Charleville repro Miroku vs. Pedersoli reputation

[wiscoaster]

Seeing as how I've got a Charleville on my "wanna" list I took note of a used Miroku made in Japan Dixie Gun Works branded 1766 Charleville currently offered on Gunbroker. It's in pretty rough shape, but nothing I couldn't deal with, if I could snag it at a reasonable price. But I'm unfamiliar with Miroku. I'd be comparing against a new Pedersoli kit. As far as Pedersoli, I know what I'm dealing with, as I've already done their kits. How does Miroku compare versus Pedersoli? What do I need to know to make an informed comparison and decision? Thanks.

Sorry, can't post link to GB auction here, but not that hard to find.

 

[simonbeans]

Try doing a search here as there have been many threads on the Miroku Charleville musket.

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
I know these guns very, very well. I've repaired and refurbished both. My first question for you is why or what do you want the gun for. Is it just to have a French musket to play with or do you intend to have it represent something historically accurate? Both are pretty good guns but they diverge when it comes to accurately representing what they purport to be. The Miroku gun intends to represent a "light" model 1763 or what many call the model 1766. and sometimes, model 1768. That was a musket supplied by France in large quantities during our Revolutionary War of which many were made at the Charleville arsenal. The Miroku Charleville is hands down the best commercial reproduction of a Rev War period musket ever made. The lock is a very good copy of the originals which was the best military flintlock ever made. As always with commercial repros, the lock can use some work to make it even better. They tend to have excessively strong mainsprings and the polishing inside the lock is nonexistent. The rest of the gun is good. The stock is 2 piece with the joint hidden under the rear barrel band. The architecture is pretty correct but can also use tweaking to make it more historically accurate. The fit of the barrel bands to the stock and barrel, particularly the large front band, could be a lot better. It also would benefit from a ramrod retaining spring like what was fitted on the originals. The steel rod tends to rattle and may be loose and slide forward when the musket is tipped muzzle down. Here are photos of one my shop reworked.

Now for the Pedersoli. I assume you refer to their model 1763/ 1766 offering. They are quite confused about what they made with this gun. It has the smaller barrel and lock from the model 1766 but a stock modeled after the heavy 1763's. Moreover it has a top jaw screw from much later muskets. Let me explain the light and heavy model 1763s. When the French redesigned their muskets after the 7-years War, they wanted a lighter and shorter musket. I kid you not but one reason for the shorter gun was that short soldiers complained about the lengths of the previous models. However, when they designed the new musket it had a shorter barrel but everything else was big. The lock, the stock, a heavy ramrod retaining mechanism, etc. The gun was no lighter than the previous muskets. This was the "heavy 1763". The stock had an abrupt and tall comb and was massive in other ways. French troops almost immediately complained. Consequently, the arsenal director at Charleville, redesigned the musket producing the "light 1763" otherwise known as the model 1766. This was the gun we call the Charleville during the Revolution. The Pedersoli musket is a confused mix of the heavy and light "63s" and adding features from much later guns. Now the good points. The Pedersoli musket is pretty well made, the fit of barrel bands is better than the Miroku, the lock is OK except for the top jaw screw, the stock is completely wrong. I've forged new mainsprings for 2 Pedersoli Charlevilles that broke. Anyway, getting back to my original question. If you want a good gun for reenacting the Rev War that is good quality and pretty historically accurate, the Miroku wins hands down. If that is not a consideration then I think it is a toss up.

dave

 

[Clark Badgett]

