Original Charleville?

[Brewer]

Hello Gents,
Any chance this is a real Charleville as described? I probably have no hope in winning it, but I sure would like to have one if it's the real deal. A new Pedersoli is going for more than 1000 bucks now. Anyway, here's the auction:

Charleville

Thanks!
Brewer

 

[Cruzatte]

Either way, I hope you win the auction. It is either a very nice forgery, or a genuine antique in good condition.

Cruzatte

 

[JV Puleo]

In as much as I can tell from the usual Gunbroker pictures, I believe it is genuine. I don't find the price too shocking either. I have a Year IX musket I bought about a year ago at a major gun show for $400...

JV Puleo

 

[Dave K]

It appears to be original to me as well. It is a shame though that a wire wheel was used to clean the metal. Look closely at the metal and you can see it's marks. The easiest place is on the cock. You can see worm holes that appeared to have been filled on the forearm as well. JMHO. But, how much would an untouched one cost!

 

[Okwaho]

First of all it isn't a Charleville ,it is a Maubege model 1770-76 French infantry musket. At tis time there were three royal armories; Maubege,Saint Etienne,and Charleville.Tulle became a royal armory in I believe 1777.The barrel has been shortened 4.40 in.and the apparent lack of French proof marks{unless those are the letters on the side of the barrel}bothers me as do the brush treatment and the sharp screw heads. My gut says MAYBE ? but this is NOT a gun I would buy over the internet AS IS with no return privilege,CAVEAT EMPTOR !!!
Tom Patton

 

[arquebus]

Looks pretty decent to me. I do know that that particular seller has a very good reputation, so I think the gun would be well represented. Good luck with the auction.

 

[Brewer]

Thanks Guys,
I think I'm going to go for it. It bothers me a bit that it's been cut down 4", but it still seems to be a good deal given what unaltered specimens are going for. What was the typical reason for shortening the barrel? Was it to redress a worn muzzle or simply to make it a handier length? Would it have been done at an arsenal or on the unit level?
Thanks!
Brewer

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

The barrel has been shortened 4.40 in.

It is possible that it has been improperly shortened but the near 40.5 inch (1025mm) length of the barrel may make it a Voltigeur (Light Infantry) musket? Like Tom P. I am worried about the apparent lack of French proof marks. The cleaning is also a negative but it does seem to be original flint and the seller does show good photos of the negative points. The current price is not too bad...

 

[Brewer]

Thanks for your help!

What would be the appropriate proof marks to find on this piece? I may e-mail the seller with specific requests for photos in more detail. George Neumann's book has a few references to officers' muskets which had shorter barrels - it it possible that this is one of those?

Now, this may sound crazy but I shoot all my stuff. This one looks like it is in firing condition. I know this requires a leap of faith without an examination of the musket, but do you think it's a realistic goal that I might be able to shoot it occasionally with mild loads?
Thanks!

 

[robinghewitt]

It still has engraving on the outside at the breech end so it hasn't lost too much metal in the cleaning. Unless the barrel has completely rotted out inside, and I mean massive pitting, I'd shoot it with the service charge no problem :thumbsup:

OTOH, I'll shoot anything :shake:

 

[Maverick3855]

I would fire that myself.
I have owned two original 1816 Sprinfield smoothbores and if the barrels are decent the originals will hold a pretty serious charge.
I generally shoot 65-75 grains of 3F in my smoothbores so I took the barrels out of the 1816's and put 250 grains of 3F in them and two patched round balls and put a bottle rocket fuse in the touch hole, lit them and ran like h#((.
Both of them held up.
That was my proof load.
I may double charge a gun someday but seriously doubt I would triple charge one which is what 250 grains would be.
I hunted with original smoothbores for many years.
Maverick

 

[Okwaho]

I shot an old { Ca. 1830's-40's} .40 cal. Kentucky rifle for years.It had a forged iron barrel and I could easily remove and replace the breech plug.I was never afraid to shoot it with medium {35-45 grains of fff powder}, but I don't quite feel the same about old fowler and musket smooth bore barrels.The rifle had a fairly thick walled barrel but such isn't the case in smoothbores.I have a Liegeois fusil fin {Ca.1700-1729} which was used in Canada and the barrel has blown out twice about half way up and the last time it wasn't repaired.The hole is quite small but I wouldn't want to repair and shoot it. I think this sort of problem is probably not all that uncommon on old smoothbores.The French were notorious for thin walled smoothbore barrels and the same can probably be said for Liegeois guns sent over to New France.
Tom Patton.

 

[Brewer]

Thanks for your input, everybody! Alas, the auction price has now risen to over $1400, which is above my "impulse buy" limit. Maybe I'll just hod out for a Pedersoli repro in nice condition, or a Tip Curtis fowler.

Thanks again!

Brewer

 

[Brewer]

The auction's over - it went for $1925.

Thanks,
vanfunk