My first Flint Lock rifle musket A Charleville 1766 Pedersoli

[PluggedNickel]

I have been MIA on the forum of late. I did finally order some .600" round balls from Dixie. Ball size selection was limited. I figure if I have to go smaller, I can double patch, it will only help keep lead fouling down, and allow for more of my special top secret, bore fouling softener, goo tamer mix. LOL
What about blank firing? Do I need a wad, or can I just pour the powder down the bore and keep the muzzle elevated like I see so many reenactors doing? I could put a ball of tow over the powder I guess, since I'm just shooting for fun, no fire danger, and if I did get a smoldering ember I'll just stomp it out.
Also got some patch material, a bronze brush .69 caliber. I will probably buy other size round balls as well, and experiment with what shoots best. As it is my first smooth bore, and flintlock, I am not expecting rifled barrel accuracy out of this musket! If I can hit AR500 target plate with any regularity at 40-50 yards I will be pleased. It is the ease of loading, fun of belching flame and smoke, and quick bore clean (for a muzzle loader), that I'm looking forward to with this piece! Nice to not worry about rod guide and buggering the muzzle rifling too. That will be a change. Another reason why smoothies were so fast to reload in combat as well. Bugger that exit rifling, and along with fouled grooves, there goes the accuracy, and bugger the rifling up bad enough and at minimum lapping the muzzle to get accuracy back.
Also, for almost a month now I have had the dowel rods to pursue that avenue of rapid loading. Just too busy here of late, and truth is kind of pooped out form the Holidays, sickness in family, family fighting cancer et al. Warmer days, a New Year, and boosted confidence from what I'm learning both here and elsewhere on the web will get me the smoke pole fever soon enough. I do intend to lightly polish the bore. I've done that with all my shotguns as well. It makes cleaning so much easier! It has warmed to the 50's here in Ohio today, but as usual in winter the wind has been howling with flat land and crops down.
I did clean the bore with some old tow wrapped around an .58 caliber worm from my 1861 Springfield. I'd had that baggie of tow for probably 40+ years. Left over from my amateur taxidermist days.
I also got the gum erasers to dry fire safely. I didn't really want to do that till I spark test, or shoot a blank load though.
Here is a link to a great web site by a fellow enthusiast named geojohn. A lot of good info here!
Knowing me I will get a 18th century cotton twill hunting shirt of some kind, maybe a flop/flap hat, and possibles bag. Just to feel the part. Will it be totally PC/HC. Maybe, but probably not. Still, I'm keeping an open mind. And, here all you have to do is ask, and someone will tell you what you need ITHO!
I just know there is a thread here about what members use for possibles bag. I've got so much reading I've been doing of late, I just haven't taken time to really get into the PC/HC threads as much yet. Still, figuring out basics. Hey, I've been laughed at before for posting a picture someone thought was pretty lame, for proper BP shooting kit! I'm not blind sided by it now, and often, it is tongue in cheek anyway!
Oh, any suggestions on where to get an adapter for the Pedersoli ram rod threads? I haven't found a good carbon/goo scrapper for .69 caliber. I can get by with .58 worm.
Good shooting lads! I'll be back!

http://www.geojohn.org/BlackPowder/Musketoon/ShootingTheFlintlock.html

 

[Britsmoothy]

Is this Pete?

N.

 

[PluggedNickel]

No sir, OP is George. Though come to think of it, I could be Pete's evil doppelganger! LOL

 

[smoothshooter]

Thanks for the input Cowboy. I will keep you posted and get some pictures when I get it. Dixie had it at a cheaper price, on sale for $1350.00. Hind sight is 20/20. I googled it, and Dixie didn't come up for some reason. I assumed it was out of stock. Oh well, I'm still stoked, Dixie also listed use 1" flints. I'm going to measure the bore when I get it. If it is 680, I can use .010" patch. Dixie also has .69 caliber minnie ball. They would probably have to be swaged. I think round balls are historically correct for the period.
This is my first Pedersoli. All my other toys are Uberti: two 1858 RNA's, 1847 Walker, Euroarms: 1861 Springfield, Colt Black Powder Sig Series 2nd Gen 1861 Navy, and 1862 Pocket Navy, and Pietta: 1851 Navy. If mine looks anything like the factory pictures I will be pleased for sure. A Pedersoli 1861 Springfield just sold for $650.00 on the forum, if I didn't have the Euroarms, I would have been all over that!

I use one of these to swage minie' balls with the 1861. Fits in drill press hole.

Dixie's website is horrible, and there is no excuse for it being that way. Must have done it on the cheap.