Hi,
I know these guns very, very well. I've repaired and refurbished both. My first question for you is why or what do you want the gun for. Is it just to have a French musket to play with or do you intend to have it represent something historically accurate? Both are pretty good guns but they diverge when it comes to accurately representing what they purport to be. The Miroku gun intends to represent a "light" model 1763 or what many call the model 1766. and sometimes, model 1768. That was a musket supplied by France in large quantities during our Revolutionary War of which many were made at the Charleville arsenal. The Miroku Charleville is hands down the best commercial reproduction of a Rev War period musket ever made. The lock is a very good copy of the originals which was the best military flintlock ever made. As always with commercial repros, the lock can use some work to make it even better. They tend to have excessively strong mainsprings and the polishing inside the lock is nonexistent. The rest of the gun is good. The stock is 2 piece with the joint hidden under the rear barrel band. The architecture is pretty correct but can also use tweaking to make it more historically accurate. The fit of the barrel bands to the stock and barrel, particularly the large front band, could be a lot better. It also would benefit from a ramrod retaining spring like what was fitted on the originals. The steel rod tends to rattle and may be loose and slide forward when the musket is tipped muzzle down. Here are photos of one my shop reworked.

Now for the Pedersoli. I assume you refer to their model 1763/ 1766 offering. They are quite confused about what they made with this gun. It has the smaller barrel and lock from the model 1766 but a stock modeled after the heavy 1763's. Moreover it has a top jaw screw from much later muskets. Let me explain the light and heavy model 1763s. When the French redesigned their muskets after the 7-years War, they wanted a lighter and shorter musket. I kid you not but one reason for the shorter gun was that short soldiers complained about the lengths of the previous models. However, when they designed the new musket it had a shorter barrel but everything else was big. The lock, the stock, a heavy ramrod retaining mechanism, etc. The gun was no lighter than the previous muskets. This was the "heavy 1763". The stock had an abrupt and tall comb and was massive in other ways. French troops almost immediately complained. Consequently, the arsenal director at Charleville, redesigned the musket producing the "light 1763" otherwise known as the model 1766. This was the gun we call the Charleville during the Revolution. The Pedersoli musket is a confused mix of the heavy and light "63s" and adding features from much later guns. Now the good points. The Pedersoli musket is pretty well made, the fit of barrel bands is better than the Miroku, the lock is OK except for the top jaw screw, the stock is completely wrong. I've forged new mainsprings for 2 Pedersoli Charlevilles that broke. Anyway, getting back to my original question. If you want a good gun for reenacting the Rev War that is good quality and pretty historically accurate, the Miroku wins hands down. If that is not a consideration then I think it is a toss up.

dave

Dave, could you elaborate on the rammer retaining spring. I’ve yet to be able to find anything on this part other than on the 1763 cavalry musketoon.

 

[TF Black]

I had a similar question last year and got the same good advice from Dave: the Miroku is generally a much more accurate representation of the 1766/1768 model most used by our troops.

FlinterNick also had a good detailed post over the summer about the pros and cons of the Pedersoli, but Dave has summarized the key points nicely.

In my opinion, the only potential advantage the Pedersoli has over the Miroku - aside from the fact that it is still being made! - is the wood. Most Mirokus I’ve seen have birch stocks (I understand Navy Arms did briefly offer a walnut stock upgrade?), while the Pedersolis are walnut.

 

[wiscoaster]

.... My first question for you is why or what do you want the gun for.

Thanks VERY much for your extensive and informative reply. My reasons are two-fold: 1) a representative instance of a Revolutionary War period firearm on the American side, and 2) a representative instance of a smooth bore military flintlock musket. My intended uses are also two-fold: 1) to have, and 2) to shoot. (ie I'm not a reenactor). Based on your comments, and since I'm going to have to invest some fair amount of elbow grease either way, I'm thinking the Miroku is the better choice.

 

[wiscoaster]

Oh, cr*p!! I just checked the listing and somebody already did the "buy now" and it's gone. Back to "keeping an eye open" but at least now better informed. Thanks guys!!

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
You could turn the Pedersoli into a pretty good model 1766 if you were handy shaping stocks. The top jaw screw has too large a hole and is too flat sided compared with the model 1766 but that is pretty minor. It does not have the heavy rod retaining spring attached to the back of the front band like the heavy 1763s so the forestock is pretty accurate for a model 1766 but you have to reduce the height of the comb, make the sides of the comb slightly fluted and greatly reduce the width of the flats around the lock. The lock as it comes is OK but can use cleaning up and polishing. The springs are strong but not as excessive as the Mirokus. It also is a pretty accurate shooter. One member of Warner's regiment "Green Mountain Boys) consistently hit a 9" round gong at 70 and 100 yards offhand with his Pedersoli Charleville. Moreover, he almost never has a misfire and particularly after I forged him a new mainspring.

