting. Pictures!!!

 

[Rat]

Well, looking at Pedersoi's own pics, I see they allow a tiny gap between the under-lug and the ram-rod, where the ram-rod enters the thimble. But I believe that there should be NO gap in this area.

Those guns are so beautiful in every other respect, I think you would be glad in the long run to send them to someone who can do a professional job re-fitting them. Especially if you are going to make a cased set. ??

 

[dave_person]

Hi Enfield,
I dou

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.

Hi,
I doubt Pedersoli copied any particular pistol. They might have had some general dimensions from a pistol by Moore but I cannot see where they copied any original pistol. It is simply that an accurate copy of a Moore dueling pistol would cost 5 or 6 times what they charge for their Moore.
dave

 

[Enfield58]

Here are the photos of the pistol that I got from Cherry's (top) and the one that I got from DGW (bottom).

From way back, I think they look kind of nice together.

When I look at the thimble and ramrod of both pistols I can see that because of the thickness of the nose cap, it's just about impossible to move the thimble up more in the stock to close the gap.

If I did that, there would have a large about of space left over in the stock where the thimble once rested until moved. Then the pistol would would look even worse.

So, I'm not going to complain about the gap with the ram rod.

Like I said, I can correct the issue of the gap between the back of the nose cap and the wood. When I get time, I'll fix it. In the meantime, I plan on shooting the one on top. Hopefully, the gunsmith at DGW can give me some answers tomorrow.

 

[Pukka Bundook]

Gene, (Edit; From page 2. I hadn't seen page 3!)

Those days were rather lawless, before the Bow Street runners and the first police forces came into being, so no person who could afford it, left home without being armed.
Gentlemen when traveling, would have a box with a set, or sometimes two sets of pistols, and also maybe a coach carbine. These had a short barrel for convenience, and were often in the 16-14 bore.

Duelling pistols in some cases got a fair amount of use, as gentlemen would try them at marks, and this developed into target shooting.
Many traveling pistols also got much use, as they were fired off at a mark on returning home, and fresh -loaded for the next outing.

All the best,
Richard.

 

[Rat]

Well they do look good together, and they actually match, as far as Pedersoi's treatment of the ram-rod and under lug goes. I was afraid the DGW gun would be done right, which would be a stark contrast to the Cherrys pistol. If you don't mind, I guess I don't.

 

[DOUBLEDEUCE 1]

Is it just the light, or angle... but is the under rib short on the bottom pistol where it meets the nose cap ?
While you’re thinking about what to do to correct ant cosmetic blemishes, send them, one or both to me. I’ll look after them for you. Remember, absence makes the heart grow fonder... So, when you’re really fond and accepting blemishes and all, I might consider returning them to you.

 

[TFoley]

It is unlikely in the extreme that a gentleman who could afford the outrageous cost of a pair of duelling pistols from any of the established makers would actually use them for shooting birds of any kind. A pair of William Powell duelling pistols on sale here in UK for £17,500, would have cost around $300 when new. The 'exchange rate' is about x24 = ~$7500. An estate overseer might just earn $100 a year - a common farm labourer half that - or less.

The later cheating method of so-called 'secret rifling, that engraved the chamber end of the pistol barrel but not the visible portion of the muzzle. It was also called 'scratch rifling' and was, according to the English code, and was held to be the mark of a pistol owned by a cad, bounder, or rogue, but NOT a gentleman.

 

[Enfield58]

It is unlikely in the extreme that a gentleman who could afford the outrageous cost of a pair of duelling pistols from any of the established makers would actually use them for shooting birds of any kind. A pair of William Powell duelling pistols on sale here in UK for £17,500, would have cost around $300 when new. The 'exchange rate' is about x24 = ~$7500. An estate overseer might just earn $100 a year - a common farm labourer half that - or less.

The later cheating method of so-called 'secret rifling, that engraved the chamber end of the pistol barrel but not the visible portion of the muzzle. It was also called 'scratch rifling' and was, according to the English code, and was held to be the mark of a pistol owned by a cad, bounder, or rogue, but NOT a gentleman.

Wasn’t either Lord Cardigan or Lord Lucan accused of using a rifled pistol barrel in a duel?

 

[TFoley]

Wasn’t either Lord Cardigan or Lord Lucan accused of using a rifled pistol barrel in a duel?

Cardigan was prosecuted in 1841 for a duel with one of his former officers, another long-serving professional. He was acquitted on a legal technicality, notwithstanding his boast on arrest that "I have hit my man". The prosecution had demonstrated that Cardigan - using a duelling pistol with concealed rifling and a hair trigger (supplied by the Mayfair gunsmiths Manton and Hudson) which was thought unsporting according to the usages of duelling - had fired upon Captain Harvey Tuckett. The indictment, however, was that the victim had been "Harvey Garnet Phipps Tuckett". Evidence was received from an army agent paying Tuckett's Army pension that this was indeed the full name of Captain Tuckett of the 11th Hussars, yet the discrepancy in the wording of the charge allowed the jury of his peers, 120 in number, unanimously to acquit him; as a nobleman the law of the time allowed him to be tried for a capital crime before the House of Lords sitting as a jury, with the Lord High Steward as judge. This added to his unpopularity, with The Times newspaper alleging that there was deliberate, high-level complicity to leave the loop-hole in the prosecution case and reporting the view that "in England there is one law for the rich and another for the poor" and The Examiner describing the verdict as "a defeat of justice". Even his obituary described this evasion of justice as "an absurd technical deficiency".

