charleville musket id

[mastrsgt]

I just pruchased what the seller and I believe is a Navy Arms 1763 Charleville musket. I would like to know if there are any distinguishing features that would confirm that belief. There are no markings on the musket except a four digit number on the left side of the barrel oposite the lock. The lockplate is marked with Charleville in script and small fleur de lise just to the rear of the pan. The front barrel band resembles that of a 1766 model as shown in Newmann's Battle Weapons of the American Revolution. Can anybody give me any help on this?

Don R

 

[torn moc]

The nose band will be secured with a screw..the other 2 barrel band will be secured with a spring.
the next model the 1777 has one barrel band secrued by a spring and the other barrel band has no spring....
the 1763 is a very good musket....it's about time
you got one! :thumbsup:

 

[mastrsgt]

Thanks for the response Scalper. The front barrel band on this one is also secured by a spring and pin, no screw. Looking at it more closely today I think I can see where someone has filed the information normally on the barrel off. There are no remaining proof marks if there ever where any on it. I really like this gun. It sparks like crazy and the finish has a nice patina that only some age could give it. I can't wait to get to the range and start working with it.

Don R

 

[torn moc]

Heres a cool link to muskets...I cant fime ,my link to Charlevilles , but I will keep looking http://www.11thpa.org/neumann.html
good read

 

[Okwaho]

There were two models of French infantry muskets in the 1760's manufactured by the Royal Armories at Charleville, Maubege,and St.Etienne. They were the models 1763 and 1766 although there was some overlapping as is shown by the Rifle Shoppe catalogue which refers to Model 1763 and Models 1763-1766.The 1763 was reproduced by Navy Arms and the Japanese sold by Dixie. Both of these were better than average and either would be a good weapon to own.As to use by reenactors their use would be somewhat limited since they obviously post date the Seven Years War.There were apparently two models produced during the 1770's,the 1770-76 and the 1777 and it is likely that the French troops under Rochambeau at Yorktown would have been equipped with the latest guns available,the 1777's.Incidently Tulle achieved Royal Armory status in the 1770's so it is possible that some of the Model 1777's could be found marked by Tulle.

The 1766 was lighter than the 1763 and the lock size was reduced but I'm not sure about other minor changes between these two weapons.
I'm also not sure as to the arms of French troops on territory occupied by the French after the conquest and the Treaty of 1763 but they could have been armed with the 1763's and 1766's.I have always heard good things about both of these repros but I would consider the question of replacement parts.When I had my Dustin gun built I bought two Navy Arms 1763 locks. I used one for the Dustin gun and I am keeping the other as a spare.I don't know about the availability of parts,especially the Navy Arms guns.
Tom Patton

 

[Parzifal]

My Navy Arms Charleville has a nose cap not mounted by a screw either.

If you have had it apart you might notice the stock was 2 pieces...That may be a litmus test of sorts.

My charleville has as yet ony shot 20 or so live rounds so far ....I like it quite alot

The french muskets were definately more advanced in design then there contempories.

 

[Okwaho]

My youngest son has a Charleville musket that we gave him about 15+ years ago. I bought it from a friend who built it from a kit and as I remember it was a Navy Arms product.It had a solid stock rather than the two piece referred to above and I don't remember the screw/spring arrangement on the barrel bands.
Tom Patton

 

[mastrsgt]

Gentlemen,

Thank you all for your response to my question. A couple of additional points. The stock on my musket is one piece, at least I can not see any joint when it is fully disassembled. There are springs on the front and rear barrel bands but none on the center one. The lock measurements match those of the 1766 model, shorter than the 1763. The lock is 6 1/4 by 1 1/4 which match the 1766. The trigger guard is 12 3/4 which again matches the 1766 and not the 1763.

I guess my question at this point is, what was the Japanese model from Navy Arms based on? Was it a 1763 or a 1766? And is the more recent Navy Arms musket a 1766 and who is it made by? Pedersoli?

Don R

 

[torn moc]

is the butt stock dished out where the check rest is on rifles? if so it is a 1777....if not then is is a repro of an earlier Charle...

