I'm guessing this is a Model 1766. It has "Charleville" stamped in script on the lock, and on the opposite side of the stock, carved into the wood, figures which look like 1 x F. On that same side there is a ball strike (someone apparently shot at the owner and hit the stock -- perhaps a pistol?). My dad had a sporting goods store when he got back from WWII (Vermont) and took in any number of weapons as trade for fishing tackle, etc. This Musket was one. Action no longer works but appears to be original. Any info would be appreciated. Thanks!
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
ID on a Charleville Musket
- Thread starter Scrannel
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
It looks to be all original and from the empty hole behind the frizzen spring I'm guessing the mainspring is missing. It could be a 66 but I couldn't say for sure. I knew Charlevilles fairly well 40 years ago but have forgotten a lot since, we do have some very knowledgeable members though so I'm sure you'll have a lot of answers soon.
Go to Wikipedia and type in the search block, "Charleville Musket". The page will list each of the major models and describe the OAL and barrel length. The barrel length might be able to identify your musket further. Oddly enough, I think there are less than a half dozen books on French military muzzleloading firearms, compared to dozens and dozens of books on English military firearms. The publisher of the "Man At Arms" magazine put out the latest book on antique French military firearms.
Yes, have done that, which is why I think it's a '66. Plus a few on line pics seem to indicate the '66 is more likely to have the armory name on the lock. Was really trying to get a fix on the originality. Thanks for your response!
By "originality" you are asking how and/or where it came into the US?
Overall picture may help also picks of the TG and each barrel band.
It certainly is a 1760s Charleville. The big splotch on the side of the butt area looks like wood filler so it has at least had some attempt at repair over the years. I agree overall pictures would help. It is not a 1766 because the 1766 had a bayonet lug under instead of above. It is either the 1763 or the 1766 modified. These are 1766s that were modified in 1768, sometimes incorrectly called a model 1768 but that model never existed.
Each barrel band has a retaining spring so it is the 1766 model modified between 1768 and 1773. Since it is lead it is an older repair. Probably within its use-life. An impact wouldn't flatten out like that.
Only reason I thought it was an impact, is a gentleman who repairs civil war era muskets (and knows very little about Revolutionary gear) pointed out the spatter marks surrounding the lead as indicative of impact. His guess was, it was a pistol ball. But...
I suppose it is possible that the wood was impacted and they used lead to cover the impact. I took it for worm damage but it could be some other sort of impact. Or they could have been hammering something with it. They weren't necessarily nice to their muskets back in the day.
Holy crap! I guess not. The only thing I can add about the lead is that, though it appears flat in the image (actually looks like reverse perspective) it's not flat in person, but has a bulge and looks well-worn. But that aside, your take is that it's a 1766 with a modified bayonet mount? Otherwise stock?
other than the lead repair/whatever it is, it appears to be 100% correct for the updated 1766 which updates included moving the bayonet lug. I would be more certain with additional photos, other side whole view, side plate, close up of trigger guard, top of butt plate, each barrel band showing sling swivels. But from what I've seen it looks good.
Give me a day and I'll get those shots for you. What's fun about this, for me, is I'm a screenwriter about to begin a mini-series about Lafayette. Will get you those shots.
Griz44Mag
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2017
- Messages
- 4,326
- Reaction score
- 4,386
- Location
- Republic of Texas, District of Krum
the lead splatter looks a lot more like a casting pot with water in it type splatter. An impact would not splatter like that.
My opinion only, but the hole on the stock is a round ball hit - I wonder if the soldier survived it.
The splatter likely occurred during a casting session where the gun was in close proximity to the casting operation, likely over a campfire.
My opinion only, but the hole on the stock is a round ball hit - I wonder if the soldier survived it.
The splatter likely occurred during a casting session where the gun was in close proximity to the casting operation, likely over a campfire.
if the lead was liquid when poured onto the stock to repair the stock would it cause splatter like that?
Similar threads