 

[Enfield58]

Cardigan was prosecuted in 1841 for a duel with one of his former officers, another long-serving professional. He was acquitted on a legal technicality, notwithstanding his boast on arrest that "I have hit my man". The prosecution had demonstrated that Cardigan - using a duelling pistol with concealed rifling and a hair trigger (supplied by the Mayfair gunsmiths Manton and Hudson) which was thought unsporting according to the usages of duelling - had fired upon Captain Harvey Tuckett. The indictment, however, was that the victim had been "Harvey Garnet Phipps Tuckett". Evidence was received from an army agent paying Tuckett's Army pension that this was indeed the full name of Captain Tuckett of the 11th Hussars, yet the discrepancy in the wording of the charge allowed the jury of his peers, 120 in number, unanimously to acquit him; as a nobleman the law of the time allowed him to be tried for a capital crime before the House of Lords sitting as a jury, with the Lord High Steward as judge. This added to his unpopularity, with The Times newspaper alleging that there was deliberate, high-level complicity to leave the loop-hole in the prosecution case and reporting the view that "in England there is one law for the rich and another for the poor" and The Examiner describing the verdict as "a defeat of justice". Even his obituary described this evasion of justice as "an absurd technical deficiency".

One law for the rich and one law for the poor? Really? I’m shocked.

 

[arcticap]

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

If you go to the Pedersoli product page and then click on "show all of the details", you'll see the magnifier that allows for super close up inspection of the 2 display pieces.--->>> https://www.davide-pedersoli.com/tipologia-prodotti.asp/l_en/idt_18/pistols-charles-moore.html

I wouldn't be surprised if they made adjustments to their design or dimensions since the website photos were taken.
IMO the important factor is whether the ramrod glides easily through the ferrule, past the nose cap and into the entry pipe.
The nose cap seems to be partly intended and positioned for the purpose of acting as a guide for the ramrod.
As long as the ramrod isn't being warped out of shape, then it's function shouldn't be affected.
Many people probably don't even use the ramrod anyway and fire it without the ramrod in place.

 

[FishDFly]

"As long as the ramrod isn't being warped out of shape, then it's function shouldn't be affected.
Many people probably don't even use the ramrod anyway and fire it without the ramrod in place."

I use a range rod with guide when using the pistol and the wood ramrod is the truck.

 

[Enfield58]

While you’re thinking about what to do to correct ant cosmetic blemishes, send them, one or both to me. I’ll look after them for you. Remember, absence makes the heart grow fonder... So, when you’re really fond and accepting blemishes and all, I might consider returning them to you.

Thank you for your very kind and generous offer. There aren’t enough good people who are as selfless and as magnanimous as you are. Your character reflects the qualities produced by good parents and a charitable influence impressed upon you during your tender years.

Unfortunately, I wouldn’t want to burden you with the weighty responsibility of caring for these firearms. I’d be concerned about the worry and fretting that you would suffer from the custodial duty incumbent of someone else’s property. Knowing how nice a person you are, I’d feel guilty and very selfish by passing off the mundane chores of proper cleaning and oiling of these pistols to a gentleman of your high standing.

So it is with a heavy heart and deep regret that I must decline your charitable offer to care for my pistols.

 

[TFoley]

One law for the rich and one law for the poor? Really? I’m shocked.

'twas ever thus....

 

[Rat]

It is unlikely in the extreme that a gentleman who could afford the outrageous cost of a pair of duelling pistols from any of the established makers would actually use them for shooting birds of any kind. A pair of William Powell duelling pistols on sale here in UK for £17,500, would have cost around $300 when new. The 'exchange rate' is about x24 = ~$7500. An estate overseer might just earn $100 a year - a common farm labourer half that - or less.

The later cheating method of so-called 'secret rifling, that engraved the chamber end of the pistol barrel but not the visible portion of the muzzle. It was also called 'scratch rifling' and was, according to the English code, and was held to be the mark of a pistol owned by a cad, bounder, or rogue, but NOT a gentleman.

"Unlikely in the extreme" is a good way to put it. I'm very glad you did not say "never". Unlikely, but why not? I'd do it. I have a side arm that is valuable in the extreme, which I carry, and shoot often. (appraisers have told me in no uncertain terms "DO NOT shoot this pistol") So cost alone...not a factor. If you could afford to buy the things in the first place, you could afford to take them out, shoot them for fun/practice, or carry one of them around for any purpose that tickled one's fancy.

