• Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

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

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
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.

I can’t wait for my book :)

Regarding the Pedersoli kit.

I'm on a third layer of undiluted varnish in an attempt to fill the pores (in addition to the first diluted and wiped coat that was done to seal the wood from moisture).

Few things I learned that may help other people building Pedersoli kits.

The most important thing - do not use steel wool, or sand metal parts installed in wood resulting in tiny specs of steel and then use water on the wood unless you want to stain the stock black.

It is fine to use steel wool on its own. It is fine to sand steel parts right next to wood in finishing. As long as you do not later wet that part of wood without very thorough cleaning.

I had big chunks turn blotchy black(its fixed now). I first tried a dewhiskering method where one moistens the wood and dries it with an airgun. Then one removes resulting raised grain (whiskers) with steel wool. All went fine, but on next application of a tiny bit of water in the area where steel wool was used the wood turned black.

Thankfully I quickly used a lot more water, acetone, isopropyl alcohol, a vacuum cleaner with a brush end, skotch brite maroon and grey abrasive pads and compressed air to get rid of this "in situ" stain before it managed to penetrate.

Then I used isopropyl alcohol mixed with water (50/50) to continue dewhiskering and scotch brite to cut whiskers off. I now think scotch brite abrasive pads are much better for dewhiskering.

Interestingly I also had part of my wooden bench(osb) and wooden floor(pine boards) turn black where sanding dust from the stock was mixed with metal sanding dust and water drops landed. I don't know if this happens only with the walnut type Pedersoli uses or all walnut woods.

The second important stock finishing thing has to do with grain filling.

I read about a grain filling method where one puts a coat of varnish on the stock. Then one waits until the varnish partially solidifies and one wipes surface varnish off the wood(across the grain) using a very coarse fabric like burlap, or linen sack.

I've tried that, but it results in very slow filling of the pores of wood. I decided it is much easier to simply let the varnish dry fully and then sand the surface down to wood leaving pores filled.

I'm hoping I need to apply at most one more coat to finish grain filling.
 
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.
Nick,

Do you have a link for this book? I tried google but came up empty.

Thanks!
 
Nick,

Do you have a link for this book? I tried google but came up empty.

Thanks!

Here is a link to a description on Abebooks, but no copy of this particular edition to sell is currently available. Armes A Feu Francaises Modeles D'Ordonnance, Books 1 - 10 by Jean Boudriot: Very Good Soft cover (1961) | Juniper Books

The book is pretty hard to find. Specially because of the (very confusing)way it was published multiple times.

The content consists of a number of notebooks (cahier in French). The edition I got is in two volumes printed in 1961/1963. The first volume contains notebooks 1 to 5, second volume 6 to 10. The weapons descriptions start with the newest and go to oldest.

I got my copy from abebooks.com,but currently I can only see some people trying to sell individual notebooks and a different edition that supposedly contains 16 notebooks for quite high prices. Here Armes a Feu Francaises Modeles Reglementaires d'Ordonnance, 1717-1836 by BOUDRIOT, Jean: near fine paperback (1961) | Argosy Book Store, ABAA, ILAB one seller wants $600 for 16 notebooks in 3 volumes. However on this page there is a button that says "there are 7 copies of this book". If you click on it it takes you to a page where there are some sellers selling 3~4 volumes for $200~$450. That's a lot to pay for a book...
 
Here is a link to a description on Abebooks, but no copy of this particular edition to sell is currently available. Armes A Feu Francaises Modeles D'Ordonnance, Books 1 - 10 by Jean Boudriot: Very Good Soft cover (1961) | Juniper Books

The book is pretty hard to find. Specially because of the (very confusing)way it was published multiple times.

The content consists of a number of notebooks (cahier in French). The edition I got is in two volumes printed in 1961/1963. The first volume contains notebooks 1 to 5, second volume 6 to 10. The weapons descriptions start with the newest and go to oldest.

I got my copy from abebooks.com,but currently I can only see some people trying to sell individual notebooks and a different edition that supposedly contains 16 notebooks for quite high prices. Here Armes a Feu Francaises Modeles Reglementaires d'Ordonnance, 1717-1836 by BOUDRIOT, Jean: near fine paperback (1961) | Argosy Book Store, ABAA, ILAB one seller wants $600 for 16 notebooks in 3 volumes. However on this page there is a button that says "there are 7 copies of this book". If you click on it it takes you to a page where there are some sellers selling 3~4 volumes for $200~$450. That's a lot to pay for a book...

i got my set of books on ebay for $250. Its not cheap but a stall worth of knowledge. I literally have all the answers i ever had for french muskets.
 
