Original 1766 Musket

[Clark Badgett]

I’m making lost wax castings of the lock, making a copy of it.

Oh, called me interested.

 

[sportster73hp]

I too am interested. I would like a finished one as i am struggling to figure out how to machine a trs lock part set already.

 

[FlinterNick]

I too am interested. I would like a finished one as i am struggling to figure out how to machine a trs lock part set already.

I’ve built a few TRS charleville locks, the hardest part is the bridles. On many of the originals the integral lugs on them were bent, being made of iron this was possible, but much harder to do with casted steel. The 1766 they have is done very well copied.

 

[sportster73hp]

I’ve built a few TRS charleville locks, the hardest part is the bridles. On many of the originals the integral lugs on them were bent, being made of iron this was possible, but much harder to do with casted steel. The 1766 they have is done very well copied.

My current stalled project is a Baker calvary carbine. Work ,hunting season and life are keeping me busy.

 

[Clark Badgett]

I’ve built a few TRS charleville locks, the hardest part is the bridles. On many of the originals the integral lugs on them were bent, being made of iron this was possible, but much harder to do with casted steel. The 1766 they have is done very well copied.

I only have the lock plate for the TRS ‘66. It looks nice by itself. Its a Meubuege.

 

[FlinterNick]

I only have the lock plate for the TRS ‘66. It looks nice by itself. Its a Meubuege.

Yea it’s a nice plate, it’s a great representation of a charleville 66 used in the revolutionary war.

I have two original 1766 locks, there are generally two types. One is much heavier than the other. The St.Entien locks are leaner and thinner, the Charleville and Maubeg locks are much beefier and thicker.

The 1763’s are tough, I’ve seen over a dozen, some are massive and some are not. In general i think the french were very experimental with the series 1763,

 

[Clark Badgett]

Yea it’s a nice plate, it’s a great representation of a charleville 66 used in the revolutionary war.

I have two original 1766 locks, there are generally two types. One is much heavier than the other. The St.Entien locks are leaner and thinner, the Charleville and Maubeg locks are much beefier and thicker.

The 1763’s are tough, I’ve seen over a dozen, some are massive and some are not. In general i think the french were very experimental with the series 1763,

The massive gun Museum 7 miles east of my front door has 2, behind glass with no detailed collection records on them. I’m thinking one might be a St. Etienne. I need to get back over there soon and see if I can get some OKish pictures.

 

[FlinterNick]

The massive gun Museum 7 miles east of my front door has 2, behind glass with no detailed collection records on them. I’m thinking one might be a St. Etienne. I need to get back over there soon and see if I can get some OKish pictures.

My goal is to produce one of each of the 1766’s made in France at each factory, in particular I’m on the look out for one that is marked t.ville, the tulle factory in fact did make a few which were slightly smaller and sold to Spain and her colonies.

some key facts of each lock.

1766 Charleville made: Heavier plate, smaller flintcock, taller frizzen, mainspring has a large hump foot. Pan has a short arm on the inside, bridle is thick.

1766 Maubaeg: Larger flintcock than the charleville made one, thicker frizzen (same as previous 1763), Mainspring was heavy, frizzen spring had a lot of taper to it.

1766 St.Entine: Much leaner than the others, made with a mainspring that is very similar to a 1754 mainspring, frizzen was taller but thinner with more decorative bevels.

1766 Tulle: Very rare one, smallest of the all three, often found on auxiliary guns like carbines and mustketoons.

 

[Juice Jaws]

I recently won an original 1766 charleville musket, to add to my collection of rev War 1763 and 1766 parts.

I was able to disassemble the musket with success, the stock is a little unstable.

I wanted to offer the forum any personal requests for information, dimensions etc.

The butt stock is surcharged United States branded and i have a lose 1763 US stamped barrel, french crown markings underneath on both are a match.

Maybe I misunderstand something but why would a 1766 musket have US stamped barrel ???. There was no such thing as the US in 1766

 

[FlinterNick]

Maybe I misunderstand something but why would a 1766 musket have US stamped barrel ???. There was no such thing as the US in 1766

France sold / lent around 100,000 of them to the United States in 1775-1782, once in the United States they were considered US property and surcharged stamped. The earliest shipments were branded on the buttstocks on the sides or toe because hand stamps had not been made that early, later shipments were US surcharge stamped on the lock and or top of the barrel or tang of the butt plate.

Some were double surcharged because parts were used from older muskets and restocked.

 

[galoot]

Maybe I misunderstand something but why would a 1766 musket have US stamped barrel ???. There was no such thing as the US in 1766

In the 1970's and 80's there were (and still are) people who stamped French muskets with a fake US surcharge to turn a reasonably priced me musket into a much more expensive item with fake Revolutionary War associations.

An original surcharged piece was used to duplicate the stamping, by taking a prepared piece of metal that could be used as a die blank, heating it, and then placing it over the mark and hitting it with a hammer to transfer the impression. (I've seen the same thing done to transfer serial numbers on replacement parts to create an "all matching item.") The die is then completed to use as a working die. It will produce a stamping with the same characteristics as the one used to model it.

Unless a piece has a rock solid provenance and chain of custody hat goes back a very long way, there is always the chance of a surcharged piece having been enhanced to increase the assumed value of something.