 

[FlinterNick]

Just curious if could provide lockplate dimensions for the Pedersoli charleville.... trying to figure out if it’s based on the 1763 or 66 patter. The stock is heafty like the 63 barrel too.

Thanks

Nick

I purchased it from Jedediah Star online this afternoon. I should be here by Wednesday. I'm pretty stoked about it. I can dress up like my militia ancestors and reenact with my SAR Chapter, George Rogers Clark, Springfield, OH.
Anyone else have a Charleville? Pedersoli says .675" round ball, and .007 patch.
I'd like to hear what others use in Charleville and Brown Bess. What about flint size, how wide? I will probably use German flints.
Here are some Pedersoli factory pictures of it. I also ordered the nipple wrench, wood
mallet, and pan primer.

 

[PluggedNickel]

Just curious if could provide lockplate dimensions for the Pedersoli charleville.... trying to figure out if it’s based on the 1763 or 66 patter. The stock is heafty like the 63 barrel too.

Thanks

Nick

I meant to do this for you some time ago. Or maybe it was someone else who asked about it? I will try to get you the measurements tomorrow. Oddly, the box listed it 1763 Leger, but the invoice and catalog listed it as 1766 Charleville. It has been put on the back burner, as I have been busy with other pursuits. Still awaiting lead balls I ordered. I do have the jags, carbon scraper, pump, brushes, flints, picks & pan brush, wads, powder. It was spark tested at the factory. I haven’t done that yet either.
I need to disassemble, clean and polish, and tune the lock, treat the wood and wax. Main spring is heavy, I will measure it and frizzen spring, as well as trigger pull. I will probably reduce main spring tension so it is easier on flints and frizzen.
The pan is rough, I will polish it too. I really like the drop on the stock. My eye is right where it needs to be with good cheek weld. For some reason the drop is 1” less on the 1777 Charleville, causing many to dish out the stock, or lower the comb. I don’t know why they did that, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it! Anyway, all in all I really like the 1763-66? It has a friction fit rear band, the ‘77 has a spring rear band. ‘77 has some brass on it too. I like brass, but the ‘63-‘66 has a clean look to it in the white. I believe it is stainless steel. I need to magnet test it.
Come to think of it Jedediah Starr sells Pedersoli Charleville locks. I’ll see if they list any dimensions as well. I have the catalog. The lock work is huge, love it! I need to get and post some pictures too. My wife has been ill, and I’ve just been busy making do and taking care of our Golden Retriever.
The musket is heavy, and built like a tank. I really like it, it’s going to be around and passed down for generations after I’m long gone!
I have seen the 1763 Leger and 1766 Charleville used interchangeably and assumed it was really the same musket because of that. In fact one of the online suppliers, or more use 1763 Leger/1766 Charleville to describe it. I think Pedesoli does as well!

 

[PluggedNickel]

Starr Catalog lists the lock as 1763 Leger/1766 Charleville, says it fits either near as I can tell. List for $355.00 in catalog. Seems the ‘63 was heavier in barrel and/or stock. Lock was apparently the same. No dimensions listed. They also had a picture and listing for 1777 lock, it is slightly different, and with a brass pan it looks like, but black and white pictures.

 

[FlinterNick]

I meant to do this for you some time ago. Or maybe it was someone else who asked about it? I will try to get you the measurements tomorrow. Oddly, the box listed it 1763 Leger, but the invoice and catalog listed it as 1766 Charleville. It has been put on the back burner, as I have been busy with other pursuits. Still awaiting lead balls I ordered. I do have the jags, carbon scraper, pump, brushes, flints, picks & pan brush, wads, powder. It was spark tested at the factory. I haven’t done that yet either.
I need to disassemble, clean and polish, and tune the lock, treat the wood and wax. Main spring is heavy, I will measure it and frizzen spring, as well as trigger pull. I will probably reduce main spring tension so it is easier on flints and frizzen.
The pan is rough, I will polish it too. I really like the drop on the stock. My eye is right where it needs to be with good cheek weld. For some reason the drop is 1” less on the 1777 Charleville, causing many to dish out the stock, or lower the comb. I don’t know why they did that, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it! Anyway, all in all I really like the 1763-66? It has a friction fit rear band, the ‘77 has a spring rear band. ‘77 has some brass on it too. I like brass, but the ‘63-‘66 has a clean look to it in the white. I believe it is stainless steel. I need to magnet test it.
Come to think of it Jedediah Starr sells Pedersoli Charleville locks. I’ll see if they list any dimensions as well. I have the catalog. The lock work is huge, love it! I need to get and post some pictures too. My wife has been ill, and I’ve just been busy making do and taking care of our Golden Retriever.
The musket is heavy, and built like a tank. I really like it, it’s going to be around and passed down for generations after I’m long gone!
I have seen the 1763 Leger and 1766 Charleville used interchangeably and assumed it was really the same musket because of that. In fact one of the online suppliers, or more use 1763 Leger/1766 Charleville to describe it. I think Pedesoli does as well!