Thanks guys....yikes! Not cheap is right. I have paid a lot for some books when I expected to spend a lot on a collectible item to ensure I bought a legit one. I don't expect to buy an original Charleville musket.....well except for that one hanging in the local pawn shop.

I suspect I need ot find another book.
 
Thanks guys....yikes! Not cheap is right. I have paid a lot for some books when I expected to spend a lot on a collectible item to ensure I bought a legit one. I don't expect to buy an original Charleville musket.....well except for that one hanging in the local pawn shop.

I suspect I need ot find another book.
These are not just books they’re out of production out of publication sketchbooks more of a collectors item. If I ever wanted to sell these I could probably double what I paid for them
 
These are not just books they’re out of production out of publication sketchbooks more of a collectors item. If I ever wanted to sell these I could probably double what I paid for them
Understood. I will keep an eye out for a set. I want to be careful about going to down yet another rabbit hole....well not too careful! 😄

Does it cover carbines, mounted troops arms?
 
Fireman1, check out the thread I started in another section of the forum. I asked for book recommendations on French muskets. Looking for book recommendations on French flintlock muskets

Personally, other than the Jean Boudroit sketchbooks I highly recommend "French Military Small Arms" by Didier Bianchi. There are really detailed descriptions and color photos of all models.
Thanks! I will look for that book.

I wish I had seen your reply a bit earlier. I just started a thread in this forum on French small arms book recommendations. I'm looking for something that hits on the Napoleonic era a bit earlier.

Off to check on that thread.
 
BTW IronOxide, I just stuck that book in my amazon cart. I'll order it shortly, as soon as the wife lets me know what she needs me to order for school in the fall.
 
BTW IronOxide, I just stuck that book in my amazon cart. I'll order it shortly, as soon as the wife lets me know what she needs me to order for school in the fall.

Didler Bianchi’s book is good, but does not give you specific details or specifications as to how the french muskets were designed. Its a good book for basic information but it really does lack specific necessary pictures And illustrations. There’s even a few mistakes in the book with missmatched photographs between the heavy model 63 and light model 63/66.

If you’re ever want to build an accurate french model musket anew are using bianchi’s book, much of it will be assumed.

So far the best sources I have found are Boudroits sketches and Kit Ravensheers M 1717 - 1754 musket sketches.
 
Didler Bianchi’s book is good, but does not give you specific details or specifications as to how the french muskets were designed. Its a good book for basic information but it really does lack specific necessary pictures And illustrations. There’s even a few mistakes in the book with missmatched photographs between the heavy model 63 and light model 63/66.

If you’re ever want to build an accurate french model musket anew are using bianchi’s book, much of it will be assumed.

So far the best sources I have found are Boudroits sketches and Kit Ravensheers M 1717 - 1754 musket sketches.

I agree for building a replica Bianchi's book is insufficient. (That's why I got Baudroit's sketches)

However, as a resource to be able to tell the models apart the Bianchi's book is pretty useful. I like the way the author describes development of various features as a result of certain historic circumstances. Additionally there is the matter of multiple color high resolution and good quality photos. Bianchi's photos (literally) give a casual reader a very good picture of how those weapons look and give him/her the ability to recognise models.

In the end I wanted to have both. I'm glad I could get them both. Bianchi's book is a useful start in my opinion.

Thanks for pointing out the error in the book. I haven't seen Kit Ravensheers sketches.

Coming back to my Pedersoli kit. The main subject of this thread.

I'm mostly waiting in between coats of varnish for it to dry properly. I recently started leaving an electric heater on overnight in my workshop/shed where I dry the stock. This speeds up drying considerably.
 
iFlinterNick, Ironoxide, Thanks for all the input. I think that the Bianchi book will be a good start. It will help me get a handle on the different French musket models. As far as building one from scratch goes....my skill set isn't there and at 60 it probably won't be. However modifying one to be more correct might be.

A quick question, when did French nomenclature change? For example going from the 1777 model to the AN IX? After the French revolution? Google has not answered that question.

Thanks!
 
iFlinterNick, Ironoxide, Thanks for all the input. I think that the Bianchi book will be a good start. It will help me get a handle on the different French musket models. As far as building one from scratch goes....my skill set isn't there and at 60 it probably won't be. However modifying one to be more correct might be.

A quick question, when did French nomenclature change? For example going from the 1777 model to the AN IX? After the French revolution? Google has not answered that question.

