Rebuilding a 1728 French Musket

[FlinterNick]

U

Yet the originals in France seem to have them. As did the originals that Moller owned. Add to that every single researcher of French arms in general adamantly says top flats were common on French barrels without wedding band transitions. Kevin Gladysz even mentions the top flat on the Fusil ordinaire a domino (1728 copy) as going to the bayonet lug.

If it’s there it must be extremely rounded off or tapered so much that you can hardly see or feel it. I wrapped the barrels in a heavy tinfoil to get a pattern shape of the flats. On my original the flats just fade out at 7 1/8 inche on this 1728 barrel i have. The bottom three flats are not really flats more like cuts with rounded edges.

the barrel does have some very faint track marks from removing the middle and rear bands, I’d call it more like a witness mark from scratching the barrel steel with the bands.

Just want to add, i don’t think anyone reproducing this gun form a kit should be filing a flat from the breech to the muzzle.

 

[springfield art]

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!

Great job! I have a pristine older (1980-era) India Bess that is beautiful! I did sand & refinish the stock when I got it Un-Fired! Thanks for a positive post on an India made musket!

 

[FlinterNick]

U

Yet the originals in France seem to have them. As did the originals that Moller owned. Add to that every single researcher of French arms in general adamantly says top flats were common on French barrels without wedding band transitions. Kevin Gladysz even mentions the top flat on the Fusil ordinaire a domino (1728 copy) as going to the bayonet lug.

1728 barrel

And a 1728 rifle shoppe

U

Yet the originals in France seem to have them. As did the originals that Moller owned. Add to that every single researcher of French arms in general adamantly says top flats were common on French barrels without wedding band transitions. Kevin Gladysz even mentions the top flat on the Fusil ordinaire a domino (1728 copy) as going to the bayonet lug.

1728 breech and muzzle

 

[Clark Badgett]

1728 barrel


1728 breech and muzzle

Was that barrel made post 1760? And no, the top flat wasn’t always very prominent, and some weren’t even full length.

 

[FlinterNick]

Was that barrel made post 1760? And no, the top flat wasn’t always very prominent, and some weren’t even full length.

No, 1728

 

[Clark Badgett]

No, 1728

So the barrel was made in 1728? Not sometime between 1728-1765?

 

[FlinterNick]

So the barrel was made in 1728? Not sometime between 1728-1765?

After 1728 before 1746.

I’m waiting on a 1754 barrel I bought from a collector, cut to 43”

 

[FlinterNick]

After 1728 before 1746.

I’m waiting on a 1754 barrel I bought from a collector, cut to 43”

Here’s a 1717 , one from France a friend has

 

[FlinterNick]

Here’s a 1717 , one from France a friend has

Ok so I the flat on some French infantry guns flats are full length. It’s confusing but according to a collector in France These are considered amuzzets like a type of smaller rampart gun. These were in .80-.90 caliber. Here is one of the 1728 patterm.

The flat was to prevent the bands from turning.

 

[Clark Badgett]

George Neumann’s M1728 in his book Battle Weapons of the American Revolution also has the top flat to “5 inches of the muzzle.” This is three fully intact 1728 muskets with this feature. Along with every 1717-1754 musket in Moller’s book (except the 1729 contract with the really long 14” flats). The 1728 barrel was the same as the 1754 barrel (with typical origin variance) and they stopped the top flat in 1760.

 

[Clark Badgett]

Another issue to consider with random parts off of muskets is the fact that these parts were often enough reused either in militia guns, NE fowlers, COS muskets and even early US contract guns. It would not take very much polishing to remove a light top flat when refitting a barrel for another purpose.

 

[Millford_P]

Ok so I the flat on some French infantry guns flats are full length. It’s confusing but according to a collector in France These are considered amuzzets like a type of smaller rampart gun. These were in .80-.90 caliber. Here is one of the 1728 patterm.

The flat was to prevent the bands from turning.

Interesting - I hadn't thought about the top flat as method of keeping the barrel bands in place. I assume it's also to help with sighting?

