Pedersoli Charleville 1777 (Revolutionnaire version) kit - review to be.

[Ironoxide]

An Enfield glass bedded does not gain value for being glass bedded as it will be limited as to which competitions it can enter.
It will gain accuracy in its shooting ability though.
(..)
I apologise for not realising you are building the gun to sell on.
I thought as an engineer you were seeking excellence in its potential.

I'm not building it to sell on, but the value of any of my guns (to myself) is a big part of my enjoyment of it.

If I was seeking 100% excellence I would've built the stock from scratch(BTW, getting reliable printed patterns is not easy - I tried).

Buying a kit is already a compromise. However if we approach this engineering-wise. We can't escape the fact the gun is not broken and that there are continuous pieces of thick metal on all sides of the weak area extending far beyond it, connected with 6mm thick screws.

When those screws are properly torqued most forces spread over a large area of wood. I agree there is a possibility of breaking, but I disagree on the certainty of it happening. I guesstimate the probability of breakage as well under 10% (unless the screws are loose).

A preemptive repair (same as post breakage repair) would diminish the value of that gun in my eyes by at least 50%.

50% > 10%

Not everyone thinks like that and that's OK.

Another consideration is accuracy. However, my accuracy expectation is very different (range wise mostly) for a smoothbore. So far this musket has already exceeded it. We'll see how it shoots once it is finished.

Additionally I strongly believe as customers we are all supposed to take part in correcting bad manufacturing practices so they are not profitable in the long run. Preemptive repair will make this impossible to me.

If it breaks I'll fix it. I still have the long drill I made by brazing a hss drill on top of a steel rod I needed for the other repair. If that happens you may be certain that I recover 50% of its purchase price from the guarantors.

That's all I'll say on the subject of glass bedding for now Hopefully, this didn't sound too harsh.

 

[Ironoxide]

On the subject of grain direction. I looked at few other guns including the closest thing I have to an original military musket (A Swedish navy Kammerlader) and I noticed this grain pattern is present there too.

Here is the Kammerlader's original stock showing the grain direction. (Made in Liege in 1856).

 

[Artificer]

That's all I'll say on the subject of glass bedding for now Hopefully, this didn't sound too harsh.

Ironoxide,

As far as I'm concerned, I don't believe you sound too harsh.

My intent has been to inform you of things that might or will happen and things you can do to preclude it from happening. The idea is to give you options, not to try to force you into something.

The decision is up to you on to do with ideas and options presented.

Sincerely,
Gus

 

[Musketeer]

There are an awful lot of Pedersoli flintlock muskets out there across the world, and I'm sure if stock breakage were even a semi-regular issue we'd have discussed the subject ad nauseum here and elsewhere. Pedersoli stocks do break now and again (like Gus's), as did originals, but I don't see it as a major concern. I think you're on the right track with your thinking at this point, Ironoxide.

 

[FlinterNick]

My pedersoli Charleville has a small depression at the breech that I filled with Arca Glass. I had assumed it was a mistake by the previous owner as I bought it used.

It could be that it has something to do wit their stock cutting CNC machines, I know some gunstock makers will use CNC machines with anchor points in the barrel channel, being such a long gun, it makes sense. In order to have that anchoring you need to cut a section out.

This is where pedersoli really needs to do some research on the Charleville musket, inside the barrel channel there were two lug mortises, 1 about 4 “ from the muzzle called an anti twist lug, one 7” from the breech to mount the rammer spring, wasn’t traditionally pinned to the stock until the 1777 model, so yours wouldnt have that lug but the mortise would still be there. Pedersoli tends to work backwards from the Napoleonic era on their historical accuracy.

 

[FlinterNick]

There are an awful lot of Pedersoli flintlock muskets out there across the world, and I'm sure if stock breakage were even a semi-regular issue we'd have discussed the subject ad nauseum here and elsewhere. Pedersoli stocks do break now and again (like Gus's), as did originals, but I don't see it as a major concern. I think you're on the right track with your thinking at this point, Ironoxide.

