Picked up a 1777 Pedersoli Charleville. Anyone have some load data and recommended ball size or any other info I should know? Only thing I don't like is the front nose piece is kind of loose.View attachment 286271
Owner's manual?Anyone have some load data and recommended ball size or any other info I should know?
When I got my Pedersoli, the owner’s manual was basically a safety manual and it wasn’t specific to my gun. I read the whole thing, but it wasn’t useful for my gun.Owner's manual?
I’ve never seen a load recommendation come with a PedersoliOwner's manual?
They publish it on their website. Just to make it easy, I'll attach my PDF copy here.I’ve never seen a load recommendation come with a Pedersoli
Yeah, that definitely did not come with my 1766, my 1795 or the 1816 I used to own.They publish it on their website. Just to make it easy, I'll attach my PDF copy here.
Judging from the way they're discussed/described on this forum, I'm not surprised.I’ve never seen a load recommendation come with a Pedersoli
I got muskets. I already know the chargesJudging from the way they're discussed/described on this forum, I'm not surprised.
Totally jealous . You might try 11 bang bang Channel (YouTube)got a new video on that same 77 he uses a very heavy load of homemade powder and .64 paper cartridge ball. The son of gun hits a 12 inch steel plate at 100yrds. Don't like to put that heavier charge and as it stresses the gun, the stock, etc. but I bought a mold for a 670 ball that I shoot powder, ball and just an overshot card with 70 grains of one of 1 F Swiss. Keep in mind my ball is only .20 under bore so its not as much windage as 11 bang bangs load. You gotta experiment its part of the funPicked up a 1777 Pedersoli Charleville. Anyone have some load data and recommended ball size or any other info I should know? Only thing I don't like is the front nose piece is kind of loose.View attachment 286271
I do like his channelTotally jealous . You might try 11 bang bang Channel (YouTube)got a new video on that same 77 he uses a very heavy load of homemade powder and .64 paper cartridge ball. The son of gun hits a 12 inch steel plate at 100yrds. Don't like to put that heavier charge and as it stresses the gun, the stock, etc. but I bought a mold for a 670 ball that I shoot powder, ball and just an overshot card with 70 grains of one of 1 F Swiss. Keep in mind my ball is only .20 under bore so its not as much windage as 11 bang bangs load. You gotta experiment its part of the fun
Those original guns were designed for 150+ grain loads with more primitive steels. That being said modern BP is better than they had and there is no real need to use the heavier loads.Totally jealous . You might try 11 bang bang Channel (YouTube)got a new video on that same 77 he uses a very heavy load of homemade powder and .64 paper cartridge ball. The son of gun hits a 12 inch steel plate at 100yrds. Don't like to put that heavier charge and as it stresses the gun, the stock, etc. but I bought a mold for a 670 ball that I shoot powder, ball and just an overshot card with 70 grains of one of 1 F Swiss. Keep in mind my ball is only .20 under bore so its not as much windage as 11 bang bangs load. You gotta experiment its part of the fun
I believe you're right. The cartridge in my post is actually for a Springfield 1842 and it's pretty close to what was actually used. For the 1777 Chareleville in question it would be even easier to make paper cartridges.I just watched the 11bangbang episode on his cartridge make. He was right about about the French powder being better than English, unfortunately it seems he has never seen an original French cartridge of the era.
Everyone always assumes the French made their cartridges like the English. They didn’t. They didn’t tie the ends, they normally used a rectangle paper, not a trapezoid, and they glued the seems.
The 1842 musket used a .65 ball over 130gr of musket (1f) powder in 1842. The charge was reduced by 1849 to 110 gr of musket powder. The only critique I would offer on your cartridges is to not over tighten the strings. See the originals below.I believe you're right. The cartridge in my post is actually for a Springfield 1842 and it's pretty close to what was actually used. For the 1777 Chareleville in question it would be even easier to make paper cartridges.
Picked up a 1777 Pedersoli Charleville. Anyone have some load data and recommended ball size or any other info I should know? Only thing I don't like is the front nose piece is kind of loose.View attachment 286271
The 1842 musket used a .65 ball over 130gr of musket (1f) powder in 1842. The charge was reduced by 1849 to 110 gr of musket powder. The only critique I would offer on your cartridges is to not over tighten the strings. See the originals below.
Enter your email address to join: