MilitaryHeritage.com ( Access Heritage Inc ) Imperial Guard Infantry Musket. 1766 or 1777?

[wganz]

The description on the website at: LINKAGE states simply

The design is quite similar to the standard French Infantry musket of the time except ……

Made a composite with the 1766, the Imperial Guard, and 1777 muskets from Military Heritage scaled to the same size to assist. Not an expert on French muskets, could someone knowledge of these models let me know if this Imperial Guard Musket is variant of the 1766 or 1777?

 

[Billy-by-gosh]

The description on the website at: LINKAGE states simply


Made a composite with the 1766, the Imperial Guard, and 1777 muskets from Military Heritage scaled to the same size to assist. Not an expert on French muskets, could someone knowledge of these models let me know if this Imperial Guard Musket is variant of the 1766 or 1777?



View attachment 288056

The IMPERIAL Guard musket from Napoleon's crack troops is a variant of the 1777, which along with the 1766 and 1763 were descended from the 1728. These were done in the first decade of the 1800s and I believe were part of the revisions known as the AN IX series. Note the similarity of the lock with brass pan and the straighter stock. The furniture was changed to brass on this one as well.

 

[wganz]

The IMPERIAL Guard musket from Napoleon's crack troops is a variant of the 1777, which along with the 1766 and 1763 were descended from the 1728. These were done in the first decade of the 1800s and I believe were part of the revisions known as the AN IX series. Note the similarity of the lock with brass pan and the straighter stock. The furniture was changed to brass on this one as well.

Appreciate the input.

 

[springfield art]

All the detail is like counting stitches: if that's what turns ya on, go at it!

 

[Comfortably_Numb]

The architecture is so bad on those it's hard to tell what they are.

 

[Clark Badgett]

The architecture is so bad on those it's hard to tell what they are.

I just watched a YouTube video a couple days ago where the guy compared the Military heritage 1766 to his original. Night and day difference from head to toe.

 

[FlinterNick]

The description on the website at: LINKAGE states simply


Made a composite with the 1766, the Imperial Guard, and 1777 muskets from Military Heritage scaled to the same size to assist. Not an expert on French muskets, could someone knowledge of these models let me know if this Imperial Guard Musket is variant of the 1766 or 1777?



View attachment 288056

None of these muskets look like an authentic 1766 or 1777 musket. While the general concept is there, but they’re just mere parody’s of what they’re intended to be.

The stock shape of the 1766 is … awkward to say the least. The butt stock has a comb that drops and rises to the level of the breech line of sight with detailed handrail fluting. The barrel bands are wrong and the forearm is way too heavy and the front band has no taper at all.

The 1777 muskets pictured are closer in resemblance but still are very chunky looking around the lock panels and the wrist seems a bit short on the old guard gun, looks more like an 1808 contract musket then a 1777.

You really have to handle originals to get an understanding of the architecture of the stock shapes of a 1766 and 1777.

The buttstocks on french guns from 1717 - 1763 had a cross section that swelled outward toward the butt plate making the fluting dished inward to form a natural cheek rest. On the 1777 they simply decided to not shape the comb and just dish in the check rest. Like an 1816 musket of the era, french guns joined the wrist and comb to make the stocks stronger, and focused less on the intricate details.

 

[FlinterNick]

I just watched a YouTube video a couple days ago where the guy compared the Military heritage 1766 to his original. Night and day difference from head to toe.

There’s no comparison.

My original 1766 has many simliarities to a navy arms reproduction, however the original is very slender, the barrel is almost 1/2 lb lighter and the butt Stock’s are totally different in length, width and detail.

The bands on my original 1766 i found to be the most interesting, very much thinner and rounded over, the front band is amazing, all the reproductions are too straight lined and edgy.

The Indian 1766’s I’ve seen are just goofy looking. .

 

[wganz]

I grok that the Indian muskets are not exact duplicates of the originals. The N-SSA Small Arms Committee goes apoplectic, clutching their micrometers to the bosom, and popping tops on the nitro bottles at the mere thought of an Indian made musket much less have some plebe use one to compete. LAWD! What would Jeff Davis do??? I found the video that @Clark Badgett mentioned, paused it, and took screen snippets. Just for academic purposes, here are those screen shots.

With all that said, my interest isn't original vs. Indian imports. I'm looking at getting a copy of a French flintlock after watching a number of 11BangBang's YT channel and thought that it might be fun to do a review of Loyalist Arms vs. Heritage Arms vs. Veterans Arms. A literal plethora of fake French flintlocks, if you would.

Just to have something to do and then cull the herd when I'm done...

 

[FlinterNick]

I grok that the Indian muskets are not exact duplicates of the originals. The N-SSA Small Arms Committee goes apoplectic, clutching their micrometers to the bosom, and popping tops on the nitro bottles at the mere thought of an Indian made musket much less have some plebe use one to compete. LAWD! What would Jeff Davis do??? I found the video that @Clark Badgett mentioned, paused it, and took screen snippets. Just for academic purposes, here are those screen shots.

View attachment 293669View attachment 293670
View attachment 293678

With all that said, my interest isn't original vs. Indian imports. I'm looking at getting a copy of a French flintlock after watching a number of 11BangBang's YT channel and thought that it might be fun to do a review of Loyalist Arms vs. Heritage Arms vs. Veterans Arms. A literal plethora of fake French flintlocks, if you would.

Just to have something to do and then cull the herd when I'm done...

If you really want to experience a ‘French’ musket you ought take your interests up a notch. No matter how many Indian muskets you buy and compare them to they will never nothing more than a parody of what they’re intended to be.

With that said … invest your dollars into originals and copy them. Your copy will be worth a multiple of Indian made arms.