 

[mastrsgt]

Scalper,

No, it's definitly not a 1777. The butt is shaped diferent with no dish on the left side. I just can't tell if it's Japanese or Italian. I still haven't found any markings except the 4 digit number on the barrel. I may try to contact Navy Arms and see if they can provide any information.

Don R

 

[Tumblernotch]

My Japanese Charleville has band springs with studs on all of the bands, including the double fore-end band. The use of a screw to retain that band didn't come about until the M1777. My musket is basically a M1763, but, according to Neumann and identified specimens, the M1763 didn't have a retaining spring on the lower band. This was added on the M1768. As I write this, I see that a description of the '63 by Fuller shows that this model's barrel bands were all retained by studded band springs. Go figure.

The first model to have barrel bands was the M1728 and they were held by friction. The first model to have the springs was the M1754. There should be at least a middle band spring on yours.

Neumann also says that the M1768 was the model that was copied by the U.S. for the M1795 Springfield. I would agree even without measuring the locks, &c. One clue is the bayonet lug. It was moved to the top of the barrel on the '68 model and was on top on all U.S. muskets through the M1816. It was moved back to the bottom on the M1835 and stayed there on the M1842. All reproduction muskets I've seen have the lug on the bottom. The flashpan remained faceted in shape through the M1768. In 1772, this was changed to a rounded pan and in 1777 to a rounded brass pan.

My Charleville has a two piece stock, with the joint being hidden under the lower band. At least on this one, they matched the wood well, though a close look will reveal some mis-matched grain. You have to remove the band to really tell the difference

There were a lot of variations during this period, not to mention specimens turning up that had been altered in some way while being repaired during and after the war. I'm sure that the guys who set up the patterns for reproduction muskets have missed some things or have been confused and these companies are in some cases actually turning out models that never really existed back in the day.

As for what the Japanese musket is based on, I'd go with the M1763. First, the forward band on the M1766 is shaped differently. The rear of it slopes back, much like the band on the M1842 US musket. The lip that appeared on the M1763 disappeared on the M1766. My Charleville has one. It also has a fairly thick buttstock which was slimmed down on the '66. There is only 1/8" difference in the length of the lock and 1/4" difference in the triggerguard, so I don't figure they paid much attention to that detail, and as long as "thread counters" don't start measuring locks and other hardware, I wouldn't worry about it.

If someone really wanted to, he could modify a few things to make his musket to be as close as possible to the real thing. I've added a few marks and stamps where needed just for the heck of it, but this ain't critical. Main thing is, they're a hoot to shoot!


Just saw your last post. Mine had Japan stamped on top of the barrel between the breech and the lower band and a 4 digit s/n on the left side at the breech. Of course that's all gone now.

 

[mastrsgt]

KanawhaRanger,

Thanks for that information. I checked again and the stock is two piece, but has been epoxied where the joint would be. I feel kind of dumb for missing that the first time I checked. As I stated earlier, the barrel has been cleaned up except for the 4 digit s/n. This answers my main question in that it is a Japanese version. I have read a number of posts praising these and just wanted to be sure what I had. What has been your experience with this musket? Any mechanical problems? I really like the feel as compared to the long land that I have.

Don R

 

[Tumblernotch]

I've had no problems with mine. There are two things that bug me a little and one is the fact that the forward band is a little loose and I've had to shim it so that the front sight will stay still. The other is that there is no ramrod spring in the stock to keep the ramrod from slipping out if the gun is slung muzzle down. (I rarely do that anyway). I have read that this model should have had one. A friend of mine has a similiar repro Charlevile (I don't know the maker) and it does have the spring.

For a smoothbore with such a big lock, it is surprisingly accurate. It also handles shot well and throws a decent pattern out to 30 yds. As far as comfort in shooting, I would prefer the M1777, but this one's not bad.

I haven't had any mechanical problems. The lock parts are very robust and properly tempered. I did mill the tumbler so I could install a detent (fly), so that I could squeeze off my shots instead of having to jerk the trigger. If you squeeze it, the sear usually catches in the half-cock notch.

Hope this helps you out! :thumbsup: