ID on a Charleville Musket

[hawkeye2]

That's a Springfield trapdoor ramrod (cleaning rod), probably from an 1884 model.

 

[Scrannel]

I wonder...
Back in Vermont my brother has another gun from the old days: a Springfield 45-70 breech-loader. I wonder if we got the rods mixed!?

 

[Heine]

Hay fellas, I am a very new member to this site. I collect Rev War muskets and have a very interesting 1766 “light model” Charleville in my collection that I am sure was used in the revolution. I believe it to be all original and pretty darned correct. It has the filed in makeshift rear sight the continentals added and a period thin metal wrist repair with a bunch of very small square nails to hold it in place. If anyone is interested, I will take photos of it and put them in here for comparison to the musket now being discussed. The rear sight filing is also on a period American walnut restocked 2nd. Model Belgian made Brown Bess with a purposely defaced crown on the lock plate and a pewter nose cap. I would say this Bess was probably issued to some Torie unit that more than likely destroyed the stock upon surrender. The musket was then restocked/repaired then reissued to the continentals. If only these guns could talk!

 

[Scrannel]

Love to see some photos of your gun!

 

[FlinterNick]

Thanks hopping. By a shot inside the lock, do you mean removing the lock as in your pic above? Or just a shot of the lock with the frizzen forward? Yes, there is a very faint mark above "Charleville." Here's a pic. View attachment 32054

The frizzen is a 1774 Charleville frizzen fitted to the lock, the 1774 charleville locks were rounded, the pans were a little longer in the forward section and the toe was squared off And you can see where the base of the frizzen is about 2mm longer than faceted pan.

 

[FlinterNick]

One of the problems with identifying an original Charleville is the fact that so many are in poor shape. The 1763 and 63/66 were used to a absolute deprecation. On many Charleville its very common to find random parts. The reason for the random parts is because many of the Charleville were sold off to civilians. For example the shaving down of the butt stock was a civilian alteration likely militia, in the continental army especially Washingtons Units the stocks were repaired but not altered by the armors. In the Northern Continental Army that invaded Canada and fought at Saratoga, The 1763 heavy and 1766 light Charleville shipped in 1776 found at Fort Ticonderoga are almost in perfect condition because there was very limited actions at the Fort after 1776, even when it was abandoned and retaken, there were skirmishes.

 

[The Motley Patriot]

Its a 1768-1770 Pattern Charleville.

The rear barrel band on the 1766 musket was larger and force fit, some were upgraded to include a rear band spring but not many And the barrel bands were not shouldered with the added rear spring, they were force fit with a spring, this caused a jamming situation when attempting to dismantle the gun, the 1768 pattern corrected this Flaw.

The production period of late 1767 - 1768 designed the Charleville with a spring fit rear band that was smaller and shouldered to the fit the stock, this is what you have.

Ramrods: Ramrods on the 1768 pattern were trumpet shaped, With a thicker swell at the top, 1766 muskets had button shaped tiped ramrod, which were lighter.

Ramrod Spoons: Ramrod spoons were pinned to a semi circle lug beneath the barrel on the 1766 pattern, on the 1768 pattern the ramrod spoon is found in two places, one is either pinned beneath the breech area to a lug or the other is rivited or bolted to underside of the rear barrel band (very tiny spring About 1 1/8 long). The Charleville factory began experimenting with this on the 1768-1774 pattern muskets, this was done to avoid cutting a spoon shape in the stocks barrel channel.

The 1795 Springfield Muskets are more or less a copy of the 1768-1770 pattern Charleville Muskets.

Locks: the lock on the 1766 and 1768 muskets are almost identical, the only difference is some are found with a bolster ahead of the pan screw and some are not.

Bayonet Lug: Bayonet lug was placed on the bottom on the 1768, 1766 is often seen with it on the top.

The upper barrel band on the 1768 charleville was a little more thicker and narrower than the 1766 pattern too.

The Stock was also changed a little to reduce the rail comb And wrist section.

Barrels: Barrels on the 1766 were around 3.8 lbs in total weight at 44 1/2 inches at .72 caliber. The French designers felt this barrel was too delicate and increased its size on the 1768 to around 4.3 lbs, most of this weight was added to the breech area, the caliber was reduced to around .69 / .70.

Thanks for this information

 

[Clark Badgett]

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.

The 1768 added the band spring on the last band. Some 1766s had bayonet lugs on top. The French couldn’t seem to make up their minds about the bayonet at times.

 

[FlinterNick]

The 1768 added the band spring on the last band. Some 1766s had bayonet lugs on top. The French couldn’t seem to make up their minds about the bayonet at times.

Difference between the 66 and 68 band spring is the 66 had a band spring added from a friction fit primary design, the subsequent models had rear bands that were shouldered. My original 1766 never had a band spring added to it, its a friction fit. They didn’t upgrade all of them, just the ones they deemed needed it.

Reason for the bayonet lugs being moved around is speculated to be due to poor instructions between the barrel makers and bayonet makers. There are various 63’s, 66’s, and 68 and 70 patterns with the bayonet lug up or down, it’s not one way or the other. Finally they settled on it being underneath with the later 1770 patterns and later.

 

[Clark Badgett]

Difference between the 66 and 68 band spring is the 66 had a band spring added from a friction fit primary design, the subsequent models had rear bands that were shouldered. My original 1766 never had a band spring added to it, its a friction fit. They didn’t upgrade all of them, just the ones they deemed needed it.

Reason for the bayonet lugs being moved around is speculated to be due to poor instructions between the barrel makers and bayonet makers. There are various 63’s, 66’s, and 68 and 70 patterns with the bayonet lug up or down, it’s not one way or the other. Finally they settled on it being underneath with the later 1770 patterns and later.

The 66 in the museum down the road had the rear spring added. It’s pretty cool.

 

[The Motley Patriot]

.75” bore?

 

[Clark Badgett]

.75” bore?

The French musket barrel was only .69” in spirit.

 

[The Motley Patriot]

The French musket barrel was only .69” in spirit.

That’s funny

 

[The Motley Patriot]

The French musket barrel was only .69” in spirit.

What would you choose as a specific lock? I honestly want to find something in stock but not insane. The size is referenced smaller but not sure the measurements to look for.

 

[FlinterNick]

The 66 in the museum down the road had the rear spring added. It’s pretty cool.

I’ve seen them with cross pins to secure the band too.

 

[Clark Badgett]

What would you choose as a specific lock? I honestly want to find something in stock but not insane. The size is referenced smaller but not sure the measurements to look for.

The only current production Charleville lock is the Pedersoli.