There are an awful lot of Pedersoli flintlock muskets out there across the world, and I'm sure if stock breakage were even a semi-regular issue we'd have discussed the subject ad nauseum here and elsewhere. Pedersoli stocks do break now and again (like Gus's), as did originals, but I don't see it as a major concern. I think you're on the right track with your thinking at this point, Ironoxide.

I agree, I haven’t seen too many pedersoli stocks break. The Walnut they use tends to be dense, I think its African Walnut.

The only stocks I’ve ever broken were the older Miroku stocks, they were made of some type of cheaper wood grade and dyed.

 

[Artificer]

My pedersoli Charleville has a small depression at the breech that I filled with Arca Glass. I had assumed it was a mistake by the previous owner as I bought it used.

It could be that it has something to do wit their stock cutting CNC machines, I know some gunstock makers will use CNC machines with anchor points in the barrel channel, being such a long gun, it makes sense. In order to have that anchoring you need to cut a section out.

I see that round bottom channel as having been the rounded end to the milling cutter that cuts the stock to fit the back of the barrel.

Gus

 

[Ironoxide]

.
(...)
This is where pedersoli really needs to do some research on the Charleville musket, inside the barrel channel there were two lug mortises, 1 about 4 “ from the muzzle called an anti twist lug, one 7” from the breech to mount the rammer spring, wasn’t traditionally pinned to the stock until the 1777 model, so yours wouldnt have that lug but the mortise would still be there. Pedersoli tends to work backwards from the Napoleonic era on their historical accuracy.

This is very interesting. I'm still waiting for a book that likely will have drawings of those internal features you describe. The way long distance post usually works probably I'll have my musket long finished when it arrives. Most books only show pictures of the outside unfortunately.

I never heard about this anti twist lug. Do you have a drawing or a picture how it is supposed to look like? Likewise regarding the retention of the rammer spring.

This is the 1777 model infantry version. One thing they definitely got wrong is the front barrel band attachment. The originals have a semicircular piece of steel brazed to the barrel the screw holding the front band screws into. The Pedersoli reproduction barrel doesn't have it. The screw has a tapered shank (like a grub screw) and terminates in a matching hole in the wood.

Edit: Are you're talking about the 1766 model (the one that uses friction fit on the third barrel band)?

I found this on a website
"The M1766 also introduced the ramrod spoon to French muskets, a spoon-shaped spring in the stock that applied friction to the ramrod, preventing it from slipping out of the stock accidently. The M1766 had the spoon pinned to a lug under the barrel. In most future pattern arms, the spoon would be pinned directly to the stock instead. The “anti-twist” lug would also be eliminated in future models."

This is the source French M1766 Charleville Musket

 

[Artificer]

This is very interesting. I'm still waiting for a book that likely will have drawings of those internal features you describe. The way long distance post usually works probably I'll have my musket long finished when it arrives. Most books only show pictures of the outside unfortunately.

I never heard about this anti twist lug. Do you have a drawing or a picture how it is supposed to look like? Likewise regarding the retention of the rammer spring.

This is the 1777 model infantry version. One thing they definitely got wrong is the front barrel band attachment. The originals have a semicircular piece of steel brazed to the barrel the screw holding the front band screws into. The Pedersoli reproduction barrel doesn't have it. The screw has a tapered shank (like a grub screw) and terminates in a matching hole in the wood.

Edit: Are you're talking about the 1766 model (the one that uses friction fit on the third barrel band)?

I found this on a website
"The M1766 also introduced the ramrod spoon to French muskets, a spoon-shaped spring in the stock that applied friction to the ramrod, preventing it from slipping out of the stock accidently. The M1766 had the spoon pinned to a lug under the barrel. In most future pattern arms, the spoon would be pinned directly to the stock instead. The “anti-twist” lug would also be eliminated in future models."

