Upgraded Musket?

[Ike Godsey]

Howdy!!

I just ran across a flinter that was new to me, so I thought I share it with you.

Well, at the beginning, it startet its life as a French 1717 musket. I am sure you all know the specs: 46“ barrel, which was pinned to the stock, .69 Cal., and its most unusaual feature, the ”žvertical bridle“ from the frizzen tot he frizzen spring.

We also all know that many people say, the 1717 was not in America before the AWI.
Well, that maybe true, maybe not. From what I red about ”žarming the colonies“ ”“ and I assume that is also correct for the French ”“ they send the obsolet gun overseas.
So why not the 1717??
Is this an exeption??
If so, why??

Like I said earlier, I ran across a musket that was new to me. It is a 1717 French Musket which was cut back to 36 something Inch barrel. OK, so far so good, we know that was done to many muskets also Bessies.

This ist he gun I ran across:
http://www.skinnerinc.com/auctions/2856M/lots/264

The worte 1717/1728 ”“ but it is clearly a 1717 musket, hence the pinned barrel.

But we also know the fact, that the lock of the 1717 is larger than the lock of the 1728.
So if you look to the pics in the Link above you’ll see there is the vertical bridle missing, but there is a bridle from the pan to the frizzen-screw. Since the lock fits in snugg, I assume the lock is newly made to upgrade the 1717 musket.

Searching the web, I ran across some other pics of the same type of musket, but this time in ist full length:

Anyone got more infos about this modification?
What was the reason for newly made locks?
Are there are more 1717s around?

Any help on this welcome.

Ike

 

[Ike Godsey]

Here is some information about the 1717 and the 1728 I received from a friend ”“ a French reenactor.
Too bad I do not speak french, so I do not understand any word they wrote, but I thought any of you guys might be interested. I believe I have to post it in several parts ”“ here i spart ONE:

 

[Ike Godsey]

Part TWO:

---

 

[Ike Godsey]

Part THREE:

Ike :hatsoff:

 

[wattlebuster]

Great pictures of some fine old muskets. Thanks for taking the time to post them :thumbsup:

 

[rdstrain49]

I'll bet that someone who is a lot more computer savvy than I could take that information and run it through a translation program and get an english version, just a thought.

Thanks for taking the time to share.

 

[Wes/Tex]

Not to simplify it too far the models were similar save noticeable differences in lock and barrel band layout. There's no way to be certain why a barrel was shortened but there's always the chance it was an artillery version which tended to be shorter than infantry versions...without some study I can't say what the actual French artillery carbines were in length. My knowledge of French is limited but was able to get a lot of it.


Always smile at Detaille's painting of Fontenoy...for those who don't know, the French and English guard regiments ended up opposite one another. Then came the usual argument of "You shoot first"..."No, you", etc. That's what Edouard Detaille was showing. In the end the French insisted the British go first and KABOOM...nearly 600 French casualties. What a mess for a start...but by the end of the day the British had made enough other mistakes to lose. Still, the French muskets of that era were slim and lovely looking! Thanks for sharing.

 

[ZUG]

I loved this post -- thanks for taking the time to inform us :bow: :bow: :hatsoff: .

 

[Ike Godsey]

I loved this post -- thanks for taking the time to inform us :bow: :bow: :hatsoff: .

Thank you - all of you - to take your time and read, as well as respond to my posts.

Ike :hatsoff:

 

[Wes/Tex]

I enjoyed it. Later models, from the 1750's, had established versions for artillery, sergeants and officer's fusils, etc. With the 1717 and 1728 models, it's not certain whether this was done of infantry muskets modified for use.

 

[voltigeur]

thanks for this share

 

[Artificer]

That vertical bridle is fascinating! I think that is the first time I ever saw one, as I don't know French Muskets anywhere near as well as British ones.

I wonder if some M 1717 Muskets may have been at Fort Louisbourg when the New England forces took it the first time in 1745? I know they took or destroyed all the small arms then, as they did again in 1759.

Here is a link to the first time Fort Louisbourg was taken. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Louisbourg_(1745)

Gus

 

[Wes/Tex]

There are a few comments about "French muskets" taken and later issued during the F&I War era which were probably Louisbourg surrendered. Actual French man power is still a bit hazy but some sources seem to agree it was about 590 troops, about 900 marines (Compagnies franches de la Marine...soldiers and not true marines) and about 900 militia. Among the "soldiers" were 3 companies of the Swiss Regiment Karrer, then in French service. The muskets in issue then were M.1717 and M.1728 but since newer issue stayed in France, I'm guessing most were the earlier M.1717.
The Companies franches were then carrying the 1729-1734 Tulle Marine musquet, though some earlier M.1716 Marine musquets are probable. These were visually like the M.1717 infantry musket. The M.1728 was similar to the M.1717 with the largest difference being lack of lock bridle and three barrel bands. Some were being issued out the Companies fraches after 1740 as replacements for the Marine musquets but where and how soon isn't known.
The militia usually carried the now famous Fusil de Chasse, one of the most popular and accurate light smoothbores of it's day. They came in several levels of ornateness and. style but excepting officers, were probably the standard 'hunting' variety. How many of which were taken is only a guess, but those are the major smoothbore types in use in 1745

 

[Captjoel]

Thank you Ike for sharing this with us!

