1763/66 Charlie from Pedersoli

[Ike Godsey]

howdy,

what exactly are the wrong points on the Pedersoli 1763/66 charleville musket, compared to the ones used in the AWI?

thanks in advance,

ike

 

[Matt85]

stock is shaped wrong, the front sight is steel instead of brass, and i believe the lock shape is wrong aswell. the incorrect front sight bugs me more then anything. all french muskets ive ever seen have had brass front sights.

been a little bit since i looked but i did have a chance to take close up pics of both the pedersoli gun and a real 1766 side by side. the pedersoli 1766 is entirely too expensive considering its not a very good copy. heck you could buy two india made 1768s for the price of one pedersoli. i also prefer the 1768 over the 1766 for the third barrel band retaining hole. this makes the barrel band closest to you more secure.

-matt

 

[Ike Godsey]

been a little bit since i looked but i did have a chance to take close up pics of both the pedersoli gun and a real 1766 side by side.

matt,

could you please provide some pics?
you already got my email addy. that would be VERY helpful. :thumbsup:

 

[Matt85]

sorry i didnt properly word that, i ment to say:

been a little bit since i looked but i did have a chance to take a look at close up pics of both the pedersoli gun and a real 1766 side by side.

i do not have the pictures but you can easily find decent pics of real 1766 muskets by using google. i cant remember what website i originally used but thats how i found it.

sorry for giving the wrong impression.

-Matt

 

[Ike Godsey]

ok, not a problem. :v

 

[Ike Godsey]

i found the following on the www, regarding the frence 1763/66 musket:

These muskets were altered in France specifically for the use of American Revolutionary war soldiers. The combs of the stock were lowered so that the soldiers could take aim (in contrast to the European practice of un-aimed firing).

does anyone got some more details on that?

 

[Matt85]

for starters the french did believe in aiming. they didnt put that brass front sight on for looks alone.

thats the first ive heard of the stocks being altered for americans.

-matt

 

[pargent]

:thumbsup: I can asure you that the French and English did indeed aim their muskets, soldiers were taught to aim (the order was present )and shooting at marks was part of drill .The best shots were often rewarded with extra pay etc.. The shoulder the musket look away and pull the trigger for line infantry is pure holliwierd b/s .Later French muskets from the Napolionic time had relief cuts into the left side of the butts because much younger boys were conscripted into the French Army.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

i found the following on the www, regarding the frence 1763/66 musket:

These muskets were altered in France specifically for the use of American Revolutionary war soldiers. The combs of the stock were lowered so that the soldiers could take aim (in contrast to the European practice of un-aimed firing).

does anyone got some more details on that?

Ike, I think that statement is pure horse hockey, or as most say, uninformed :bull:

You are correct in being skeptical about it.

 

[Ike Godsey]

here is were i got the above information from, regarding lowering the comb for aiming:
http://www.cowanauctions.com/auctions/item.aspx?ItemId=96536

ike

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

I see, a very poorly researched (understood) auctioneer's description with the information possibly taken from the owner's inaccurate story about his/her gun. The comb on this example appears no different than it did when manufactured in France for the French military's use.

It is also interesting that the auctioneer says "Unlike French locks, this specimen lacks an internal bridle on the tumbler." They photographs do not show this feature of course but why would the French have manufactured this lock without the internal bridle?

The next two sentences are - "This item lacks any markings and were likely 'cleaned off'. During the American Revolution the lock making was restricted to Pennsylvania." Okay, those are confusing so let's just ignore them as fluff. I will say that the markings could have been, as he said, 'cleaned off', but not during the Revolution, the vast majority of arms imported from France were in good condition for immediate issue and use and there was no reason for removing their markings. The markings on the locks were not deeply stamped and often, post-war refurbishment removed them partially or wholly. The refurbishment and repair for the New Republic was usually done at the at the Schuylkill Arsenal near Philadelphia, the first Federal arms facility. The Schuylkill Arsenal was the successor to the early Philadelphia workshops where arms and military supplies were repaired, made and distributed during the Revolution.

The last sentence "This firearm is a well used American Charleville musket which was assembled at the Continental Arms Manufactory in Philadelphia." With that he completely negates his earlier statement "These muskets were altered in France specifically for the use of American Revolutionary war soldiers." Why or should I say how, would the French alter a musket that hadn't been made yet?

I think you can ignore the statements in the auction brochure.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

I might add to the above that a good source on American military muskets or the post Revolutionary period is U.S. Military Flintlock Muskets, and Their Bayonets, the Early Years, 1790-1815 by Peter A. Schmidt.

For the same period see the even more detailed American Military Shoulder Arms, From the 1790s to the End of the Flintlock Period Vol 2 by George D. Moller.

If you need a source on American arms of the colonial period, find Moller's excellent American Military Shoulder Arms, Colonial and Revolutionary War Arms Vol 1

 

[Ike Godsey]

could you provide an ISBN number for the last one?

ike

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

could you provide an ISBN number for the last one?

ike

A source to purchase is here. The ISBN is listed:
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Bo...=t&tn=American+Military+Shoulder+Arms%2C+Vol.


Moller's first two volumes were recently reprinted with the release of Vol. III. All three volumes were printed in limited numbers and the prices are still low compared to the $350 - $500 that the first two volumes were selling for before. As they say, get 'em while the gettin's good.