Here is a link showing an original model 1766 so you can see how the Pedersoli would have to be modified.
https://collegehillarsenal.com/french-m1766-charleville-musket
dave

 

[rickystl]

Hi Dave

Thanks for providing this information and comparison. About three years ago I ran across this somewhat obscure auction and found this:
A Miroku Charleville new in the original box. I needed another smooth bore musket like I needed a hole in my head. But, of course, I knew how rare these are to come by today and gabbed it. Once in a great while you get a home run. It's still in the box unused. So now would be a good time to get the improvement suggestions you mentioned - especially while it's in new condition. Thanks again for your Posts.

Rick

 

[TF Black]

Rick, it also looks like you got one of the walnut stocked models – in my experience those are not common. Congrats!

 

[TFoley]

Let's not overlook the fact that Miroku/SKB makes centre-fire rifles for Winchester, Weatherby and Browning, including the beautiful Model of 1885 High Wall, as well as a whole scad of shotguns sold under other famous and highly-regarded brand names in USA.

 

[wiscoaster]

I think the one that got away from me was a walnut stock. Probably why someone jumped on the "buy now" with four days to go and only one bid. (and it wasn't the guy that put in the one bid, so there were two of us a little too slow to act, hah.)

 

[springfield art]

Seeing as how I've got a Charleville on my "wanna" list I took note of a used Miroku made in Japan Dixie Gun Works branded 1766 Charleville currently offered on Gunbroker. It's in pretty rough shape, but nothing I couldn't deal with, if I could snag it at a reasonable price. But I'm unfamiliar with Miroku. I'd be comparing against a new Pedersoli kit. As far as Pedersoli, I know what I'm dealing with, as I've already done their kits. How does Miroku compare versus Pedersoli? What do I need to know to make an informed comparison and decision? Thanks.

Sorry, can't post link to GB auction here, but not that hard to find.

Miroku makes super high quality modern firearms, and some high quality muzzle loaders, but I think they also made some of the clunky flintlock pistols, too. I have a non-Pedersoli Charleville, it's marked Japan I believe, but don't know if it actually has a "Miroku" stamp. It's high quality. I'm sure someone with more specific info will contact you.

 

[wiscoaster]

Question here for the excellent Mr. @dave_person - would you say that the Pedersoli repro of the 1795 Springfield is more faithful to the original than their Charleville?

 

[FlinterNick]

Seeing as how I've got a Charleville on my "wanna" list I took note of a used Miroku made in Japan Dixie Gun Works branded 1766 Charleville currently offered on Gunbroker. It's in pretty rough shape, but nothing I couldn't deal with, if I could snag it at a reasonable price. But I'm unfamiliar with Miroku. I'd be comparing against a new Pedersoli kit. As far as Pedersoli, I know what I'm dealing with, as I've already done their kits. How does Miroku compare versus Pedersoli? What do I need to know to make an informed comparison and decision? Thanks.

Sorry, can't post link to GB auction here, but not that hard to find.

They’re both very different style muskets, even though they’re titled the same they’re not the same.

The miroku charleville, is as faithful and genuine a reproduction you can get to an original 1766, it’s slightly heavier than an original, but not by much. A miroku Charleville is patterned after a late model 1766, one that was made with a rear band spring but not stepped at the forearm like the later 1768 and 1769 variants.

Early model 1766’s had a friction fit rear and and a front band that had a slightly taper at the mouth, the one pictured below is an early model 1766.

The pedersoli 1763/66 is not an odd one to explain, it’s not really true to any specific pattern but has all of the size features of a heavy model 1763, mostly the stock.

Compared to an original 1766, the pedersoli musket is massive, everything is much larger, even the band springs.

