Charleville muskets

[spudnut]

I think this will be my next musket, Any thoughts between the different models? Not wanting the Springfield as I want something that fits into a period that a civilian might have a cast off or surplus musket,that puts the springer too late.

 

[hawkeye2]

1763 and 1766 were the most likely to have been found in the hands of a civilian after the Revolution.

 

[FlinterNick]

Well the first thing you’d have to consider is what’s out there.

The most desirable charleville reproduction is by Miruko, they’re patterned after a quasi 1766/68 pattern with some authenticity issues regarding the stock, but none the less a very good repro probably the best quality. These were marketed by Navy Arms and Dixie Gun Works.

Pedersoli made a very nice early 1766 Charleville in the Bicentential, these were very graceful full stock charleville muskets which are extremely difficult to find.

The Pederslli 1766 ‘Leger’ Charleville is a hybrid design of the earlier 1763 Charleville with a heavier stock and barrel and larger lock design. While not historically accurate, this is a very fine quality musket to own and shoot.

Loyalist Arms has a 1768 Charleville, this gun is for the most part historically inaccurate. The quality of the gun I’d rank pretty low, its barrel is not tapered correctly and the butt stock is more like a 1777 pattern. The lock is not shaped correctly, with a cock screw that is washered and a very chunky looking lock overall.

Loyalist Arms 1728 Charleville is a very nice gun, for both French and Indian and Revolutionary War and would have been found in the hands of colonial militia. The design is very accurate and from experience a good shooter. The stock is designed almost perfectly, the lock done very well for an Indian made musket. The barrel is more on the heavier side, but many would consider this a benefit.

The Rifle Shoppe offer’s several copies of French muskets which are for the most part fully accurate when assembled correctly. All of these guns are stocked with correct walnut and barrels by either Colerain or Ed Rayl.

Pretty much almost any French musket 1717 - 1774 would have been found in the hands of civilians after the American Revolution. With the 1717, 1728 and 1746 parts often found on American Muskets.

 

[spudnut]

Had a1717, by the time I finished a woods walk it slapped me silly. When I had a bess I had to hold my head way back and sight down it, very good shooter, this was a 1st model narregansett arms. These days pedersolis, trs ,are out of my price range, I hope to go with either loyalist, or the other canada source.

 

[Steve Blancard]

I have a Miroku Charleville that I remade into a US model 1795 musket. It is an excellent musket and a great sparker.

 

[spudnut]

I have a Miroku Charleville that I remade into a US model 1795 musket. It is an excellent musket and a great sparker.

I dont think Ive ever seen a miroku charley though ive heard of them. I had two besses by them from dixie( one was my first flinter) wish I still had them.

 

[springfield art]

Well the first thing you’d have to consider is what’s out there.

The most desirable charleville reproduction is by Miruko, they’re patterned after a quasi 1766/68 pattern with some authenticity issues regarding the stock, but none the less a very good repro probably the best quality. These were marketed by Navy Arms and Dixie Gun Works.

Pedersoli made a very nice early 1766 Charleville in the Bicentential, these were very graceful full stock charleville muskets which are extremely difficult to find.

The Pederslli 1766 ‘Leger’ Charleville is a hybrid design of the earlier 1763 Charleville with a heavier stock and barrel and larger lock design. While not historically accurate, this is a very fine quality musket to own and shoot.

Loyalist Arms has a 1768 Charleville, this gun is for the most part historically inaccurate. The quality of the gun I’d rank pretty low, its barrel is not tapered correctly and the butt stock is more like a 1777 pattern. The lock is not shaped correctly, with a cock screw that is washered and a very chunky looking lock overall.

Loyalist Arms 1728 Charleville is a very nice gun, for both French and Indian and Revolutionary War and would have been found in the hands of colonial militia. The design is very accurate and from experience a good shooter. The stock is designed almost perfectly, the lock done very well for an Indian made musket. The barrel is more on the heavier side, but many would consider this a benefit.

The Rifle Shoppe offer’s several copies of French muskets which are for the most part fully accurate when assembled correctly. All of these guns are stocked with correct walnut and barrels by either Colerain or Ed Rayl.

Pretty much almost any French musket 1717 - 1774 would have been found in the hands of civilians after the American Revolution. With the 1717, 1728 and 1746 parts often found on American Muskets.

Yeah! I have a Navy Arms Charley that I bought at auction several years ago; in almost like-new condition, it still cost $600 plus tax and fees. The prices on these muskets really put a crimp on guys with a tight budget. Demand for repro Besses at auction is strong.
Good to find out some helpful info about the Charleys, thank you.

 

[Steve Blancard]

I dont think Ive ever seen a miroku charley though ive heard of them. I had two besses by them from dixie( one was my first flinter) wish I still had them.

Here is my Miroku Charleville, made into a US model 1795.

 

[FlinterNick]

Yeah! I have a Navy Arms Charley that I bought at auction several years ago; in almost like-new condition, it still cost $600 plus tax and fees. The prices on these muskets really put a crimp on guys with a tight budget. Demand for repro Besses at auction is strong.
Good to find out some helpful info about the Charleys, thank you.

Charleville's are just as popular today as they were in 1775 lol. The American military armor’s enjoyed the simplicity of removing barrel bands rather than drifting Brown Bess pinned barrels, and the American troops valued them, as most Charleville’s weighted between 8.5 - 10.5 lbs, with the heaviest charleville still being lighter than the average 11-12 lb Brown Bess.

The downside to the reproduction Charleville by Navy Arms is the stock isn’t correct for the Rev War period, most groups don’t make an issue of it, but the 1766/68 charleville had a shouldered rear band, about 1/2 more drop in the butt and no lock panel's, mechanically the lock and barrels are perfect as well as all other parts, the only thing missing is a ramrod spoon that was pinned beneath the breech to a lug soldered to the barrel. Many older Navy Arms guns were restocked, as the stocks by Dixie Gun Works and Navy Arms were not great quality, soft and very delicate. Originals were once piece and well seasoned walnut that had been dried for 4-6 years at French arsenals, when you look at an original you can see how much stronger the stock is.

The Indian made 1768 Charleville’s by Loyalist and Veteran Arms are no where near in comparison to the quality and authenticity.

 

[springfield art]

Charleville's are just as popular today as they were in 1775 lol. The American military armor’s enjoyed the simplicity of removing barrel bands rather than drifting Brown Bess pinned barrels, and the American troops valued them, as most Charleville’s weighted between 8.5 - 10.5 lbs, with the heaviest charleville still being lighter than the average 11-12 lb Brown Bess.

The downside to the reproduction Charleville by Navy Arms is the stock isn’t correct for the Rev War period, most groups don’t make an issue of it, but the 1766/68 charleville had a shouldered rear band, about 1/2 more drop in the butt and no lock panel's, mechanically the lock and barrels are perfect as well as all other parts, the only thing missing is a ramrod spoon that was pinned beneath the breech to a lug soldered to the barrel. Many older Navy Arms guns were restocked, as the stocks by Dixie Gun Works and Navy Arms were not great quality, soft and very delicate. Originals were once piece and well seasoned walnut that had been dried for 4-6 years at French arsenals, when you look at an original you can see how much stronger the stock is.

The Indian made 1768 Charleville’s by Loyalist and Veteran Arms are no where near in comparison to the quality and authenticity.

Good info, thanks. Anyone really that concerned about stock architecture in the reenacting field has to be OCD, in MHO. That original weight problem, offa! Lugging that thing around! Real early on, about 1976,I bought one of the first Charlies offered; it was completely unusable until hours of work were done on it; the spring could barely be cocked by a strong grown man! I don't know what the maker was, but was not Indian. It went on to be a fine enactment musket for many years. Nice that someone does research this stuff, thanks.

 

[FlinterNick]

Good info, thanks. Anyone really that concerned about stock architecture in the reenacting field has to be OCD, in MHO. That original weight problem, offa! Lugging that thing around! Real early on, about 1976,I bought one of the first Charlies offered; it was completely unusable until hours of work were done on it; the spring could barely be cocked by a strong grown man! I don't know what the maker was, but was not Indian. It went on to be a fine enactment musket for many years. Nice that someone does research this stuff, thanks.

The original charlevilles were made with lighter stronger stocks than the repros by miruko or pedersoli; the Indian guns have about 1.5 - 2 extra lbs of teak or rosewood weight and are much denser because of the tight grained teak woods used

 

[springfield art]

The original charlevilles were made with lighter stronger stocks than the repros by miruko or pedersoli; the Indian guns have about 1.5 - 2 extra lbs of teak or rosewood weight and are much denser because of the tight grained teak woods used

Oh, well, you can always use the old teak stocks to re-deck your classic boat!

 

[Stantheman86]

 

[longtoothpard]

Charleville's are just as popular today as they were in 1775 lol. The American military armor’s enjoyed the simplicity of removing barrel bands rather than drifting Brown Bess pinned barrels, and the American troops valued them, as most Charleville’s weighted between 8.5 - 10.5 lbs, with the heaviest charleville still being lighter than the average 11-12 lb Brown Bess.

The downside to the reproduction Charleville by Navy Arms is the stock isn’t correct for the Rev War period, most groups don’t make an issue of it, but the 1766/68 charleville had a shouldered rear band, about 1/2 more drop in the butt and no lock panel's, mechanically the lock and barrels are perfect as well as all other parts, the only thing missing is a ramrod spoon that was pinned beneath the breech to a lug soldered to the barrel. Many older Navy Arms guns were restocked, as the stocks by Dixie Gun Works and Navy Arms were not great quality, soft and very delicate. Originals were once piece and well seasoned walnut that had been dried for 4-6 years at French arsenals, when you look at an original you can see how much stronger the stock is.

The Indian made 1768 Charleville’s by Loyalist and Veteran Arms are no where near in comparison to the quality and authenticity.

Are those pics taken in the NRA National Sporting Arms Museum at Bass Pro Shop in Springfield, MO? I used to work in that museum and recognize them.

 

[FlinterNick]

Are those pics taken in the NRA National Sporting Arms Museum at Bass Pro Shop in Springfield, MO? I used to work in that museum and recognize them.

Yes, that;s were I took the pictures of that Charleville. Its a very good specimen.

 

[longtoothpard]

These are pretty cool too.
https://emuseum.history.org/objects/16205/model-1768-infantry-musket

 

[FlinterNick]

These are pretty cool too.
https://emuseum.history.org/objects/16205/model-1768-infantry-musket

I was able to view the 1763 in Williamsburg, its a very rare one. Almost untouched from its manufacturing original form, an indication is the very high comb on the buttstock.

I had often wondered where pedersoli made their 1763/66 pattern from, it appears to be an attempt at copying a very early 1763 Which is often called the stansville musket by DidlerBianchi.

https://emuseum.history.org/objects...bb7317dbf5649f9d7a1510d84282e03a8ee9ce8&idx=3