Hi and thanks when you can get around to the measurement.

The 1763 original production was a very large musket, similar in proportion to the Pedersoli Charleville with few differences.

My observations are based on pictures and Bianchi's book.

1763 - The butt stock had a very high comb, almost obstructed aiming. This was designed for shouldering and clubbing. The Drop of the butt stock was lifted slightly higher than the previous 1754 Charleville that utilized the Roman Nose butt stock which had almost a 3 inch drop, so the drop on the Pedersoli 1763 stock is very accurate for a 1763. The rest of the stock is pretty accurate for a 1763 in weight, and size. The wrist is thicker, and the lock mortises and forearm are thick and bulky.

The Barrel bands on the original 1763 were very different, they had prolonged lips and the front band hand a rammer tunnel that stretched from the front band to the middle band. Two were held by springs the rear by friction. The tunnel shaped rammer tube was riveted with a screw and bolt to the upper band, this directly contributed to the gun being heavy as it required the band to be thicker to sustain a screw and bolt.

The barrel was heavy from the breech to the middle, I've seen a Rifle Shoppe patter, the breech is around 1.350 and the muzzle tapers to around .880 at .72 caliber. The Pedersoli barrel is very similar and actually a little heavier with a smaller .69 bore.

The lock on an original 1763 is huge, at almost 7 inches long, everything on the lock is larger, the **** on an original 1763 doesn't have a heart shape, just a hole and the frizzed is almost 1.5 by 1 on the bottom and about 2.2 inch long to match the throw of the ****. I wanted to see how long the lock was, just out of curiosity to see which one Pedersoli had copied.

Lastly the rammer on an original 1763 was button shaped with a shaft around 1/4, the rod was heavy. Trumpet shaped rods were not used until around 1773, some 1766 patterns that were updated had trumpeted rods and a rear band spring.

With all that said, I think the Pedersoli charleville is very similar to the 1766 just not reduced in weight. The 1766 was made to be lighter in the lock stock and barrel and was called a light 1763. The actual difference in weight between both was around 1.5 lbs with the initial production 1763 weighing in at 10.5 lbs and the 1766 at 9 lbs.

My Navy Arms 1766 Charleville is pretty lighter in all aspects, with a very similar lock to the 1763 Pedersoli. The Navy Arms Charleville is much more of a modified 1766/68 pattern, many were sent back to the armories in France before 1770 to be modified with the later patterns. This included a rear band spring, and trumped rod and thicker rear barrel band to mount a rammer spring. Previous models had issues with the rammer spring mounted to a lug under the barrel.

The 1770-1774 charleville were kind of a reversion, the French made the gun heavier again with a slightly larger lock, more weight to the butt stock and thicker barrel, making the gun around 9.9 lbs.

I was thinking of looking out for a used Pedersoli Charleville, and attempting to modify it to a 1774 pattern. There's enough wood to work down and the lock can be modified with cast parts and some rounding of the plate. The butt drop is pretty similar too. The barrel is pretty much a dead on match and the bands can be replaced with the larger thicker 1774 bands. The tigger guard was shorter, however that's not a major flaw as the 1770-1773 production runs had the larger guard.

The 1777 Charleville butt was more straight as were most later French models. They opted for a cheek recessed section for better aiming, however it was determined on later models that this was not very effective especially with the gun being smoothbore. American Springifelds and Harpers Ferry 1816 and 1822 and 1835 muskets were pretty much copied from the 1777 without cheek recesses mostly because American gun makers, Wickham, Whitney and Johnson determined that the recesses were not of any practical use, so many American made muskets copied by the French have a lower drop and reduced comb than the 1777 Charleville, the 1816 musket is a very comfortable musket for shooting. I've never shot one but an 1835 is pretty much a 1840/42 Springfield in flintlock, one of the most user comfortable muskets I've ever shot was an Armi Sport 1842.

have fun shooting when you get around to it. Easiest gun you'll ever clean.

 

[nit wit]

If you can get some 1F powder, give that a try. Always prick your flash hole.
Nit Wit

 

[PluggedNickel]

Hi and thanks when you can get around to the measurement.

The 1763 original production was a very large musket, similar in proportion to the Pedersoli Charleville with few differences.

My observations are based on pictures and Bianchi's book.

