fusil de chasse

[John Tice]

Howdy,
I am becoming very intrigued by the fusil de chasse,and am trying to read up on them (I'm ording Russel Bouchard's book). I am impressed by how popular they were (and still are) and how efficient they were for the time. Long barrel smoothbores and light weight. I know there were different grades, so to speak, fusil de chasse, de traite, fusil fin, etc.). I have seen and heard discussions about them over the years, including how various reproductions reflect the old guns that have survived, such such regarding locks, wood type, barrel lengths, etc. What's clear is that many shooters today love them and some people have held onto theirs for years and sometimes decades. I would really appreciate any comments people might want to share about their fusil de chasses and what they may like or not like about them. There seems to be several makers of fusil de chasse guns and kits now, TOW, Centermark, and Davis, (with their more fusil fin version). A few of the fusil de chasse I have seen in books are remarkably light, often under 7 lbs, are any of those made today this same light weight ? Any thoughts people may want to share would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Chiefs50]

I built a .62 caliber, Fusil de Chasse from a Pecatonica River parts set (42 inch barrel). This parts set is very similar to the TOTW set and uses many of the same parts. The parts set/kit I got came with a very nicely figured walnut stock - at least a grade higher than I paid for. I really love the lines of this gun and enjoy the way it handles. The one drawback is that it comes in just under 8 pounds due to the heavier barrels used. The gun does have a nice balance though so the weight only becomes a problem after a few hours walking through grouse cover. I think most of the guns available today are a bit heavier than the originals.

Mike

 

[TLC]

Hello, I too am looking at the fusil de chasse rifle and will be ordering the TVM model. tcoker

 

[Ken Cormier]

I have a centermark de chase that I have owned for 20 plus years . I have had 4 rifles in that time and only have one left.Need I say more.

 

[daperdon69]

I have a Centermark Tulle that I built 20 plus years ago. It's the only gun that I take to our monthly club shoots. I use it for paper, trailwalks, and shotgun matches. Only have to clean one gun!

It's weight is, well ok to me. I guess that I am just use to it. I have shot it so much that it's just part of me.

Tradegunner

 

[paulab]

I too have a centermark fusil. Light weight, handy to carry, versatile. The only thing I don't like about it is that the curved hump on the comb bites my cheekbone pretty good with hunting loads. cheers Paul

 

[Deadeye]

I also have a Centermark, built about 15 yrs. ago.
I think mine is about 7 1/2 lbs. but has great balance. Love it, it has about 20 to 25 1st places in smoothbore shoots to it's credit.
Deadeye

 

[alex efremenko]

Okay,I'll do it. :stir: .....
Not all FDC's are created equal.
While the Centermarks are well made guns as many have stated,They are far from 'historically correct as advertised.
I'll give the short list of stuff:
As to weight 7 lbs. or so is normal for a .60"-.66" gun
The lock is not right,its way too fancy,it can be made to look better but its still not correct.
The turtle front sight does not belong on it at all.i've never seen an original with one.writngs from tulle & St. Etienne say what kind of sight was used.RR pipes are wrong,most if not all were simple sheet metal with fine lines filed in them.
The barrel profile is incorrect ,weddding band is wrong .does not even resemble originals. most were a min. of 44-46"

surface mounted trigger guard?????? Never have I seen one mounted that way on originals
The sideplate is also totally incorrect and never were surface mounted.
Stock: Euro. walnut is what originals used.If its stocked in anything else its probably a restock.And that stock profile was probably in production or in style for only a very short period,my be in the 1730-40's
As to quality, Centermarks are too well made.The originals were not made as /finished as well as you think. if I made a gun finished as these original were ,i'd never be able to sell it for the cost of parts.
i'll post some pics of an original 1750's style Tulle FDC to night when i have time.It will not be what you expect,i promise :shocked2:

Some food for thought today.