I'm amazed that rifled, or not rifled was such an issue back in the day. We know, that at dueling distance, there's not much difference between a rifled and smooth bore pistol. As mentioned before, the shakey hand, and nerve, would determine one's accuracy, or lack of.

 

[PluggedNickel]

Interestingly, I did a google search of David Pedersoli Charles Moore Flintlock Pistol, of all the images of them there were only a couple that had the ramrod up tight near the barrel at the nose cap. All the others, the rod tip was close or touching at the muzzle, but had a 1/8" or in at least one case even more gap at the nose cap. I must admit, the couple that had the thimble and ramrod tight against the under lug looked much cleaner/nicer to my eye.
This was a surprise to me. I expected better QC from Pedersoli. It looks to me like the ramrod and thimble at the muzzle are off center to the right (cock) side of the pistol as well, either that or the under lug is off center at the muzzle shudder! Dang, I hate this. I've done it to my own guns, loved them at first blush, and then the closer I looked.......Anyway, it looks like it is going to be a good shooter, but you did right contacting DP about the flaws. I'd see if you can send them the pictures as well. If they get back to you. One of our members contacted them some time ago, never got a reply. I hope you fare better. I really like the looks of those pistols. My new 1766 Charleville had flaws I'm fixing as well. It looked beautiful out of the box, but then I noticed the stock dings, scratches, lock work was awful, mim parts rough as a cob, burrs gouging lock plate, pan had .007" gap! Frizzen spring too heavy, hammer spring not too bad at 12 pounds. Lots of burrs, poor geometry on the hammer cam. Soft frizzen spring that was gouging deeply with just a few cocks from a very hard/rough, poorly shaped hammer cam. Wood to metal fit was excellent though.
Rat is right though, as for the dings, and small scratches, they will come with use anyway. It just kind of gets me though since their pieces are so expensive, you tend to expect more from them, the guns they show case in their pictures and videos are flawless of course, so you know they can do it right if the smiths are given the time.
Keep us posted on your progress.

 

[PluggedNickel]

As mentioned before, the shakey hand, and nerve, would determine one's accuracy, or lack of.

Flash back to Barney Fife! LOL

 

[Rat]

"As long as the ramrod isn't being warped out of shape, then it's function shouldn't be affected.
Many people probably don't even use the ramrod anyway and fire it without the ramrod in place."

I use a range rod with guide when using the pistol and the wood ramrod is the truck.

I don't think that is the point. Point being, a pistol in that price range should have the underlug, nose cap, and ram-rod thimbles fitted much better. I'm utterly amazed that they have the forward thimble standing proud on the under-lug. Again, even my Plains pistol has that inset into the lug. The rest of the pistol is well-fitted, why would they save $100 bucks or less by slapping the front of the gun together??

But I may have figured it out. (58, I pray this does not offend you) There's a room at Pedersoi's where Luigi, Mario, and Tony, master craftsmen, sit and make these pistols. The room is very quiet, with fine Italian classical music playing softly. Tony, Luigi, and Mario seldom talk, being so engrossed in their work, but when they do, the words are spoken most softly. No foreman puts time constraints on them, no boss tells them what to do. They build the Charles Moores, but stop before the nose cap, underlug, and ram-rod thimbles are installed.

Now Tony puts said pistols, carefully in a box. They are blessed by the village Priest. The mail room boy comes and takes them down the hall to another room, full of drunk monkeys, death-metal playing at 210db, pistols being fired off in the air, monkey poop flying through the air, parts and tools and cigar butts laying all over the floor, along with banana peels and potato chip bags, and wine bottles, and passed out drunk monkeys. This is where the pistols receive the nose caps, underlugs, and ram-rod thimbles.

Unfortunately this theory can neither be confirmed, or denied.

 

[Gene L]

"Unlikely in the extreme" is a good way to put it. I'm very glad you did not say "never". Unlikely, but why not? I'd do it. I have a side arm that is valuable in the extreme, which I carry, and shoot often. (appraisers have told me in no uncertain terms "DO NOT shoot this pistol") So cost alone...not a factor. If you could afford to buy the things in the first place, you could afford to take them out, shoot them for fun/practice, or carry one of them around for any purpose that tickled one's fancy.

I'm amazed that rifled, or not rifled was such an issue back in the day. We know, that at dueling distance, there's not much difference between a rifled and smooth bore pistol. As mentioned before, the shakey hand, and nerve, would determine one's accuracy, or lack of.

You grew up in an entirely different world, where shooting a pistol was done for fun, rather than in a society where one did not usually shoot for fun. You're applying your rules to 18th Century rules, where very few people could afford handguns, and the very rich wanted the best they could get as a practical gun for settling affairs of honor, to which there were books written to the code of the duel. To violate this code would get you censured among your peers, which was a horrible fate among the dueling class.