The stock is more robust in the wrist and butt and forearm like a 1763, however doesn’t stay true to any real pattern. A 1763 had a high comb like the pedersoli however, the cross section of an original 1763 swelled significantly compared to it, The swell deeply defined the flutes. The wrist and butt were also slightly longer with a larger breech area to accommodate a barrel with a breech that was almost 1.575 tall and 1.55 wide. The originals I’ve measured are an average of 1.450 at the breech. The pedersoli breech is around 1.325”.

An original 1763 was in a minimum of .69 and maximum caliber of .72 with a barrel that tapered significantly from from breech to muzzle, the pedersoli barrel is pretty straight. Both barrels have a weight around 5lbs, the heaviest original I’ve weighed was 5.25 lbs with much of the weight being in breech up to 22”.

The barrel bands on the pedersoli 1763/66 dont’ match any pattern, they’re thick placed incorrectly, and add a lot of weight becuase they’re so needlessly heavier. An original 1763 musket had a unique barrel band system that used a long rammer guide that was riveted from the front band and sistered to the middle band. Sometimes called a spring, it acted more Ike a gutter or guide as the musket also had a rammer spoon pinned beneath the breech. An original 1763 middle and front band were 11 1/2 inches apart, a pedersoli has them set 14 1/2 inches apart, an original 1766 had them around 14” apart.

Ramrod on a 1763/66 pedersoli is not shapped right, they were button shaped and later models were trumpeted. The navy arms rammer is not too bad but would be a later pattern.

To add to the guns weight, the pedersoli sports a massive ramrod that weighs almost over 1lb, the total weight of a pedersoli 1763 is around 11lbs, the heaviest 1763 was around 10.25 lbs.

The pedersoli 1766 lock is massive, like an original 1763 however it is disproportionate in size to an original 1763. An original 1763 has larger springs, and a longer plate. The Italian pattern 1763 has very thick massive internals and smaller springs with a plate that is nearly 1/4 thick at 6 5/16 inches long compared to an original plate that is around 7” long.

The 1763 musket in my opinion was an experimental design that changed many times over before it was finalized int the 1766, some are very heavy to modestly heavy with some being the same weight as a 1766 musket. In the picture Below are two variants, an early 1763 from Marburge and one from charleville around 1764 with the last picture being a 1763/66 pedersoli.

Can a 1763/66 pedersoli be altered to a 1766…. I wouldn’t and have turned down the requests for many reasons, modifications to it would never really match an original within tolerances of what many call a 6ft test. A big reason is the butt stocks, french muskets had a slightly longer butt stock with a swelled cross section that can’t be easily distinguished from photos, you really need to hold an original to get a better understanding of its shape and feel. The lock on a pedersoli charleville is a few ounces too large, as are the bands and the trigger guard needs to be welded from two pieces into one. Ironically the sling swivels are too tiny compared to the originals.

In its original state a pedersoli 1763/66 is really a nice working quality musket. What I’ve done is made new springs, swapped out the frizzen and mainspring to a more french pattern and made a new top jaw screw, as Dave mentioned above. Otherwise reshaping the butt stock by reducting the comb is always an option. The forearms are bit complicated, in that the bands are so large and heavy, reducing the forstock woudln't be wise unless you were going to cut and weld the bands so they fit well after reducing the forestock.

A navy arms miroku charleville is close but still somewhat displaced in size but close enough.

The best option is to restock a navy arms musket from the factory birch stock to a walnut stock with the correct butt stock and forearm patterns for a 1766-1769 pattern (1769 pattern had moved the bayonet lug).

 

[FlinterNick]

They’re both very different style muskets, even though they’re titled the same they’re not the same.

The miroku charleville, is as faithful and genuine a reproduction you can get to an original 1766, it’s slightly heavier than an original, but not by much. A miroku Charleville is patterned after a late model 1766, one that was made with a rear band spring but not stepped at the forearm like the later 1768 and 1769 variants.

Early model 1766’s had a friction fit rear and and a front band that had a slightly taper at the mouth, the one pictured below is an early model 1766.

The pedersoli 1763/66 is not an odd one to explain, it’s not really true to any specific pattern but has all of the size features of a heavy model 1763, mostly the stock.