1763 - The butt stock had a very high comb, almost obstructed aiming. This was designed for shouldering and clubbing. The Drop of the butt stock was lifted slightly higher than the previous 1754 Charleville that utilized the Roman Nose butt stock which had almost a 3 inch drop, so the drop on the Pedersoli 1763 stock is very accurate for a 1763. The rest of the stock is pretty accurate for a 1763 in weight, and size. The wrist is thicker, and the lock mortises and forearm are thick and bulky.

The Barrel bands on the original 1763 were very different, they had prolonged lips and the front band hand a rammer tunnel that stretched from the front band to the middle band. Two were held by springs the rear by friction. The tunnel shaped rammer tube was riveted with a screw and bolt to the upper band, this directly contributed to the gun being heavy as it required the band to be thicker to sustain a screw and bolt.

The barrel was heavy from the breech to the middle, I've seen a Rifle Shoppe patter, the breech is around 1.350 and the muzzle tapers to around .880 at .72 caliber. The Pedersoli barrel is very similar and actually a little heavier with a smaller .69 bore.

The lock on an original 1763 is huge, at almost 7 inches long, everything on the lock is larger, the **** on an original 1763 doesn't have a heart shape, just a hole and the frizzed is almost 1.5 by 1 on the bottom and about 2.2 inch long to match the throw of the ****. I wanted to see how long the lock was, just out of curiosity to see which one Pedersoli had copied.

Lastly the rammer on an original 1763 was button shaped with a shaft around 1/4, the rod was heavy. Trumpet shaped rods were not used until around 1773, some 1766 patterns that were updated had trumpeted rods and a rear band spring.

With all that said, I think the Pedersoli charleville is very similar to the 1766 just not reduced in weight. The 1766 was made to be lighter in the lock stock and barrel and was called a light 1763. The actual difference in weight between both was around 1.5 lbs with the initial production 1763 weighing in at 10.5 lbs and the 1766 at 9 lbs.

My Navy Arms 1766 Charleville is pretty lighter in all aspects, with a very similar lock to the 1763 Pedersoli. The Navy Arms Charleville is much more of a modified 1766/68 pattern, many were sent back to the armories in France before 1770 to be modified with the later patterns. This included a rear band spring, and trumped rod and thicker rear barrel band to mount a rammer spring. Previous models had issues with the rammer spring mounted to a lug under the barrel.

The 1770-1774 charleville were kind of a reversion, the French made the gun heavier again with a slightly larger lock, more weight to the butt stock and thicker barrel, making the gun around 9.9 lbs.

I was thinking of looking out for a used Pedersoli Charleville, and attempting to modify it to a 1774 pattern. There's enough wood to work down and the lock can be modified with cast parts and some rounding of the plate. The butt drop is pretty similar too. The barrel is pretty much a dead on match and the bands can be replaced with the larger thicker 1774 bands. The tigger guard was shorter, however that's not a major flaw as the 1770-1773 production runs had the larger guard.

The 1777 Charleville butt was more straight as were most later French models. They opted for a cheek recessed section for better aiming, however it was determined on later models that this was not very effective especially with the gun being smoothbore. American Springifelds and Harpers Ferry 1816 and 1822 and 1835 muskets were pretty much copied from the 1777 without cheek recesses mostly because American gun makers, Wickham, Whitney and Johnson determined that the recesses were not of any practical use, so many American made muskets copied by the French have a lower drop and reduced comb than the 1777 Charleville, the 1816 musket is a very comfortable musket for shooting. I've never shot one but an 1835 is pretty much a 1840/42 Springfield in flintlock, one of the most user comfortable muskets I've ever shot was an Armi Sport 1842.

have fun shooting when you get around to it. Easiest gun you'll ever clean.

Wow, you have done your homework! Thanks for the history lesson. I did measure the lock, using my extremely accurate tape measure, I guesstimate the lock is approximately 6.25" long X 1.25" at the tallest. Your description of my rifle is spot on. The wrist is in deed clubby, and thick. I assumed the originals were too, due to it being used in combat as, well......a club! Pedersoli says the musket weighs 10+ pounds IIRC. It is stout. I like my musket very much. Good work with wood to metal fit excellent. Very nice figure in my stock for a production piece.

I will polish the barrel bore as well. I don't know if I mentioned that earlier? I do all my smooth bore guns (shotguns up till now). Makes for very easy cleaning. Easy cleaning is one of the reasons I'm looking forward to this musket. Easy loading too, compared to a rifle, or rifled musket for sure! I may defarbe the piece, but probably won't. I don't think The SAR is that strict about that, but I could be wrong. Maybe if your in the honor guard.
I don't personally care about such things, but to each his own. Pedersoli is making some very fine looking guns these days. For a production gun, this is the finest one I have. I have one Uberti (a Walker) that comes close. You will pay more for the David Pedersoli than the others, but if the rest of their pieces are as nice as this Charleville, why not? You will get what you pay for!
If I have as much fun as I anticipate with this musket, I may purchase a Charleville pistol in .69 as well. A 1777 Charleville Pedersoli bayonet will fit my '63-'66, it has a lug on the bottom. I may get one of those as well, even though the militia's didn't really use them. Army probably did though.