 

[FlinterNick]

Interesting - I hadn't thought about the top flat as method of keeping the barrel bands in place. I assume it's also to help with sighting?

Not sure, I’ve never seen
One. Alll the 1717-1754s I’ve viewed had a top flat that faded into round at 7” some marine guns were 12” #5 is a grenadiers gun

What keeps the bands from turning is the tapering

 

[Millford_P]

Thanks for all of the really interesting discussions guys! Keep it coming, fascinating stuff.

I only had a little bit of time this afternoon, so worked on the stock a bit.

First step was to reduce some of the wood on the underside of the lock area. I took off about a half inch - the Indian muskets are often a bit chunky here, which is great for rebuilding!

Before:


After:

Once this was done, I added a bit more curve into the butt of the stock and blended the shape a bit more.

Next, I went ahead with the inlet of the sideplate. This was a bit challenging, because the shape of the new piece is so different compared to the existing inlet. I used the cutout piece of wood from the top of the new inlet and glued it on to the bottom to cover the gap:


After I finished with the sideplate inlet, I proceeded to inlet the trigger guard:


The plan for next weekend is to finish refining the lock area, butt and comb. And then to address the forestock.

 

[Millford_P]

Great job! I have a pristine older (1980-era) India Bess that is beautiful! I did sand & refinish the stock when I got it Un-Fired! Thanks for a positive post on an India made musket!

The 70s and 80s Indian muskets seem to be pretty well made! This one is dated 1982 - parts are sturdy and strong, just a bit heavy.

 

[Clark Badgett]

Thanks for all of the really interesting discussions guys! Keep it coming, fascinating stuff.

I only had a little bit of time this afternoon, so worked on the stock a bit.

First step was to reduce some of the wood on the underside of the lock area. I took off about a half inch - the Indian muskets are often a bit chunky here, which is great for rebuilding!

Before:
View attachment 351868

After:
View attachment 351869
Once this was done, I added a bit more curve into the butt of the stock and blended the shape a bit more.

Next, I went ahead with the inlet of the sideplate. This was a bit challenging, because the shape of the new piece is so different compared to the existing inlet. I used the cutout piece of wood from the top of the new inlet and glued it on to the bottom to cover the gap:
View attachment 351870

After I finished with the sideplate inlet, I proceeded to inlet the trigger guard:
View attachment 351871

The plan for next weekend is to finish refining the lock area, butt and comb. And then to address the forestock.

You did a good job with that new side plate. Probably won’t notice it much or at all when the final finish is applied. I hope you can do the rest of the slimming without an undue amount of headaches.

 

[FlinterNick]

You did a good job with that new side plate. Probably won’t notice it much or at all when the final finish is applied. I hope you can do the rest of the slimming without an undue amount of headaches.

Wear a mask ! Teak is toxic

 

[Clark Badgett]

Interesting - I hadn't thought about the top flat as method of keeping the barrel bands in place. I assume it's also to help with sighting?

On the civilian arms the top flat is often referred to as a sighting plane, at least by current collectors. It seems to commonly be on French O/R barrels without a ‘wedding band’ transition. I have no clue as to why they seemingly show up on military guns as they really serve no purpose. It most likely is just a case of “that’s just how we have always done it” carrying over with the barrel makers.

 

[Clark Badgett]

Wear a mask ! Teak is toxic

Oh I do not work with teak. Walnut is bad enough.

 

[FlinterNick]

The 70s and 80s Indian muskets seem to be pretty well made! This one is dated 1982 - parts are sturdy and strong, just a bit heavy.

Indian muskets made between 1970 and 1980 were actually made and shipped as firearms, these were high quality reproductions, they’re rare on the market. They were not the same as the guns produced today. They were stocked in African or Turkish walnut and. Distributed and sold by at lot of British vendors such as Henry Krank. Things changed when Indian gun export laws became stricture, but what’s being produced now is nothing compared to what was produced in the past.