-Alex E. who has studied these guns for some time viewed originals,and built the gun for the guy who wrote the new book for Trade Gun forn St. Etienne. So I do feel qualified to make these comments.

once again, :stir:

 

[Mike Brooks]

Okay,I'll do it. :stir: .....
Not all FDC's are created equal.
While the Centermarks are well made guns as many have stated,They are far from 'historically correct as advertised.
I'll give the short list of stuff:
As to weight 7 lbs. or so is normal for a .60"-.66" gun
The lock is not right,its way too fancy,it can be made to look better but its still not correct.
The turtle front sight does not belong on it at all.i've never seen an original with one.writngs from tulle & St. Etienne say what kind of sight was used.RR pipes are wrong,most if not all were simple sheet metal with fine lines filed in them.
The barrel profile is incorrect ,weddding band is wrong .does not even resemble originals. most were a min. of 44-46"

surface mounted trigger guard?????? Never have I seen one mounted that way on originals
The sideplate is also totally incorrect and never were surface mounted.
Stock: Euro. walnut is what originals used.If its stocked in anything else its probably a restock.And that stock profile was probably in production or in style for only a very short period,my be in the 1730-40's
As to quality, Centermarks are too well made.The originals were not made as /finished as well as you think. if I made a gun finished as these original were ,i'd never be able to sell it for the cost of parts.
i'll post some pics of an original 1750's style Tulle FDC to night when i have time.It will not be what you expect,i promise :shocked2:

Some food for thought today.

-Alex E. who has studied these guns for some time viewed originals,and built the gun for the guy who wrote the new book for Trade Gun forn St. Etienne. So I do feel qualified to make these comments.

once again, :stir:

Thank you Alex!

 

[Mike Brooks]

Okay,I'll do it. :stir: .....
Not all FDC's are created equal.
While the Centermarks are well made guns as many have stated,They are far from 'historically correct as advertised.
I'll give the short list of stuff:
As to weight 7 lbs. or so is normal for a .60"-.66" gun
The lock is not right,its way too fancy,it can be made to look better but its still not correct.
The turtle front sight does not belong on it at all.i've never seen an original with one.writngs from tulle & St. Etienne say what kind of sight was used.RR pipes are wrong,most if not all were simple sheet metal with fine lines filed in them.
The barrel profile is incorrect ,weddding band is wrong .does not even resemble originals. most were a min. of 44-46"

surface mounted trigger guard?????? Never have I seen one mounted that way on originals
The sideplate is also totally incorrect and never were surface mounted.
Stock: Euro. walnut is what originals used.If its stocked in anything else its probably a re

 

[BillinOregon]

Alex: Eagerly awaiting photos.

 

[Tommy Bruce]

Alex did leave out one thing. He builds a hellavu fine french trade gun that is totally PC for more than a fair price. I'm not knocking the quality of TVM, Centermark and Pecatonica. I've used parts from Pecatonica, and once owned a centermark that I wish I had back. But if I wanted one built I'd go with him in a heartbeat. Now if it were a type G or carolina gun.......well Mr. Brooks would get the nod on that one.

 

[John Tice]

I really appreciate everyone's comments, and for being so straight forward :bow: I look forward to the pics Alex. I'm already learning a great deal from the posts, all of them. Its clear that the Centermarks are solid guns and its easy to see why people are attached to them, makes sense. This is why I have been a regular member to the ML forum since 2005. I have learned a great deal from you guys. JT

 

[alex efremenko]

As promised,A 1750's FDC from Tulle.Obviously converted to percussion ,The barrel has been shortend up as it appears to have had three RR pipes.The spacing between the muzzle is off as opposed to others viewed.
Notice the high comb. The later in the period we see the combs get higher. Also notice the file work on the pipes and barrel[a bit crooked] someone either right or left handed did them.

Notice the comb is off center as it terminates into the wrist.
Remember this was a production gun being made in large numbers at a fixed price.

I hope this offers some clarity ,Enjoy :wink:

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii164/alexsnr/niag[IMG]http://i264.]
[IMG]http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii164/alexsnr/niagara-Tulle031.jpg

 

[John Tice]

Wow ! :shocked2: Excellent pictures. I wonder how a working gun of that age survived like that, its practically a miracle. Very appreciative of the pics. I see what you mean on the construction details you mentioned. Clearity indeed. What a treat to see this. What's the caliber?

 

[JOHN F]

alex thnak you for the pics and for passing your knowlegde on to us ..i have built one french gun and currently have a lock and stock coming from P riverand hope to replicate the oconnor gun ..to the best of my limited abilities... :wink:

 

[hoochiepapa]

Wow! It's nice to see an original up close!
Thanks for showing that, and the good pics. :thumbsup:

 

[rickystl]

Alex: Thanks for the pics of an original. Always atreat. Rick.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Excellent pictures of a great gun, Alex, thank you.

 

[Dausener]

Very nice! Thanks for the info and pictures. :v