This is the source French M1766 Charleville Musket

When Springfield Armory first began production of the M 1795 musket, they used French M 1766 muskets and parts to make them in the first two years of production. This musket also had the anti twist lug not far from the front and was simply a rectangular lug brazed to the bottom of the barrel and inletted into the stock with no pin or screw going through the stock.

The only place I've seen these shown is in the book, Springfield Armory Infantry Muskets 1795 - 1844 by Kent W. Johns. Unfortunately I don't have a PC capable camera to take a picture of the page/s that show it.

Gus

 

[Britsmoothy]

Just for clarity....my recommendations were nothing to do with preventing possible stock breakages but everything to do with performance!

 

[Ironoxide]

Just for clarity....my recommendations were nothing to do with preventing possible stock breakages but everything to do with performance!

That was clear

When Springfield Armory first began production of the M 1795 musket, they used French M 1766 muskets and parts to make them in the first two years of production. This musket also had the anti twist lug not far from the front and was simply a rectangular lug brazed to the bottom of the barrel and inletted into the stock with no pin or screw going through the stock.

The only place I've seen these shown is in the book, Springfield Armory Infantry Muskets 1795 - 1844 by Kent W. Johns. Unfortunately I don't have a PC capable camera to take a picture of the page/s that show it.

Gus

Thanks for mentioning the book. I'll add it to my list of books to check out.

So the conclusion is model 1777 didn't have an anti twist lug, and had the spring same as the repro. So the "only" missing feature in the repro is the front barrel band screw termination.

FlinterNick, is your musket model 1766 with no anti twist lug and same spring retention?

Regarding the build.

I don't think I mentioned I de whiskered the wood as well prior to sealing. I used a damp cloth followed immediately by a hot air gun, then red and grey scotch brite to get rid of the whiskers.

The stock was sealed last night.

Today In the morning I went over the(now sealed) wood with p380 sandpaper to get rid of any buildup of the sealant on top of wood. The idea behind it is that the sealant is supposed to be in the wood not a coat on top of it. My books recommended to do this sanding wet as the stock is supposed to be sealed properly now, but I decided the sealant definitely needs to cure for some days before it offers full protection so I did it dry. I then used a vacuum cleaner to get rid of dust and I wiped it with very slightly damp cloth followed immediately by hot air gun to dry.

Then filling the pores starts. There are many ways this can be accomplished (or skipped). I decided I like the natural color of the grain so no need to use stained silica based sealers.

Also pores are pretty deep so I decided to fill them with the same product I used for sealing just used at much higher viscosity (just a tiny bit of solvent added).

The method involves coating the entire outside surface of the stock with the varnish. Then immediately going over all inletting and wiping the varnish with clean cloth if it ended up where it shouldn't be. I definitely don't want a buildup at any places where precise fit has to take place. Then one is supposed to wait for the varnish to thicken part way through and the surface is wiped across the grain with very rough cloth (wool sweater, linen bag etc, I used a piece of rough hemp cloth). The point of this is to remove most of the varnish from the surface while leaving it in the pores.

It is likely few coats like this will be required (including sanding down any buildup and removing dust between coats).

The description of all of this is pretty elaborate, but I assure you it goes pretty fast. It took me maybe 5min to sand before, then next 5min to put the coat on. Finally 5min to wipe the excess half an hour later.

Anyone doing it please be aware you need a test piece of wood (ideally walnut) to test so you know how long to wait before wiping etc.

So now the stock is pretty much dry after the first coat of filler. It should harden overnight for the light sanding and next coat tomorrow.

Here partially filled pores can be seen.

All of the sheen visible now will be gone later. Once I've filled the grain I'll apply my final finish. 3~4 coats of rubbed boiled linseed oil.

 

[FlinterNick]

That was clear



Thanks for mentioning the book. I'll add it to my list of books to check out.

So the conclusion is model 1777 didn't have an anti twist lug, and had the spring same as the repro. So the "only" missing feature in the repro is the front barrel band screw termination.