I noticed that a couple of these fine examples seem to be stocked in what looks like curly maple!?

If true, it just goes to show that using a guns stock wood to prove it was American made doesn't always hold water!

 

[Wes/Tex]

I noticed that a couple of these fine examples seem to be stocked in what looks like curly maple!?

If true, it just goes to show that using a guns stock wood to prove it was American made doesn't always hold water!

I noticed the stocking as well but having been in the antique trade many years, I also have seen the striping effect on oak, chestnut and walnut. Much is dependent on how the saw cut was made along the wood grain. In furniture, the "tiger oak" everyone admires so much is simply what is called 'quarter sawn' due to how a log was quartered before being sawn into boarding. What we see as stripes is actually the rings cut at the right angle. It's very possible several nicer pieces of European, French or Bastogne walnut were made into stock blanks and these few surviving pieces may be so figured due entirely to circumstance. Without actual testing it's hard to say for certain, sometimes it's just pure chance.

 

[Ike Godsey]

There are a few comments about "French muskets" taken and later issued during the F&I War era which were probably Louisbourg surrendered. Actual French man power is still a bit hazy but some sources seem to agree it was about 590 troops, about 900 marines (Compagnies franches de la Marine...soldiers and not true marines) and about 900 militia. Among the "soldiers" were 3 companies of the Swiss Regiment Karrer, then in French service. The muskets in issue then were M.1717 and M.1728 but since newer issue stayed in France, I'm guessing most were the earlier M.1717.
.....
but those are the major smoothbore types in use in 1745

WAIT!
What you're saying is, that the French M1717 was still around in the Americas in 1745?

Thats new to me. Could you please provide any sources for this?

This is what I know about the Siss Regiment de Karrer:

The Swiss regiment de Karrer (from 1752 de Hallwyl) was a Swiss foreign regiment in French colonial service 1719-1763.

The regiment de Karrer was raised in 1719 by Franz Adam Karrer, a Swiss officer in French service, for the French army. Two years later it was transferred to the French Navy for service in the colonies. Ludwig Ignaz Karrer succeeded his father as colonel-proprietor in 1736. At his death in 1752, Franz Josef von Hallwyl became the last colonel-proprietor. The officers of the regiment were Swiss; the men were recruited in Switzerland and Germany.

Originally the regiment contained three companies: the colonel's company constituted the depot in Rochefort; the second company was stationed on Martinique; the third company on Saint-Domingue. Detachment from the colonel's company was sent to the Louisbourg fortress in Acadia; 50 men in 1722, 100 men in 1724; 150 men from 1741 until the fortress' surrender in 1745. Soldiers from de Karrer was at the heart of the mutiny at Louisbourg in 1744. A small detachment of 30 men served at Québec 1747-1749. A fourth company was raised in 1731, and became stationed in Louisiana until 1764. A fifth company was raised in 1752 and sent to Saint-Domingue. The regiment was disbanded in 1763.

The officers and men of the regiment did not owe personal allegiance to the King of France; only to the colonel-proprietor, who also signed the officers' commissions. The colonel-proprietor had entered a capitulation with the King, through the secretary of state for the navy, in which he put the regiment, its officers and men, into French service. It was the colonel-proprietor that had promised collective fidelity for himself and his regiment to the King. The capitulation was a legal contract, renewable every ten years, where the terms of both parties were carefully stipulated. As a foreign regiment, the regiment enjoyed a number of privileges. Liberty of conscience was guaranteed, which meant that protestants could be recruited; protestant officers and men were not obliged to participate in catholic ceremonies. The regiment had its own legal jurisdiction, and its members could only be tried by its own court-martial, even when being accused of crimes against civilians. The privileges of the regiment often triggered conflicts with local military and civilian authorities. The mutiny of 1744 was an expression of the foreign soldiers will to defend their special status from infringements.

Thank you!!

Ike

 

[Wes/Tex]

The first two detachments went to Louisbourg prior to the introduction of the M.1728 musket and the third, though afterwards, may still have been armed with the earlier pattern especially if the troops there already were armed with the earlier pattern. "Foreign" regiments in French service typically received the latest equipment later than the "French" regiments.

In their illustrated volume "Military Dress of North America 1665-1970" authors Martin Windrow and Gerry Embleton identify the companies from the Regiment Karrer as being armed with M.1717 muskets with the NCOs carrying halberds and NCO swords.

 

[Ike Godsey]

Hello Wes,

thank you for this explanation.

I am a bit concerned do to the fact, that the de Karrers Regiment was "given" to the Navys Department.

The regiment de Karrer was raised in 1719 by Franz Adam Karrer, a Swiss officer in French service, for the French army. Two years later it was transferred to the French Navy for service in the colonies.

If the praxis in the European Amries have been the same (and this is a BIG IF!!) they would have changed arms while the Regiment belong to the French Navy system - that would mean it would be a 1716 Navy musket and not a 1717 Infantry musket.

Ike