Compared to an original 1766, the pedersoli musket is massive, everything is much larger, even the band springs.

The stock is more robust in the wrist and butt and forearm like a 1763, however doesn’t stay true to any real pattern. A 1763 had a high comb like the pedersoli however, the cross section of an original 1763 swelled significantly compared to it, The swell deeply defined the flutes. The wrist and butt were also slightly longer with a larger breech area to accommodate a barrel with a breech that was almost 1.575 tall and 1.55 wide. The originals I’ve measured are an average of 1.450 at the breech. The pedersoli breech is around 1.325”.

An original 1763 was in a minimum of .69 and maximum caliber of .72 with a barrel that tapered significantly from from breech to muzzle, the pedersoli barrel is pretty straight. Both barrels have a weight around 5lbs, the heaviest original I’ve weighed was 5.25 lbs with much of the weight being in breech up to 22”.

The barrel bands on the pedersoli 1763/66 dont’ match any pattern, they’re thick placed incorrectly, and add a lot of weight becuase they’re so needlessly heavier. An original 1763 musket had a unique barrel band system that used a long rammer guide that was riveted from the front band and sistered to the middle band. Sometimes called a spring, it acted more Ike a gutter or guide as the musket also had a rammer spoon pinned beneath the breech.

To add to the guns weight, the pedersoli sports a massive ramrod that weighs almost over 1lb, the total weight of a pedersoli 1763 is around 11lbs, the heaviest 1763 was around 10.25 lbs.

The pedersoli 1766 lock is massive, like an original 1763 however it is disproportionate in size to an original 1763. An original 1763 has larger springs, and a longer plate. The Italian pattern 1763 has very thick massive internals and smaller springs with a plate that is nearly 1/4 thick at 6 5/16 inches long compared to an original plate that is around 7” long.

The 1763 musket in my opinion was an experimental design that changed many times over before it was finalized int the 1766, some are very heavy to modestly heavy with some being the same weight as a 1766 musket. In the picture Below are two variants, an early 1763 from Marburge and one from charleville around 1764 with the last picture being a 1763/66 pedersoli.

Can a 1763/66 pedersoli be altered to a 1766…. I wouldn’t and have turned down the requests for many reasons, modifications to it would never really match an original within tolerances of what many call a 6ft test. A big reason is the butt stocks, french muskets had butt stock with a swelled cross section that can’t be easily distinguished from photos, you really need to hold an original to get a better understanding of its shape and feel. A navy arms miroku sharlevilel is close but still somewhat displaced in size.

A modified 1766 navy arms musket that is restocked to confirm to an original 1766 stock pattern by Gutenberg.

 

[FlinterNick]

Both a 1763 and 1766 used a rammer spoon was pinned to a lug 8” from the breech.

Some 1768s had a special rear band as modified by the 1770 pattern with a rammer spoon screwed to it.

 

[wiscoaster]

@FlinterNick THANK YOU!! Pics are very informative.

 

[FlinterNick]

They’re both very different style muskets, even though they’re titled the same they’re not the same.

The miroku charleville, is as faithful and genuine a reproduction you can get to an original 1766, it’s slightly heavier than an original, but not by much. A miroku Charleville is patterned after a late model 1766, one that was made with a rear band spring but not stepped at the forearm like the later 1768 and 1769 variants.

Early model 1766’s had a friction fit rear and and a front band that had a slightly taper at the mouth, the one pictured below is an early model 1766.

The pedersoli 1763/66 is not an odd one to explain, it’s not really true to any specific pattern but has all of the size features of a heavy model 1763, mostly the stock.

Compared to an original 1766, the pedersoli musket is massive, everything is much larger, even the band springs.

The stock is more robust in the wrist and butt and forearm like a 1763, however doesn’t stay true to any real pattern. A 1763 had a high comb like the pedersoli however, the cross section of an original 1763 swelled significantly compared to it, The swell deeply defined the flutes. The wrist and butt were also slightly longer with a larger breech area to accommodate a barrel with a breech that was almost 1.575 tall and 1.55 wide. The originals I’ve measured are an average of 1.450 at the breech. The pedersoli breech is around 1.325”.