FlinterNick, is your musket model 1766 with no anti twist lug and same spring retention?

Regarding the build.

I don't think I mentioned I de whiskered the wood as well prior to sealing. I used a damp cloth followed immediately by a hot air gun, then red and grey scotch brite to get rid of the whiskers.

The stock was sealed last night.

Today In the morning I went over the(now sealed) wood with p380 sandpaper to get rid of any buildup of the sealant on top of wood. The idea behind it is that the sealant is supposed to be in the wood not a coat on top of it. My books recommended to do this sanding wet as the stock is supposed to be sealed properly now, but I decided the sealant definitely needs to cure for some days before it offers full protection so I did it dry. I then used a vacuum cleaner to get rid of dust and I wiped it with very slightly damp cloth followed immediately by hot air gun to dry.

Then filling the pores starts. There are many ways this can be accomplished (or skipped). I decided I like the natural color of the grain so no need to use stained silica based sealers.

Also pores are pretty deep so I decided to fill them with the same product I used for sealing just used at much higher viscosity (just a tiny bit of solvent added).

The method involves coating the entire outside surface of the stock with the varnish. Then immediately going over all inletting and wiping the varnish with clean cloth if it ended up where it shouldn't be. I definitely don't want a buildup at any places where precise fit has to take place. Then one is supposed to wait for the varnish to thicken part way through and the surface is wiped across the grain with very rough cloth (wool sweater, linen bag etc, I used a piece of rough hemp cloth). The point of this is to remove most of the varnish from the surface while leaving it in the pores.

It is likely few coats like this will be required (including sanding down any buildup and removing dust between coats).

The description of all of this is pretty elaborate, but I assure you it goes pretty fast. It took me maybe 5min to sand before, then next 5min to put the coat on. Finally 5min to wipe the excess half an hour later.

Anyone doing it please be aware you need a test piece of wood (ideally walnut) to test so you know how long to wait before wiping etc.

So now the stock is pretty much dry after the first coat of filler. It should harden overnight for the light sanding and next coat tomorrow.

View attachment 87653
Here partially filled pores can be seen.
View attachment 87654

All of the sheen visible now will be gone later. Once I've filled the grain I'll apply my final finish. 3~4 coats of rubbed boiled linseed oil.

MY Pedersoli 1763/66 Charleville doesn’t have an anti twist lug, i had contemplated putting one on but the barrel is so large on this gun and the bands are much much thicker than the originals that it didn’t seem necessary.

My Miroku 1766 Charleville does have an anti twist lug, this gun tend to be much more historically accurate than the pedersoli version, other than the stock wood type.

Rammer spoons on the 1754-1770 Charleville Patterns were pinned to a lug beneath the barrel. I’ve seen two original Charleville rammer springs, they were very much like a revolver mainspring with rounded edges, not pear shaped like the later models. The 1774 model had a rammer spring attached to the rear band, the rear band was slightly longer and thicker, the actual spring was very small, this was a poor arrangement, much like that of a Brown Bess 1742 Long Land with a rammer spring riveted to the entry pipe.

 

[FlinterNick]

This is very interesting. I'm still waiting for a book that likely will have drawings of those internal features you describe. The way long distance post usually works probably I'll have my musket long finished when it arrives. Most books only show pictures of the outside unfortunately.

I never heard about this anti twist lug. Do you have a drawing or a picture how it is supposed to look like? Likewise regarding the retention of the rammer spring.

This is the 1777 model infantry version. One thing they definitely got wrong is the front barrel band attachment. The originals have a semicircular piece of steel brazed to the barrel the screw holding the front band screws into. The Pedersoli reproduction barrel doesn't have it. The screw has a tapered shank (like a grub screw) and terminates in a matching hole in the wood.

Edit: Are you're talking about the 1766 model (the one that uses friction fit on the third barrel band)?