You’ll have the knowledge and skills that cant be matched by a collection of cartoon characterization of Indian made French musket or even an Italian made charleville.

 

[FlinterNick]

I grok that the Indian muskets are not exact duplicates of the originals. The N-SSA Small Arms Committee goes apoplectic, clutching their micrometers to the bosom, and popping tops on the nitro bottles at the mere thought of an Indian made musket much less have some plebe use one to compete. LAWD! What would Jeff Davis do??? I found the video that @Clark Badgett mentioned, paused it, and took screen snippets. Just for academic purposes, here are those screen shots.

View attachment 293669View attachment 293670
View attachment 293678

With all that said, my interest isn't original vs. Indian imports. I'm looking at getting a copy of a French flintlock after watching a number of 11BangBang's YT channel and thought that it might be fun to do a review of Loyalist Arms vs. Heritage Arms vs. Veterans Arms. A literal plethora of fake French flintlocks, if you would.

Just to have something to do and then cull the herd when I'm done...

Just about everything is in-accurate, including the sling swivels bayonet lug and trigger.

Not even close.

The biggest issue here is the butt stock, the cross section of the Indian made gun, which can’t be seen is likely almost a straight as a boat oar on the Indian gun.

Pedersoli’s are not very close either, but at least their 1777 pattern is the closest out there.

all french muskets from 1717 - 1770 (including some 1774 models) had a deep fluted rail comb which projected it outward like a swell, the swell was there as a modified cheek rest.

If you really like the Indian made guns go for it, but when you research a lot and have handled many originals, to me they like they were slapped together with supplies form Home Depot or lowes.

 

[Clark Badgett]

I grok that the Indian muskets are not exact duplicates of the originals. The N-SSA Small Arms Committee goes apoplectic, clutching their micrometers to the bosom, and popping tops on the nitro bottles at the mere thought of an Indian made musket much less have some plebe use one to compete. LAWD! What would Jeff Davis do??? I found the video that @Clark Badgett mentioned, paused it, and took screen snippets. Just for academic purposes, here are those screen shots.

View attachment 293669View attachment 293670
View attachment 293678

With all that said, my interest isn't original vs. Indian imports. I'm looking at getting a copy of a French flintlock after watching a number of 11BangBang's YT channel and thought that it might be fun to do a review of Loyalist Arms vs. Heritage Arms vs. Veterans Arms. A literal plethora of fake French flintlocks, if you would.

Just to have something to do and then cull the herd when I'm done...

Also pointed out in that video was how the Indian version had a smaller and different shaped lock plate. The stock is also beefier.

 

[wganz]

Also pointed out in that video was how the Indian version had a smaller and different shaped lock plate. The stock is also beefier.

You are correct. Should have included the measurement of the lock plate in the pix. Thanks for pointing that out. I’ll see what I can do once I’m home to show the plate length difference.

 

[FlinterNick]

Also pointed out in that video was how the Indian version had a smaller and different shaped lock plate. The stock is also beefier.

There’s nothing remotely similar other than a first glance appearance of the two locks.

Lock Plate: Indian plate, has little to no detail of an original 1766 lock plate, there are almost no visible bevels, the teate is not even there and size of course is off and the forward bolster end of the plate is too long.

Frizzen: Nothing similar at all, 1717 - 1766 charville frizzens had a wide swing because the foot curled higher, there are also no bevel details and the face is too far forward.

Frizzen Spring: French frizzen springs were tapered with high detail in the bend, with decorative bevels and a bishops hat finale. The Indian spring looks more like a third model brown bess spring than a charleville spring.

Pan: facets lack detail, and are too fare apart, fence and bridle doesn’t match at all.

Cock: the original in the picture is a replacment, however you can see the geometry just isn’t there on the Indian lock. The distance between the lower jaw and the pan is way off.

Tumbler screw looks like it was picked out at Home Depot.

Mainspring screw, not correct placement.

Sear and sear spring screw not correct placement.

Top Jaw screw meeeeh.

While no two original charlevilles are similar, the Indian charleville woudn’t have passed the initial viewer’s inspection. Not to mention the lock maker would have likely been thrown bastille and his family would have starved to death in the winter for it.

The 1763 and 1766 locks were a high quality flintlock some even considered the highest quality military Flintlock ever designed, as it passed a rigorous test that only showed one missfire in 75 test trials, that specific point should be made aware here.

 

[Clark Badgett]

It should be obvious by now that these Indian guns are based off of 19th century cartoons rather than actual originals.

 

[akroguy]

I have to wonder why the Indian (and Italian) makers can't just make the adjustments and get them right.

 

[Clark Badgett]

I have to wonder why the Indian (and Italian) makers can't just make the adjustments and get them right.

Very good question. But I would guess that the answer is that 99% of the potential customer base either doesn’t care, doesn’t know or doesn’t care to know.

 

[wganz]

Very good question. But I would guess that the answer is that 99% of the potential customer base either doesn’t care, doesn’t know or doesn’t care to know.

IMHO, the wood detail isn't conducive to modern machinery.

 

[Clark Badgett]

IMHO, the wood detail isn't conducive to modern machinery.

Modern machinery can duplicate anything. Jim Kibler has proven this. A stock pantograph can cut original profiles, hell, they cut old musket stocks with that tech 200 years ago, and many still use that level of tech. CAS shooters demanded closer repros and got them, ML shooters just kept quiet and get barrels with logs.

 

[sussexmuzllodr]

I think that we may be too hard on the accuracy subject. I mean come on....if it gets someone shooting why not? We know for the most part all the variables. Want to put the time into something have at it. we are thread counting ourselves to death here...