French musket choice.

[Musketeer]

I got a chance to handle a repro AN-IX 1777 French musket last week, and I fell in love! Trouble is, I also have developed a fondness for the 1717 French musket. Do any of you own either of these? The 1777 looks a bit more robust, but the 1717 is much sleeker and more elegant looking :imo:. Any advice? Any suggestions? Thanks. :thumbsup:

P.S. What about the brass pan on the '77? Does anyone know the reason for this?

 

[Wes/Tex]

"What about the brass pan on the '77? Does anyone know the reason for this?"

The brass pan was added to the French line of muskets to prevent corrosion of the pan as would possibly happened with an iron pan. This was a intelligence step forward in design and was copied by the U.S. starting with the later marks of the M.1795 muskets. The pans were also removable from the lock plate so they could be clean separately or replaced it damaged...another positive design point.

As to the design of the guns themselves, I agree with you that the earlier M.1717 is a sleeker looking musket but I would certainly want to check to see that the ones coming from India don't have the same problems with poor breech plugs that the Besses have exhibited. TOW has had some really nice custom M.1717's over the last couple years but they are expensive since they are custom made from parts supplied by The Rifle Shoppe. Hopefully, somebody here has some experience with the French muskets now being offered and can add some better info than I can. Good luck.

 

The French muskets from both the MilitaryHeritage(the Discriminating General) and Middlesex appear to be the same musket, therefor not made at the same place as the Bess' sold by[url] miitaryheritage.com[/url].
: I'd check out the one closest to you- also- guys up here, (there are several) who have the Pedersoli 1777 Charleville, have difficulty getting their cheek down to the barrel's height as the comb is TOO high. Make certain the Indian gun isn't the same. It appears to have enough drop, but then so does the Itialian gun - which doens't by a long stroke. The Pedersoli is a REALLY bad cheek-bone smacker - according to those who've shot it- I haven't.
: I also agree - the 1717 and 1728 are much more pleasing to the eye. The 1777 is kinda chuncky and has an ugly lock and pan. The 1717 has the bridled pan.

 

[Musketeer]

Wes/Tex, Thanks for the pan info! An interesting and innovative design, to be sure. :thumbsup:

Daryl, the 1777 I handled was a Pedersoli. I did notice that the stock feels a bit different from what I'm used to. I think it's the cheek piece built into the stock. Unfortunately, it belongs to a guy who brought it in to the local shop just to show it off, so I didn't get a chance to handle/look at it as extensively as I'd have liked. I agree the '77 is an ugly SOB, but it's built like a tank! Whether I go with the '17 or the '77, I'm going to buy from MVTC. :thumbsup:

 

[Jack Walker]

I own the Pedersoli Indian Trade Musket and have had no problems with it. I was curious as to the "cheeking" of a musket. actually muskets were not ment to be fire by cheeking the weapon. This mainly refers to military style. The person firing kept his head more erect, also the reason the front site blade stands so high. You must remember that it was not "gentlemanly" to actually aim in battle, the head was turned away during the firing procedure thus supposedly leaving your enemy to fall by the hand of God.

 

[Musketeer]

Bull, here's the cheek piece I was talking about. As far as I know, no other military flinter had one like this. :thumbsup:

 

[Keith]

I always thought the turning of the head was a poorly disciplined soldier flinching from the pan flash. Can't remember where I read about that. :no:

 

[Musketeer]

I always thought the turning of the head was a poorly disciplined soldier flinching from the pan flash. Can't remember where I read about that.

A good depiction of this is in the movie The Patriot . During the battle scenes, you see a number of guys doing this. It looks to me like they did it to keep from getting burning pan powder or smoke in the face (no shooting glasses back then). I know they weren't concerned with precise accuracy back then, as they employed volley fire. Point your muskets at the enemy, let fly, and hope for the best! :thumbsup:

 

[Rebel]

Hey Musketeer, what happened to your cool avilar, pic, whatever it's called? And i thought the same thing about the movie the Patriot, just a bunch of actors afraid of the pan flash.

 

[Henry]

When shooting with my reenactor group ( blanks ), without
eyeglasses ,
I aim , pull the trigger , stand still and close my eyes.
I guess many soldiers did the same 300 years ago.

Without my glasses , I do not see the target
or the front sight anyway . In the XVIII th cent
the glasses were for reading , not for myopic people
( and very expensive ).

Henry

 

[Musketeer]

Reb, click the link for the answer. I still have the Pirate Wench on my computer, and I may switch back to her at some point! :thumbsup: www.muzzleloadingforum.com/

Henry , I believe you're right. I think glasses for us near-sighted folks came out in the 1800's. I've seen a picture of a pair of bifocals dating back to around 1870 or so. Life must have been tough for myopia sufferers back then! Anyhow, let's get back to the 1717 vs. 1777 debate, before Musketman is forced to exercise his mighty, godlike Moderator Power (not that I care too much for moderation myself :crackup! :thumbsup:

 

[Keith]

That's right! I knew I saw it in some movie or documentary, but couldn't remember where. :redthumb:
Someplace I seem to recall reading about it as well.

 

I always liked the 1717, and in fact we're building on in upcoming issues--well, a "representation" of a 1717. It's going to be a military surplus musket--aged, antiqued, and basically soldier-dinged--that I am working under the guidance of Larry Williams of Early Rustic Arms. My problem was that I wanted a 1717, but it didn't fit my persona/time period of early western fur trade, so i needed a "beat up" musket. It's a 16 TOTW de Chasse Kit witha 44" inch barrel, and I am adding some Riffffle Shopppppe sling mounts and barrel band to it. It was sort of a last minute decision, but I think that it will work out and be a visually pleasing "officer's fusil" sort of thing.

The 1777 is a military gun, like the M1 Garand; it's a soldier's tool. The 1717 was much more artistic in its appearance; more of a militarized sporting gun, like the .30-40 Krag or Mauser...a nice gun beefed up for the military. :imo: :m2c:

 

Bull - that's an interesting idea, thought or fact, if it be one - The instructions on loading and firing the Sea Service Musket, include "Taking a deliberate aim" or "Not firing too quickly so that a deliberate aim be taken" - something like that. I read it, but a few months ago. In fact, I read several, so that also muddies the waters some. Another that stands out in my mind is "Look full well the length of barrel upon the face of the enemy" or "Cheek well" it's all sort of fuzy, but the intent of a good aim was definitely there.
: The fact the 77 has a cheek-piece as well as a frint sight as well as a bayonete lug, shows it was meant to be aimed. Even the 1728, with the "Tulle'" type stock, and the '63 Charleville have a front sight as well as the bayonette lug.
: The 1717 probably has a front sight rather than a lug, as at that time, a plug bayonette( for insertion into the barrel proper) was popular.

 

[Henry]

The 1717 was the very first " standard " french military
gun , made in all the Royal factories ( Charlesville, Tulle ,St

 

There has been a 1717 lock found at the Guilford Courthouse battle site. While the 1717 was never issued to Francais troops in North America, it is theorized that some old "surplus" muskets were sold to the Colonial army along with the better, newer muskets we received from our french buddies in the course of removing British rule. Sort of like a 'clearance sale'....buy one, get one half price...lol...

 

[Henry]

Yes , it is mentionned in the book " Weapons of the American R

 

[Henry]

Thinking about it , the 1717 model are so
rare today that very often , when the french
people need a good exemple , they borrow the one
keept at the London museum ( wich is in absolute mint
condition ) . Imagine if the Americans had received more of it !

Henry, dit ...Henry