 

[FlinterNick]

In the 1970's and 80's there were (and still are) people who stamped French muskets with a fake US surcharge to turn a reasonably priced me musket into a much more expensive item with fake Revolutionary War associations.

An original surcharged piece was used to duplicate the stamping, by taking a prepared piece of metal that could be used as a die blank, heating it, and then placing it over the mark and hitting it with a hammer to transfer the impression. (I've seen the same thing done to transfer serial numbers on replacement parts to create an "all matching item.") The die is then completed to use as a working die. It will produce a stamping with the same characteristics as the one used to model it.

Unless a piece has a rock solid provenance and chain of custody hat goes back a very long way, there is always the chance of a surcharged piece having been enhanced to increase the assumed value of something.

This one is branded on the butt, not stamped on the barrel. The brands are well worn out, and in the correct location.

I have a loose 1774 barrel that is US stamped but it doesn’t belong to this gun, pictured below, I’ve made a pattern for this barrel for use on a M1774 kit.

The brand i believe to be genuine as do several collectors, including Jess Melot of the rifle shoppe.

While i didnt purchase the Charleville because of the stamps, my intention is to copy it, and make a prototype reproduction, then hand it over to the Monmouth Battlefield Museum for safe keeping and to allow others to research it.

There is also a Paris proof marking under the barrel.

 

[Juice Jaws]

France sold / lent around 100,000 of them to the United States in 1775-1782, once in the United States they were considered US property and surcharged stamped. The earliest shipments were branded on the buttstocks on the sides or toe because hand stamps had not been made that early, later shipments were US surcharge stamped on the lock and or top of the barrel or tang of the butt plate.

Some were double surcharged because parts were used from older muskets and restocked.

Never knew they did that, thanks

 

[FlinterNick]

Never knew they did that, thanks

Its not uncommon to find it on bayonets too.

 

[rickystl]

Congratulations !!! What a great find. It's usually difficult to find an original in decent condition. And usually expensive when you do locate one.
A couple years ago, I ran across this at an auction. Couldn't pass it up. One of the old Navy Arms Murouku (Spelling?) Charleville Muskets, New, untouched, still in the original box.

Rick

 

[Comfortably_Numb]

The pedersolis and Indian guns aren't even remotely similar. But nobody seems to care. Actually very few people have had a chance to actually handle ANY flint gun from the 18th century so they really don't know the difference.

 

[FlinterNick]

The pedersolis and Indian guns aren't even remotely similar. But nobody seems to care. Actually very few people have had a chance to actually handle ANY flint gun from the 18th century so they really don't know the difference.

No, the pedersoli is an odd one too. Has the stock shape of a 1763 heavy model, nothing else is correct. The Lock is massive too. the barrel is too straight, not enough taper, the bands are also massive.

I’ve had requests to defarb that musket to heavy 1763, just not possible, barrel is too small, lock plate is too short and the bands are not correctly located.

The pedersoli 1795 is actually much closer to a 1766 than the 1766 by pedersoli is.

 

[Clark Badgett]

No, the pedersoli is an odd one too. Has the stock shape of a 1763 heavy model, nothing else is correct. The Lock is massive too. the barrel is too straight, not enough taper, the bands are also massive.

I’ve had requests to defarb that musket to heavy 1763, just not possible, barrel is too small, lock plate is too short and the bands are not correctly located.

The pedersoli 1795 is actually much closer to a 1766 than the 1766 by pedersoli is.

I’ve got both the Pedersoli “1766” and 1795. Every part on both of mine aside from the rammer and forward barrel band are the exact same. I think my 95 was one of the early versions. They both use the same incorrect TG, both feather springs are an eyesore and both have long single side flat for the lock, (I added the other side on the 66 to the shorter length) I removed most of the excess wood from the 66, its better but not perfect. I’ve yet to put the 95 on a diet and defunk regimen, but my shop still isn’t completely set up yet. I bought that TRS 66 lock plate to compare it to the 66, its a touch smaller L & W, but not a massive difference. I’ve not measured the thickness yet.

 

[sturmkatze]

The pedersolis and Indian guns aren't even remotely similar. But nobody seems to care. Actually very few people have had a chance to actually handle ANY flint gun from the 18th century so they really don't know the difference.

I don’t think it’s that they don’t care. More, in most cases, they just can’t afford it. I paid $300 for this pedersoli Bess. After defarbing and a new mainspring and ram rod, I still only have about $800 in it. It looks pretty good. Is it perfect? Of course not, but I’m not about to take a $3000+ gun reenacting. Stacking arms. Taking a hit. Musket leaning against things or on the ground. Yeah, fine for a military gun, but when you have a perfect replica, that’s a lot of money for most. Just my opinion.

If you can get a decent priced used pedersoli or Miroku, have it defarbed and it looks good, well that works.

 

[PathfinderNC]

Wonderful! It’s fascinating to see such pieces of well documented history presented in the way you do.
I was struck by something right away about the musket. That is how the barrel tang protrudes above the wrist. ( so does the screw, actually) I was wondering why it was made in such a manner. Certainly not flush with the stock wrist in any closeness. Perhaps the barrel has not been drawn down and fully seated in the channel? It’s so interesting to see how things were done and try to understand why.