I think the lower drop in the comb, changed when they started using sights on the rifled muskets. You can see my Euroarms 1861 Springfield, was based on the Charleville 1777. With adjustable sights, my stock would have too much drop in the comb. Easily fixed with a cheek pad. The rifles take up less space with less drop in the comb too. Easier to store and garrison probably, and the straighter stock gives a cleaner look to a rifle I think. My '63-'66 stock looks like a hump back whale, but I love it! LOL

I thought about a Bess, most in my SAR Chapter have them. Then I thought, hey, if I'm gonna pretend to shoot at Red Coats, and dress the part, I may as well shoot them with a French made gun, no love lost there at the time! I suspect guns went both ways with the Continental Army, since Bess's taken from dead or captured Red Coats, were surely put into service by the them and the militias. My Patriot ancestors probably shot long rifles, since that is what they made after the war. They served in militia. They were farmers, and surely hunters as well.

I need to get off of here and get busy. I will get some pictures of my beauty and post.
You'll be hearing from me again for sure. In fact I'm going to follow you. I'll have questions about my first ever Flintlock at some point in the not too distant future I'm certain.
Good Shooting!

 

[PluggedNickel]

If you can get some 1F powder, give that a try. Always prick your flash hole.
Nit Wit

1F huh? Wow, I thought they used that for canons only! Good tip on pick the flash hole. I read that and memorized if from Paul V's excellent article on Flintlocks! In fact I re-read that post several times!

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

1F huh? Wow, I thought they used that for cannons only!

I use 1Fg powdah on my longer barrel and large caliber arms, like 65-caliber in 54” barrels and bigger. Anything less than 65-caliber and 48” barrels and I’ll use 2Fg.

The 1Fg is giving better groups, a more complete burn (again due to barrel lengths) and the recoil even with charges at or over 100-grains is nothing but a soft push.

 

[PluggedNickel]

I use 1Fg powdah on my longer barrel and large caliber arms, like 65-caliber in 54” barrels and bigger. Anything less than 65-caliber and 48” barrels and I’ll use 2Fg.

The 1Fg is giving better groups, a more complete burn (again due to barrel lengths) and the recoil even with charges at or over 100-grains is nothing but a soft push.

Cool, your the first one to tell me that. Do you feel you get better ignition with flintlocks with it? More O2 with larger chunks?

 

[Britsmoothy]

Most pedersoli barrels are chrome plated.

 

[fireman1]

Most pedersoli barrels are chrome plated.

 

[PluggedNickel]

Most pedersoli barrels are chrome plated.

I did not know that. I thought the barrel was stainless. I will check on that. You May have saved me some work there my friend!
I’m liking this purchase more and more every day!

 

[FlinterNick]

I did not know that. I thought the barrel was stainless. I will check on that. You May have saved me some work there my friend!
I’m liking this purchase more and more every day!

The Pedersoli Charleville is not chrom plated; i believe a few of their pistols are; it’s polished in the White bc I had to polish off rust with a 1500-3000 grit Emory pad. Years back I helped a guy with a Dixie gun works kit; the barrel is no question ‘heavy’ weighing around 5-6 lbs on its own very similar to an original 1763 charleville (originals were slightly lighter). Unless Pedersoli has started to chrom plate as of late ... but I don’t see the benefit of that, it would eventually chip and peal.

 

[Britsmoothy]

The Pedersoli Charleville is not chrom plated; i believe a few of their pistols are; it’s polished in the White bc I had to polish off rust with a 1500-3000 grit Emory pad. Years back I helped a guy with a Dixie gun works kit; the barrel is no question ‘heavy’ weighing around 5-6 lbs on its own very similar to an original 1763 charleville (originals were slightly lighter). Unless Pedersoli has started to chrom plate as of late ... but I don’t see the benefit of that, it would eventually chip and peal.

Internally plated.

 

[PluggedNickel]

Ok good info. That is what it looked like to me. Modern shotguns do well with chrome plating, but they have only plastic wad wearing on them. Indeed the breech area is massive, and heavy!

 

[fireman1]

Internally plated.

That makes more sense. When I think about a chrome barrel, I say lined if it is inside and plated on the outside.