 

[Ike Godsey]

I see, a very poorly researched (understood) auctioneer's description with the information possibly taken from the owner's inaccurate story about his/her gun. The comb on this example appears no different than it did when manufactured in France for the French military's use.

It is also interesting that the auctioneer says "Unlike French locks, this specimen lacks an internal bridle on the tumbler." They photographs do not show this feature of course but why would the French have manufactured this lock without the internal bridle?

The next two sentences are - "This item lacks any markings and were likely 'cleaned off'. During the American Revolution the lock making was restricted to Pennsylvania." Okay, those are confusing so let's just ignore them as fluff. I will say that the markings could have been, as he said, 'cleaned off', but not during the Revolution, the vast majority of arms imported from France were in good condition for immediate issue and use and there was no reason for removing their markings. The markings on the locks were not deeply stamped and often, post-war refurbishment removed them partially or wholly. The refurbishment and repair for the New Republic was usually done at the at the Schuylkill Arsenal near Philadelphia, the first Federal arms facility. The Schuylkill Arsenal was the successor to the early Philadelphia workshops where arms and military supplies were repaired, made and distributed during the Revolution.

The last sentence "This firearm is a well used American Charleville musket which was assembled at the Continental Arms Manufactory in Philadelphia." With that he completely negates his earlier statement "These muskets were altered in France specifically for the use of American Revolutionary war soldiers." Why or should I say how, would the French alter a musket that hadn't been made yet?

I think you can ignore the statements in the auction brochure.

hmm... i am a little confused now. i ran a cross an old thread that i was looking at - but could not find it regarding the same topic. there was a response from "Scots Jim", reading as follows:

I'll quote from Ahern's book again-

'It is recorded that,beginning in the late 1760s,nearly 500,000 previously manufactured French military muskets were altered and upgraded at French Arsenals.........comply with the then current musket design.............Most of the French arms used here....were of the Model 1763 to Model 1774 series........the majority of these were repaired and overhauled before being shipped to America."

so what is right? are those muskets altered in french before they have been shipped to the colonies? if so, what kind of alternation was this?

or is it true, that those muskets were nearly as new - so no repair, refurbishing or alternation needed?

:idunno: :idunno: :idunno:

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

".....altered and upgraded at French Arsenals" and "....repaired and overhauled" can mean several things. It sounds as if this means that they were used to make mixed pattern muskets and I do not think that is what Mr. Ahern meant at all, there are no mixed pattern French muskets that were made from random parts or altered to appear to be muskets of the new pattern.

To me it means that the muskets were repaired/refinished to bring them up to usable condition - as near new as possible. They also may have done minor alterations to improve them. Such as the changes done to make the 1763 model and the 1766 model which are very similar in appearance but are two distinct patterns.

This was not necessarily done for the use of the Americans, it was done while still in French possession for French use in the future. In other words, after their first term of service with French forces they were withdrawn to allow the new pattern muskets to be issued to French troops. The used muskets - most of which were still in serviceable condition - were cleaned, burnished and, if needed, repaired to get them ready for future service where needed. Any muskets needing serious repair were likely broken up for parts to be kept for future repairs to the earlier patterns if needed.

I hope this answers your concerns Ike, I think the auctioneer's blurb was simply written to glamorize a product that he/she knew little about but sounded good to the ear, especially to someone that wanted a musket to hang over a fireplace as part of a remodeling project. I hope Scots Jim will join the discussion.

 

[pargent]

+1 :thumbsup:

 

[Okwaho]

I bought a nice French fusil du trait last year from a major auction described as a "mid eastern"gun.
Tom Patton :hmm: :bow:

 

[Ike Godsey]

thank you, that clears the dust. :thumbsup:

 

[FlinterNick]

The pedersoli Léger 1766 Charleville is based on a copy of a refurbished 1763 musket that was originally designed under the name; the Stanville Musket. There are very few original Stanville Muskets around, one is in Williamsburg and one is in the Didler Bianchi collection. The main issue with this musket were three things; the butt stock had a comb that was so high it was above the line of sight; it was issued as a club butt type of musket for one reason, the prior 1754 and 1730 pattern charleville’s had many busted butt stocks, so the French sought to make a tougher gun, naturally that meant thicker harder and more wood. The next issue was the barrel; the barrel weighted around 5.5 lbs and was heavy for its full length; this provided for a very imballanced weapon, another minor issue was the lock, it was oversized unessesarially by almost an inch at the rear teat, there’s so much room on the interior you could fit another sear spring; lastly the ram rod was very thin and light only to be secured by very robust barrel bands and a spring steel rammer guide that moved up and down almost like a hinge, this was around 12 inches long from the top band to the middle band.

Around 1764 these Stanville muskets were sent back to the Léger armories to be reduced in size; over the years many of these muskets were restocked, and had smaller locks installed and a thicker ramrod and the bulky rammer springs were removed. The pedersoli musket is designed after this redrawn 1763 pattern. By the time of the American Revolution many of these muskets were sent to America simply because the French wanted to be rid of them; the ones that made it to America were very similar to the light 1766 muskets reproduced by late Navy Arms and Miruko. The tell tail difference between the two is the flintcock has a round hole, not a heart and the bands have longer lips in the rear and middle section. The front band has a straight edge, the rear band is a friction fit band too. I think the trigger was longer too.

The only real two issues with the pedersoli 1766 musket is the butt comb was never that high, it was reduced by about 1/4 and the upper barrel band had a brass sight and the frizzen spring was shaped for the full length from the pan to the forward lock bolt.