I found this on a website
"The M1766 also introduced the ramrod spoon to French muskets, a spoon-shaped spring in the stock that applied friction to the ramrod, preventing it from slipping out of the stock accidently. The M1766 had the spoon pinned to a lug under the barrel. In most future pattern arms, the spoon would be pinned directly to the stock instead. The “anti-twist” lug would also be eliminated in future models."

This is the source French M1766 Charleville Musket

The pedersoli 1763/66 Charleville has a friction fit barrel band for the rear, this is for the most part accurate as with the 1763 and first production year of the 66 light model, however pedersoli’s rear band is about 100 grams heavier than the originaL.

The 63/66 light model (which pedersoil attempted to copy), was called the light model because it only weighed around 8 - 8.5 lbs. Everything was smaller on this gun, I have some castings of the original lock and its smaller than any of the modern repro’s, the barrel weighed just a little over 4 lbs while the 63 weighed just a little under or over 5lbs.

George Moller’s (or Neumann) 1763 and 1766 Charleville's are up for auction in 45 days, they’re fine specimens. his entire collection is for salE too, its going to be one for the ages ! Here are the pictures of his 1763.
the other specimen that is a superb original is the one on display at the Williamsburg Museum. It even has its originail super high comb.

The 1777 infantry musket by pedersoli is a pretty decent copy, the only real issues with its authentic is the frizzen spring just looks fake, and the top jaw screw was shaped like a tear drop, and the front barrel band with the screw had a lug that anchored the screw, the pedersoli pattern‘s just screws into the stock, with the rammer returned, it should provide enough security for the barrel Band, but if it were my gun, I’d add the lug And swap out the screw.



Here is the link.

https://emuseum.history.org/objects...t;jsessionid=6E773D3F00D36CB3F6B4B691E7B70F81

 

[Ironoxide]

The pedersoli 1763/66 Charleville has a friction fit barrel band for the rear, this is for the most part accurate as with the 1763 and first production year of the 66 light model, however pedersoli’s rear band is about 100 grams heavier than the originaL.

The 63/66 light model (which pedersoil attempted to copy), was called the light model because it only weighed around 8 - 8.5 lbs. Everything was smaller on this gun, I have some castings of the original lock and its smaller than any of the modern repro’s, the barrel weighed just a little over 4 lbs while the 63 weighed just a little under or over 5lbs.

George Moller’s (or Neumann) 1763 and 1766 Charleville's are up for auction in 45 days, they’re fine specimens. his entire collection is for salE too, its going to be one for the ages ! Here are the pictures of his 1763.
the other specimen that is a superb original is the one on display at the Williamsburg Museum. It even has its originail super high comb.

The 1777 infantry musket by pedersoli is a pretty decent copy, the only real issues with its authentic is the frizzen spring just looks fake, and the top jaw screw was shaped like a tear drop, and the front barrel band with the screw had a lug that anchored the screw, the pedersoli pattern‘s just screws into the stock, with the rammer returned, it should provide enough security for the barrel Band, but if it were my gun, I’d add the lug And swap out the screw.



Here is the link.

https://emuseum.history.org/objects...t;jsessionid=6E773D3F00D36CB3F6B4B691E7B70F81

One more thing. The ramrod retention spring was riveted to the first barrel band (one with the screw) in the original model 1777. The one pinned to the stock was one of modifications in the Corrige An IX model.

They probably decide not to add a screw termination lug so they can use the same barrel for both 1777 Revolutionnaire and Corrige An IX. An additional difference in the barrel is in markings.Model 1777 has "Mle 1777", Corrige An IX should have "Mle 9" there.

Edit: But they get good points from me thanks to getting the shape of the frizzen right on those two models

Regarding the frizzen spring this is an original.

This is the repro

It is different, but not hugely

 

[FlinterNick]

One more thing. The ramrod retention spring was riveted to the first barrel band (one with the screw) in the original model 1777. The one pinned to the stock was one of modifications in the Corrige An IX model.

They probably decide not to add a screw termination lug so they can use the same barrel for both 1777 Revolutionnaire and Corrige An IX. An additional difference in the barrel is in markings.Model 1777 has "Mle 1777", Corrige An IX should have "Mle 9" there.

Edit: But they get good points from me thanks to getting the shape of the frizzen right on those two models

Regarding the frizzen spring this is an original.
View attachment 87798
This is the repro
View attachment 87799
It is different, but not hugely

Yea, I tried hard to find a replacement for mine, the pin to screw hole set up is very wide apart. The only place I could find a casted spring that was even close was a Dutch Wall Gun casting, this of course needs to be tailored down.

 

[FlinterNick]

One more thing. The ramrod retention spring was riveted to the first barrel band (one with the screw) in the original model 1777. The one pinned to the stock was one of modifications in the Corrige An IX model.

They probably decide not to add a screw termination lug so they can use the same barrel for both 1777 Revolutionnaire and Corrige An IX. An additional difference in the barrel is in markings.Model 1777 has "Mle 1777", Corrige An IX should have "Mle 9" there.

Edit: But they get good points from me thanks to getting the shape of the frizzen right on those two models

Regarding the frizzen spring this is an original.
View attachment 87798
This is the repro
View attachment 87799
It is different, but not hugely

I think the ramrod retention spring in the front band was a 1777 dragoon musket feature, not an infantry feature. Didler Bianchi’s book mentions that.

However, I can’t see the rammer spoon riveted to the front band being beneficial, rivets on these muskets were pretty much copper pins bratted to the steel, they often broke.

The type 1 1763 Charleville actually had a very long rammer spoon riveted to the underside of the front barrel band, on the originals I’ve seen it doesn’t really work very well, its more like a guide than a spring.

 

[Ironoxide]

I think the ramrod retention spring in the front band was a 1777 dragoon musket feature, not an infantry feature. Didler Bianchi’s book mentions that.

It was an infantry model feature. I used the same source Page 60, second paragraph (the description of the infantry model 1777 starts on page 59, Dragoon model starts on page 62).

It is a very good book suggested to me recently.

There may have been a slightly earlier model where a dragoon (and hussars) versions had a spring while the infantry version didn't.

 

[FlinterNick]

It was an infantry model feature. I used the same source Page 60, second paragraph (the description of the infantry model 1777 starts on page 59, Dragoon model starts on page 62).

View attachment 87801

It is a very good book suggested to me recently.

There may have been a slightly earlier model where a dragoon (and hussars) versions had a spring while the infantry version didn't.

I agree, I just bought these charleville sketch books by Jean Bodrouit, who did some of the most extensive research on French Muskets.

It seems that the 1777 barrel band had many features, and makes me wonder if it was slightly larger to accommodate the rammer spring and rivet.

Here are the prints.

 

[Ironoxide]

Wow! You just made my day

I bought a book with the same drawings on Abebooks a week or so ago. It has been posted, but it'll probably take 2~3 weeks more to arrive. Thanks for posting those

 

[FlinterNick]

Wow! You just made my day

I bought a book with the same drawings on Abebooks a week or so ago. It has been posted, but it'll probably take 2~3 weeks more to arrive. Thanks for posting those

After looking at some prints fairly closely, it seems that the French were playing around with the rammer spring. The best set-up was the 1763 - 1768 patterns where it was pinned to a lug beneath the barrel.

The 1773 and 74 set-up just seems too fragile with a small spoon screwed to the barrel band, from what I can tell online with some originals is that rammer spoon is missing on almost all of them.

The 1777 seemed to have it set up initially in the front band but on two designs, the very first 1777 infantry musket and then on several of the earlier marine and dragoon models. Some of which actually had it pinned to a barrel lug at the length of the front band.

Early rammer springs on French muskets were known to have failed I think mostly because the quality of the steel just wasn't very good until the later 1816 and 1822 pattern muskets. The French seemed to have had gone through great lengths to secure the rammer, for example the 1763 pattern had two rammer springs, one at the breech and one at the front barrel band.