An original 1763 was in a minimum of .69 and maximum caliber of .72 with a barrel that tapered significantly from from breech to muzzle, the pedersoli barrel is pretty straight. Both barrels have a weight around 5lbs, the heaviest original I’ve weighed was 5.25 lbs with much of the weight being in breech up to 22”.

The barrel bands on the pedersoli 1763/66 dont’ match any pattern, they’re thick placed incorrectly, and add a lot of weight becuase they’re so needlessly heavier. An original 1763 musket had a unique barrel band system that used a long rammer guide that was riveted from the front band and sistered to the middle band. Sometimes called a spring, it acted more Ike a gutter or guide as the musket also had a rammer spoon pinned beneath the breech. An original 1763 middle and front band were 11 1/2 inches apart, a pedersoli has them set 14 1/2 inches apart, an original 1766 had them around 14” apart.

Ramrod on a 1763/66 pedersoli is not shapped right, they were button shaped and later models were trumpeted. The navy arms rammer is not too bad but would be a later pattern.

To add to the guns weight, the pedersoli sports a massive ramrod that weighs almost over 1lb, the total weight of a pedersoli 1763 is around 11lbs, the heaviest 1763 was around 10.25 lbs.

The pedersoli 1766 lock is massive, like an original 1763 however it is disproportionate in size to an original 1763. An original 1763 has larger springs, and a longer plate. The Italian pattern 1763 has very thick massive internals and smaller springs with a plate that is nearly 1/4 thick at 6 5/16 inches long compared to an original plate that is around 7” long.

The 1763 musket in my opinion was an experimental design that changed many times over before it was finalized int the 1766, some are very heavy to modestly heavy with some being the same weight as a 1766 musket. In the picture Below are two variants, an early 1763 from Marburge and one from charleville around 1764 with the last picture being a 1763/66 pedersoli.

Can a 1763/66 pedersoli be altered to a 1766…. I wouldn’t and have turned down the requests for many reasons, modifications to it would never really match an original within tolerances of what many call a 6ft test. A big reason is the butt stocks, french muskets had a slightly longer butt stock with a swelled cross section that can’t be easily distinguished from photos, you really need to hold an original to get a better understanding of its shape and feel. The lock on a pedersoli charleville is a few ounces too large, as are the bands and the trigger guard needs to be welded from two pieces into one. Ironically the sling swivels are too tiny compared to the originals.

In its original state a pedersoli 1763/66 is really a nice working quality musket. What I’ve done is made new springs, swapped out the frizzen and mainspring to a more french pattern and made a new top jaw screw, as Dave mentioned above. Otherwise reshaping the butt stock by reducting the comb is always an option. The forearms are bit complicated, in that the bands are so large and heavy, reducing the forstock woudln't be wise unless you were going to cut and weld the bands so they fit well after reducing the forestock.

A navy arms miroku charleville is close but still somewhat displaced in size but close enough.

The best option is to restock a navy arms musket from the factory birch stock to a walnut stock with the correct butt stock and forearm patterns for a 1766-1769 pattern (1769 pattern had moved the bayonet lug).

Original 1763 musket barrel band system.

In the last picture you can see a brass rivet that is holding the guide. One other specimen I’ve seen had the rammer guide brazed or tinned to the upper band, Monmouth Battlefield museum has a very nice specimen.

 

[FlinterNick]

They’re both very different style muskets, even though they’re titled the same they’re not the same.

The miroku charleville, is as faithful and genuine a reproduction you can get to an original 1766, it’s slightly heavier than an original, but not by much. A miroku Charleville is patterned after a late model 1766, one that was made with a rear band spring but not stepped at the forearm like the later 1768 and 1769 variants.

Early model 1766’s had a friction fit rear and and a front band that had a slightly taper at the mouth, the one pictured below is an early model 1766.

The pedersoli 1763/66 is not an odd one to explain, it’s not really true to any specific pattern but has all of the size features of a heavy model 1763, mostly the stock.

Compared to an original 1766, the pedersoli musket is massive, everything is much larger, even the band springs.

The stock is more robust in the wrist and butt and forearm like a 1763, however doesn’t stay true to any real pattern. A 1763 had a high comb like the pedersoli however, the cross section of an original 1763 swelled significantly compared to it, The swell deeply defined the flutes. The wrist and butt were also slightly longer with a larger breech area to accommodate a barrel with a breech that was almost 1.575 tall and 1.55 wide. The originals I’ve measured are an average of 1.450 at the breech. The pedersoli breech is around 1.325”.

An original 1763 was in a minimum of .69 and maximum caliber of .72 with a barrel that tapered significantly from from breech to muzzle, the pedersoli barrel is pretty straight. Both barrels have a weight around 5lbs, the heaviest original I’ve weighed was 5.25 lbs with much of the weight being in breech up to 22”.

The barrel bands on the pedersoli 1763/66 dont’ match any pattern, they’re thick placed incorrectly, and add a lot of weight becuase they’re so needlessly heavier. An original 1763 musket had a unique barrel band system that used a long rammer guide that was riveted from the front band and sistered to the middle band. Sometimes called a spring, it acted more Ike a gutter or guide as the musket also had a rammer spoon pinned beneath the breech. An original 1763 middle and front band were 11 1/2 inches apart, a pedersoli has them set 14 1/2 inches apart, an original 1766 had them around 14” apart.

Ramrod on a 1763/66 pedersoli is not shapped right, they were button shaped and later models were trumpeted. The navy arms rammer is not too bad but would be a later pattern.

To add to the guns weight, the pedersoli sports a massive ramrod that weighs almost over 1lb, the total weight of a pedersoli 1763 is around 11lbs, the heaviest 1763 was around 10.25 lbs.

The pedersoli 1766 lock is massive, like an original 1763 however it is disproportionate in size to an original 1763. An original 1763 has larger springs, and a longer plate. The Italian pattern 1763 has very thick massive internals and smaller springs with a plate that is nearly 1/4 thick at 6 5/16 inches long compared to an original plate that is around 7” long.

The 1763 musket in my opinion was an experimental design that changed many times over before it was finalized int the 1766, some are very heavy to modestly heavy with some being the same weight as a 1766 musket. In the picture Below are two variants, an early 1763 from Marburge and one from charleville around 1764 with the last picture being a 1763/66 pedersoli.

Can a 1763/66 pedersoli be altered to a 1766…. I wouldn’t and have turned down the requests for many reasons, modifications to it would never really match an original within tolerances of what many call a 6ft test. A big reason is the butt stocks, french muskets had a slightly longer butt stock with a swelled cross section that can’t be easily distinguished from photos, you really need to hold an original to get a better understanding of its shape and feel. The lock on a pedersoli charleville is a few ounces too large, as are the bands and the trigger guard needs to be welded from two pieces into one. Ironically the sling swivels are too tiny compared to the originals.

In its original state a pedersoli 1763/66 is really a nice working quality musket. What I’ve done is made new springs, swapped out the frizzen and mainspring to a more french pattern and made a new top jaw screw, as Dave mentioned above. Otherwise reshaping the butt stock by reducting the comb is always an option. The forearms are bit complicated, in that the bands are so large and heavy, reducing the forstock woudln't be wise unless you were going to cut and weld the bands so they fit well after reducing the forestock.

A navy arms miroku charleville is close but still somewhat displaced in size but close enough.

The best option is to restock a navy arms musket from the factory birch stock to a walnut stock with the correct butt stock and forearm patterns for a 1766-1769 pattern (1769 pattern had moved the bayonet lug).

1763/66 pedersoli charleville vs original early 1766 Charleville musket from the Marburge factory.

The side by side picture of the buttstock shows how much thicker the original cross section is, and the butt plate shape and why its difficult to authentic in a defarb.

The Pedersoli’s size dwarfs the original.