Thanks!

The only thing that really changed after the corrected 1777 musket what is the, frizzen Was made Street in 1816 and then in 1822 they used a pan with a high fence. After 1822 flint lock muskets were made by France With some subtle differences such as no cheek recess And I slightly heaver barrel that could be rifled
 
I'll add to what Nick said as you're asking for the nomenclature. From the start I apologise for inaccuracies and oversimplifications. This is supposed to be a general overview. Not a scholarly paper ;-)

Weapon systems were named based on a year number. For example 1777 weapon system. That weapon system encompassed muskets and pistols all constructed on one common base. That system is what "model 1777" refers to. Then within the model there were a number of weapons such as an infantry musket, a dragoon musket, a cavalry musket and pistols, a hussars musket etc. In addition, before the revolution there was Maison du Roi (Royal household) which could get some of the current model or order whatever they wanted. There were also other special weapons for the navy etc. Bianchi describes a number of them within each system.

There were weapon factories of Charleville, St Etienne and Tulle which stamped their names on their products. Based on that name today a Charleville musket may refer to a number of things. I would say (but I may be wrong) when people talk about the Charleville today they mean the infantry musket model 1763 or 1777.

Then the revolution happened. Everyone who had any clue whatsoever about organising weapon manufacturing or quality control was killed or emigrated (I only slightly over simplify here). The quality went really downhill and demand for weapons grew. As a result for a number of years they produced whatever they could from whatever set of parts they happened to have. The whole concept of a "weapon system" became much more relaxed for a while.

As part of the revolution they threw out the old calendar. They changed names of days of the week, names of months and of course started counting years from the revolution.

9 years have passed until they managed to standardise again in order to be able to produce a "new weapon system". It was in fact the old model 1777 with slight changes they recovered the technical and organisational means to produce in large numbers. It was called An IX (year 9) - because it was revolutionary year 9.
 
I'll add to what Nick said as you're asking for the nomenclature. From the start I apologise for inaccuracies and oversimplifications. This is supposed to be a general overview. Not a scholarly paper ;-)

Weapon systems were named based on a year number. For example 1777 weapon system. That weapon system encompassed muskets and pistols all constructed on one common base. That system is what "model 1777" refers to. Then within the model there were a number of weapons such as an infantry musket, a dragoon musket, a cavalry musket and pistols, a hussars musket etc. In addition, before the revolution there was Maison du Roi (Royal household) which could get some of the current model or order whatever they wanted. There were also other special weapons for the navy etc. Bianchi describes a number of them within each system.

There were weapon factories of Charleville, St Etienne and Tulle which stamped their names on their products. Based on that name today a Charleville musket may refer to a number of things. I would say (but I may be wrong) when people talk about the Charleville today they mean the infantry musket model 1763 or 1777.

Then the revolution happened. Everyone who had any clue whatsoever about organising weapon manufacturing or quality control was killed or emigrated (I only slightly over simplify here). The quality went really downhill and demand for weapons grew. As a result for a number of years they produced whatever they could from whatever set of parts they happened to have. The whole concept of a "weapon system" became much more relaxed for a while.

As part of the revolution they threw out the old calendar. They changed names of days of the week, names of months and of course started counting years from the revolution.

9 years have passed until they managed to standardise again in order to be able to produce a "new weapon system". It was in fact the old model 1777 with slight changes they recovered the technical and organisational means to produce in large numbers. It was called An IX (year 9) - because it was revolutionary year 9.

The 1777 is often quoted as being the cutting edge pattern, however from reading didler bianchie’s book, I think it can be for the most part assumed that the 1777 musket was very flawed. The tiny screw that held in the front band often stripped and was lost. The cheek recess was of little benefit in regard to the purpose of aiming, but did allow for verticals rank and file reloading (in combination with the slanted pan). The trigger guard was really the same as the model 1774 with finger ridges, this was an overall improvement from the 1763/66 heavy duty iron trigger guard.

I’m still doing some research on the front band, rammer spoon that was riveted in place.

The French Monarchy arms ministries were a little too experimental over the years. the Republican and then later Napoleonic ministries really wanted things simplified, so the year 9 musket, added middle and front band springs And improved the castings for the lock so that they could be interchangeable. Many other countries would go on to copy the year 9 musket, including the Russian Empire, Austrian Empire and the United States.
 
Thanks for all the help on this! Really interesting.

Flinternick, When you say copied, how close are those copies? General pattern or near identical copies down to the shape of the metal parts and wood?
 
Back
Top