Recently I had the extreme good fortune to acquire a Navy Arms/Miroku Charleville replica from fellow forum member @rickystl. Rick told me that he'd owned the Charleville for some 40 years and it had never been shot. So it was basically "New In Box". And indeed not only was it "in box" but I found not a single scratch on the frizzen, and even the lockworks were still coated with factory grease. You can see detailed pics of Rick's Charleville here in his classified ad: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/miroku-1766-charleville-musket-nib.179827/
I cleaned the lock, polished all the metal, and gave the stock a fresh coat of oil, and after I had gotten some balls and some flints, I assembled my range kit to shoot a .69 caliber musket. I tested sparking and ignition at home (20 grains in the chamber only sounds about as loud as a cap gun when fired in the basement).
Today was a beautiful day, so the Charleville, powder, balls, range kit, etc. and I headed to the range.
The plan was to see where it was hitting at 25 yards and then move to 50 yards. Also to try loading with some different balls and patches, wads, etc. The balls I brought along were the recommended 0.675, and several different patches. I found they were extremely tight and difficult to start, even with my thinnest 0.010 patch. I had anticipated being able to start and load with just the rammer. Not. Unfortunately, the starters I had in my kit had loading tips way too small for this caliber, and the balls required some serious pounding to get them started, significantly deforming the balls, and so trying to determine point of impact for point of aim even at 25 yards was impossible. Though I did make some pretty big holes in the target backboard. I had better loading success with bare ball on powder, topped off with a paper wad made from crumpled newspaper and lubed with spit. I noted that a patched ball went down much easier past about six inches, and so I'm going to try some very minor coning and bore polishing before next outing. And next outing, I'll also have some smaller balls, and will also try loading them from paper cartridges.
Adding to my loading and shooting frustrations was a meet going on down the line at the 100 yard range, which required lengthy cease-fires while they went out and scored their targets, so I was only able to get off seven shots in an hour and a half. Only one hole in the target and four holes somwhere in the backboard. So I never did get anywhere close to even my first goal of the day.
Anyway, though the Charleville and I didn't get off to the smoothest of starts, I do know that in times past some of the firearms that have caused me the most problems and frustrations at first, through resolving those, have come to be some of my favorite firearms. If a firearm doesn't pose some challenges, it's probably going to be a bore to shoot.
This is one beautiful gun, no doubt. Many say it's more faithful to the Charleville than the Pedersoli. I'm no Charleville expert, but this replica also does seem to be somewhere in between Charleville variants. It's got the pinned rear barrel band and other little differences. No matter. Its place in my collection is to represent an instance of a U.S. Military arm used in the Revolutionary War, and I think it serves its purpose there just fine.
I cleaned the lock, polished all the metal, and gave the stock a fresh coat of oil, and after I had gotten some balls and some flints, I assembled my range kit to shoot a .69 caliber musket. I tested sparking and ignition at home (20 grains in the chamber only sounds about as loud as a cap gun when fired in the basement).
Today was a beautiful day, so the Charleville, powder, balls, range kit, etc. and I headed to the range.
The plan was to see where it was hitting at 25 yards and then move to 50 yards. Also to try loading with some different balls and patches, wads, etc. The balls I brought along were the recommended 0.675, and several different patches. I found they were extremely tight and difficult to start, even with my thinnest 0.010 patch. I had anticipated being able to start and load with just the rammer. Not. Unfortunately, the starters I had in my kit had loading tips way too small for this caliber, and the balls required some serious pounding to get them started, significantly deforming the balls, and so trying to determine point of impact for point of aim even at 25 yards was impossible. Though I did make some pretty big holes in the target backboard. I had better loading success with bare ball on powder, topped off with a paper wad made from crumpled newspaper and lubed with spit. I noted that a patched ball went down much easier past about six inches, and so I'm going to try some very minor coning and bore polishing before next outing. And next outing, I'll also have some smaller balls, and will also try loading them from paper cartridges.
Adding to my loading and shooting frustrations was a meet going on down the line at the 100 yard range, which required lengthy cease-fires while they went out and scored their targets, so I was only able to get off seven shots in an hour and a half. Only one hole in the target and four holes somwhere in the backboard. So I never did get anywhere close to even my first goal of the day.
Anyway, though the Charleville and I didn't get off to the smoothest of starts, I do know that in times past some of the firearms that have caused me the most problems and frustrations at first, through resolving those, have come to be some of my favorite firearms. If a firearm doesn't pose some challenges, it's probably going to be a bore to shoot.
This is one beautiful gun, no doubt. Many say it's more faithful to the Charleville than the Pedersoli. I'm no Charleville expert, but this replica also does seem to be somewhere in between Charleville variants. It's got the pinned rear barrel band and other little differences. No matter. Its place in my collection is to represent an instance of a U.S. Military arm used in the Revolutionary War, and I think it serves its purpose there just fine.
Last edited:
