Rebuilding a 1728 French Musket

[Millford_P]

Hi everyone,

After finishing the Brown Bess rebuild a few weeks ago (Rebuilding an old Indian made 1756 Brown Bess Musket) I've decided to start another project, rebuilding an old Indian made M1728 French musket. I recently picked this up from a reenactor.

It's surprisingly well built. Very heavy but also very sturdy. The lock is actually very well made and the inletting of the stock was well done. However, as with most repros (especially the Indian made ones), this thing is super heavy. The stock is extremely thick as well as the barrel, but the trigger guard and lock aren't too bad.




According to some of the books I've read, a M1728 should weigh in at just over 9lbs (or about 4200 grams). This thing currently weighs in about 12lbs! So a whole lot of material to remove. Even if I go overboard with barrel and stock removal, I suspect that this replica musket will still weigh a bit more than an original simply due to some of the materials like the teakwood stock. I'll also leave a bit more metal in the barrel for safety. Here's a rough look at some of the differences for each part in weight. I don't have an original musket to measure, so I'm basing the ideal weight off of what I've read in Dieder Bianchi's book - and then some rough guestimations.

Part	Weight in grams	Ideal weight g	Difference g	Percentage
Rammer	255	255	0	100%
Barrel	3016	2150	866	71.29%
Front Barrel Band	48	35	13	72.92%
Middle Barrel Band	39.6	30	9.6	75.76%
Rear Barrrl Band	42.5	30	12.5	70.59%
Trigger guard	147.5	140	7.5	94.92%
Lock assembly	524.5	520	4.5	99.14%
Stock and buttplate	1431.5	1000	431.5	69.86%
TOTAL	5504.6	4160	1344.6	75.57%
Part	Weight in lbs	Ideal weight lbs	Difference lbs	Percentage
Rammer	0.561	0.561	0	100%
Barrel	6.6352	4.73	1.9052	71.29%
Front Barrel Band	0.1056	0.077	0.0286	72.92%
Middle Barrel Band	0.08712	0.066	0.02112	75.76%
Rear Barrrl Band	0.0935	0.066	0.0275	70.59%
Trigger guard	0.3245	0.308	0.0165	94.92%
Lock assembly	1.1539	1.144	0.0099	99.14%
Stock and buttplate	3.1493	2.2	0.9493	69.86%
TOTAL	12.11012	9.152	2.95812	75.57%

The closest musket I have to use for reference is a M1766/68 Charleville, which is quite light and slender. I know the earlier muskets did tend to be a bit more beefy, but from what I've seen in reference books, it seems like most of that extra weight was found in the buttstock and wrist area while the forestocks tended to be similarly slender. Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of these assumptions. I'll be using photos to guide me for the area from the lock to buttplate, and then I'll reference measurements (understanding the difference in length) for the barrel and forestock.


So far, the only thing I've done was to clean up the lock a little bit. A bevel was added to the edges and some other parts like the cock were sharpened and the surface of the lockplate was flattened. The cock and topjaw are a bit narrower than an original, but I can live with it for now! The only major thing that will need to be changed, is the frizzen. The pivot point of the frizen was drilled a bit too low, so there is a slight gap in the pan when closed. I will have to add a small piece of brass or steel to the bottom of the pan cover to make up for this gap.

An additional note on this piece - is that the frizzen spring is totally the wrong shape and size. I was thinking of ordering a replacement at first, but my current plan is to age it up to look a bit more "homemade", since this musket will be used for a Revolutionary War Massachusetts Militia impression, and so a "blacksmith made" replacement frizzen spring may actually add a little bit of authenticity to it. On that note, I'm also thinking of giving the finished musket a patina to look like it's been used (but well cared for) for 25 years as a F&I bring back.


Next step will be to work on the barrel. I'm not 100% sure to what extent I'll be thinning the barrel quite yet - the bore is slightly undersized and the exterior wall toward the muzzle end is oversized. I think I will try to file the exterior shape to size (although it may be way more effort than it's worth) and leave the bore diameter undersized for extra safety.

If anyone has any measurements for any of the parts for a M1728 I would greatly appreciate the help!

 

[ArmorerRoy]

Getting it bored out would make it lighter but im not sure by how much.

 

[rich pierce]

A lot of work ahead. Consider re-stocking it?

 

[Millford_P]

A lot of work ahead. Consider re-stocking it?

Definitely will be a lot of work! I'll probably keep the stock I have - it would end up costing me almost as much for a new stock as this musket cost me to begin with. Also, I'd still need to fit these metal parts into the new stock, so I'm not sure how much time/effort I'd really save in the long run. Honestly, buying a rifle shoppe kit would probably only be a little bit more work than this project, but 3X-4X the cost.

The good news, is that there's too much wood, not too little! So carving it down should be a much easier job than splicing in new pieces.

 

[1950DAVE]

Just wondering how slimming the barrel will be dealt with w/o a new stock. Wood shims?

 

[Millford_P]

I started working on the barrel today - and this is certainly a learning process. A very slow learning process!

As it was, barrel's octagonal flats end abruptly before going into the round section. You can see in this picture.


I'm hoping to bring the exterior dimensions of the barrel down to be closer to the measurements from two of my antique muskets (a M1766 and a M1766/68). Since the caliber of these muskets was the same as the M1728, I'm (making the assumption) that the exterior proportions are generally close.

Here's a table of my measurements of the three musket barrels measured at 6in increments:

Barrel Dimensions:	Replica 1728	Original 1766	Original 1766/68
Breech	1.21	1.23	1.21
6in	1.17	1.108	1.08
12in	1.086	0.985	0.98
18in	1.033	0.895	0.92
24in	1.01	0.863	0.913
30in	0.99	0.88	0.89
36in	0.974	0.86	0.84
42in	0.95	0.86	0.85
Muzzle	0.9	0.86	0.82

My plan is to basically extend the flats across the entire length of the barrel so I can keep an eye on holding to those dimensions as closely as possible. After getting the octagonal flats on all sides of the barrel to the right dims, I'll go through and round out the barrel up to the appropriate point. At least that's what I'm thinking in theory!

I'm aiming for:
Breech - 1.2in
6in - 1.1in
12in - 1.0in
18in - 0.95in
24 - 0.915in
30 - 0.90in
36 - 0.85in
42 - 0.85in
Muzzle - 8.85in

I started today with the left and right sides of the barrel. And after several hours of filing, I got the dimensions pretty close.
I think a belt grinder, like the type used for knife making would have made this a lot easier... and several times faster. I suspect that if I keep filing down the barrel by hand this way, it would take me a whole lot more time than I anticipate. Has anyone found better solutions, that don't require investing in new tools? At the very least, I may need to buy a heavy duty rasp to move some of this metal more efficiently.

 

[Millford_P]

Just wondering how slimming the barrel will be dealt with w/o a new stock. Wood shims?

I haven't yet figured that out. I'm thinking the easiest thing to do would shim it (only needs about 0.02in) and then bed the stock with epoxy.

Either that... or since it's such a small space... I might try wetting and steaming the forestock, and then clamping it really tight to the barrel to see if it holds to the barrel a bit more tightly. A friend of mine has done that on lock mortises that didn't quite fit before, and it's worked pretty well. Not sure how it would work on a forestock though!

 

[1950DAVE]

Interesting. Help us informed.

 

[Clark Badgett]

Moller lists flat lengths and sighting plane for the 1728. I’ll look them up later. The barrel is also 47” +/- long.

 

[FlinterNick]

Hi everyone,

After finishing the Brown Bess rebuild a few weeks ago (Rebuilding an old Indian made 1756 Brown Bess Musket) I've decided to start another project, rebuilding an old Indian made M1728 French musket. I recently picked this up from a reenactor.

It's surprisingly well built. Very heavy but also very sturdy. The lock is actually very well made and the inletting of the stock was well done. However, as with most repros (especially the Indian made ones), this thing is super heavy. The stock is extremely thick as well as the barrel, but the trigger guard and lock aren't too bad.

View attachment 349860
View attachment 349861
View attachment 349862
According to some of the books I've read, a M1728 should weigh in at just over 9lbs (or about 4200 grams). This thing currently weighs in about 12lbs! So a whole lot of material to remove. Even if I go overboard with barrel and stock removal, I suspect that this replica musket will still weigh a bit more than an original simply due to some of the materials like the teakwood stock. I'll also leave a bit more metal in the barrel for safety. Here's a rough look at some of the differences for each part in weight. I don't have an original musket to measure, so I'm basing the ideal weight off of what I've read in Dieder Bianchi's book - and then some rough guestimations.

Part	Weight in grams	Ideal weight g	Difference g	Percentage
Rammer	255	255	0	100%
Barrel	3016	2150	866	71.29%
Front Barrel Band	48	35	13	72.92%
Middle Barrel Band	39.6	30	9.6	75.76%
Rear Barrrl Band	42.5	30	12.5	70.59%
Trigger guard	147.5	140	7.5	94.92%
Lock assembly	524.5	520	4.5	99.14%
Stock and buttplate	1431.5	1000	431.5	69.86%
TOTAL	5504.6	4160	1344.6	75.57%
Part	Weight in lbs	Ideal weight lbs	Difference lbs	Percentage
Rammer	0.561	0.561	0	100%
Barrel	6.6352	4.73	1.9052	71.29%
Front Barrel Band	0.1056	0.077	0.0286	72.92%
Middle Barrel Band	0.08712	0.066	0.02112	75.76%
Rear Barrrl Band	0.0935	0.066	0.0275	70.59%
Trigger guard	0.3245	0.308	0.0165	94.92%
Lock assembly	1.1539	1.144	0.0099	99.14%
Stock and buttplate	3.1493	2.2	0.9493	69.86%
TOTAL	12.11012	9.152	2.95812	75.57%

The closest musket I have to use for reference is a M1766/68 Charleville, which is quite light and slender. I know the earlier muskets did tend to be a bit more beefy, but from what I've seen in reference books, it seems like most of that extra weight was found in the buttstock and wrist area while the forestocks tended to be similarly slender. Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of these assumptions. I'll be using photos to guide me for the area from the lock to buttplate, and then I'll reference measurements (understanding the difference in length) for the barrel and forestock.
View attachment 349863

So far, the only thing I've done was to clean up the lock a little bit. A bevel was added to the edges and some other parts like the cock were sharpened and the surface of the lockplate was flattened. The cock and topjaw are a bit narrower than an original, but I can live with it for now! The only major thing that will need to be changed, is the frizzen. The pivot point of the frizen was drilled a bit too low, so there is a slight gap in the pan when closed. I will have to add a small piece of brass or steel to the bottom of the pan cover to make up for this gap.

An additional note on this piece - is that the frizzen spring is totally the wrong shape and size. I was thinking of ordering a replacement at first, but my current plan is to age it up to look a bit more "homemade", since this musket will be used for a Revolutionary War Massachusetts Militia impression, and so a "blacksmith made" replacement frizzen spring may actually add a little bit of authenticity to it. On that note, I'm also thinking of giving the finished musket a patina to look like it's been used (but well cared for) for 25 years as a F&I bring back.
View attachment 349864

Next step will be to work on the barrel. I'm not 100% sure to what extent I'll be thinning the barrel quite yet - the bore is slightly undersized and the exterior wall toward the muzzle end is oversized. I think I will try to file the exterior shape to size (although it may be way more effort than it's worth) and leave the bore diameter undersized for extra safety.

If anyone has any measurements for any of the parts for a M1728 I would greatly appreciate the help!

I’m understanding that you wish to have a very accurate representation of a model 1728 French musket ?

I would get a rifle shoppe kit.

 

[FlinterNick]

Moller lists flat lengths and sighting plane for the 1728. I’ll look them up later. The barrel is also 47” +/- long.

I’ve got two 1728 barrels here, the flats fade into the round section at around 7”, the breech is around 1.338 across the flats, I’ve seen then also as high as 1.350, they vary but generally are no less than 1.3.

The measurements i got from ligoner were around 1.3 1.35 however the flats faded at 12” indicating that those e collections were likely grenadier pattern muskets which were made with slightly features.

Calibers are almost always around .71 - .72 on earlier French muskets.

The Indian barrels tend to be undersized in the breech and oversized in the muzzle with calibers between .67-.69.

 

[FlinterNick]

I started working on the barrel today - and this is certainly a learning process. A very slow learning process!

As it was, barrel's octagonal flats end abruptly before going into the round section. You can see in this picture.
View attachment 350092

I'm hoping to bring the exterior dimensions of the barrel down to be closer to the measurements from two of my antique muskets (a M1766 and a M1766/68). Since the caliber of these muskets was the same as the M1728, I'm (making the assumption) that the exterior proportions are generally close.

Here's a table of my measurements of the three musket barrels measured at 6in increments:

Barrel Dimensions:	Replica 1728	Original 1766	Original 1766/68
Breech	1.21	1.23	1.21
6in	1.17	1.108	1.08
12in	1.086	0.985	0.98
18in	1.033	0.895	0.92
24in	1.01	0.863	0.913
30in	0.99	0.88	0.89
36in	0.974	0.86	0.84
42in	0.95	0.86	0.85
Muzzle	0.9	0.86	0.82

My plan is to basically extend the flats across the entire length of the barrel so I can keep an eye on holding to those dimensions as closely as possible. After getting the octagonal flats on all sides of the barrel to the right dims, I'll go through and round out the barrel up to the appropriate point. At least that's what I'm thinking in theory!

I'm aiming for:
Breech - 1.2in
6in - 1.1in
12in - 1.0in
18in - 0.95in
24 - 0.915in
30 - 0.90in
36 - 0.85in
42 - 0.85in
Muzzle - 8.85in
View attachment 350093
I started today with the left and right sides of the barrel. And after several hours of filing, I got the dimensions pretty close.
I think a belt grinder, like the type used for knife making would have made this a lot easier... and several times faster. I suspect that if I keep filing down the barrel by hand this way, it would take me a whole lot more time than I anticipate. Has anyone found better solutions, that don't require investing in new tools? At the very least, I may need to buy a heavy duty rasp to move some of this metal more efficiently.

I wouldn’t use an original 1766 barrel as a comparison, they’re totally different.

1766 barrels were very light, extremely light in many cases, some had breeches under 1.2

1717-1754 barrels on infantry guns were heavier in the breech sections, ranging from 1.3-1.35, I’ve worked with Jess melot of the rifle shoppe closely on researching his barrel measurements.

Your Indian barrel is not in correct size proportion, not much can be done about that. Fading the flats is an option, getting rid of that step. I’d remove that with caution as the thinnest parts of Indian barrels tend to be in the middle.

 

[Millford_P]

I’ve got two 1728 barrels here, the flats fade into the round section at around 7”, the breech is around 1.338 across the flats, I’ve seen then also as high as 1.350, they vary but generally are no less than 1.3.

The measurements i got from ligoner were around 1.3 1.35 however the flats faded at 12” indicating that those e collections were likely grenadier pattern muskets which were made with slightly features.

Calibers are almost always around .71 - .72 on earlier French muskets.

The Indian barrels tend to be undersized in the breech and oversized in the muzzle with calibers between .67-.69.

Thanks, this is super helpful information!

My goal isn't necessarily to make a 100% accurate representation of a M1728 (impossible with the parts I have) but just to get as close as I can with what I have. Mostly just a challenge to see whats possible - especially for an untrained builder like myself who is a bit afraid to ruin an expensive kit.

Maybe one day I'll give a Rifle Shoppe kit a try though!

 

[FlinterNick]

Thanks, this is super helpful information!

My goal isn't necessarily to make a 100% accurate representation of a M1728 (impossible with the parts I have) but just to get as close as I can with what I have. Mostly just a challenge to see whats possible - especially for an untrained builder like myself who is a bit afraid to ruin an expensive kit.

Maybe one day I'll give a Rifle Shoppe kit a try though!

I woudn’t worry about ruining a kit, take a leap forward, the only way to learn is do it and learn from mistakes.

I would challenge any builder on this forum to state they’ve never made a mistake they didn’t learn from.

Follow a simple rule, understand the project first, and do appropriate research. Small tools etc. only to way to learn is to dive in, baptism by fire.

Don’t get me wrong, you do learn something from reworking guns, but you won’t learn as much from a complete build.

Get your order in ! They wait is already 2 years out.

 

[Fitzhugh Williams]

The problem you face will start with the barrel. If you reduce the size, it won't fit the wood. Then if you reduce the wood, the barrel bands won't fit. The Rifle Shoppe used, or at least did use, Colerain barrels. If you take a Rifle Shoppe bayonet and try to fit it over a Colerain .62 cal barrel, it won go on it, but it may be a little loose on a .69 cal 1728 barrel. Just shows how much the barrel is slimmed down. It won't even begin to fit an India barrel. I built a 1728 about 16 years ago. It's a good gun, much different that the later patterns, and a bit heavier as well. It is the same gun as the 1746 (only difference was the bridle was removed from the lock) and the same as the 1754 (bridle was restored and the sling attachments moved).

 

[FlinterNick]

The problem you face will start with the barrel. If you reduce the size, it won't fit the wood. Then if you reduce the wood, the barrel bands won't fit. The Rifle Shoppe used, or at least did use, Colerain barrels. If you take a Rifle Shoppe bayonet and try to fit it over a Colerain .62 cal barrel, it won go on it, but it may be a little loose on a .69 cal 1728 barrel. Just shows how much the barrel is slimmed down. It won't even begin to fit an India barrel. I built a 1728 about 16 years ago. It's a good gun, much different that the later patterns, and a bit heavier as well. It is the same gun as the 1746 (only difference was the bridle was removed from the lock) and the same as the 1754 (bridle was restored and the sling attachments moved).

Yeap, great point on the barrel bands.

I had a French 1728 by loyalist arms for repair about 5 years ago, the forestock was extremely heavy for a 1728. The owner wanted the gun lightened along the forearm however i did mention the bands would need to be cut and welded tighter rear and middle bands are friction fit, and middle bands spring was not desired, with the cost of the welding work we left it as is.

 

[FlinterNick]

Moller lists flat lengths and sighting plane for the 1728. I’ll look them up later. The barrel is also 47” +/- long.

Very thin walled too at the muzzle. French soldiers would often cut their hands on the muzzle when ramming and fixing bayonets.

 

[Fitzhugh Williams]

I had a French 1728 by loyalist arms for repair about 5 years ago, the forestock was extremely heavy for a 1728. The owner wanted the gun lightened along the forearm however i did mention the bands would need to be cut and welded tighter rear and middle bands are friction fit, and middle bands spring was not desired, with the cost of the welding work we left it as is.

Maybe you could have bought some Rifle Shoppe barrel bands and they would have worked. Maybe.

Another thing I will mention. The barrel. Or at least the one in the Rifle Shoppe gun. It is a Colerain. And at the end of the barrel there is a slight flair. You really don't notice it. But, when you are fitting the bayonet, it has to go over the flair and this means the lower part of the socket that goes on the barrel first will then be a little loose and the bayonet will wobble. Not much, but enough. I called Colerain about this and they offered to make me a barrel with no flair at all on the end, but since my barrel and bayonet lug were already fitted, it didn't seem worth the time go do it all over again. And you rarely ever use the bayonet anyway.

 

[FlinterNick]

Maybe you could have bought some Rifle Shoppe barrel bands and they would have worked. Maybe.

Another thing I will mention. The barrel. Or at least the one in the Rifle Shoppe gun. It is a Colerain. And at the end of the barrel there is a slight flair. You really don't notice it. But, when you are fitting the bayonet, it has to go over the flair and this means the lower part of the socket that goes on the barrel first will then be a little loose and the bayonet will wobble. Not much, but enough. I called Colerain about this and they offered to make me a barrel with no flair at all on the end, but since my barrel and bayonet lug were already fitted, it didn't seem worth the time go do it all over again. And you rarely ever use the bayonet anyway.

I had all the rifle shoppe bands, too big up top

 

[Millford_P]

Yeap, great point on the barrel bands.

I had a French 1728 by loyalist arms for repair about 5 years ago, the forestock was extremely heavy for a 1728. The owner wanted the gun lightened along the forearm however i did mention the bands would need to be cut and welded tighter rear and middle bands are friction fit, and middle bands spring was not desired, with the cost of the welding work we left it as is.

I intend to either replace the barrel bands on my musket, unless I can somehow refit and reweld the ones that came with it. The ones it has now are quite thick and would require quite a bit of filing to get them down to a reasonable thickness. Right now, I'm leaning towards at least remaking the bottom and middle bands, I may just rework the front band. We'll see once I get to that point though!