Just had a closer look at that area of the stock, and while there is a crack into the lead area (that continues under the trigger guard 'tang'), it really does not look structural. In other words, what would they be repairing? The spatter marks go out a ways. about 2+ inches. It's possible. The only other thing is that the spatter marks circle the lead like you might find debris at an impact crater, for want of a better example. But, I suppose if it were wet when you poured in lead it would spatter? The other thing is that the lead is round, like a ball. Would a repair look like that?
-
This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.
Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades -
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
ID on a Charleville Musket
- Thread starter Scrannel
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2016
- Messages
- 391
- Reaction score
- 679
Total WAG on my part: Any chance it might have been a "buck and ball" with birdshot?
I showed these photos on a French BP forum
I was told that it is a homemade copy of a regulatory rifle mod 1766 with some "errors"
frizzen is not correct, (base too "short")
the stock looks like a "1777" one
bad engraving on the lockplate ....
the general quality of the weapon is not that of a national manufacture
it is undoubtedly a period piece, probably rarer than a real regulatory weapon
but this rifle was not made the Charleville factory
that's what the froggies says
I was told that it is a homemade copy of a regulatory rifle mod 1766 with some "errors"
frizzen is not correct, (base too "short")
the stock looks like a "1777" one
bad engraving on the lockplate ....
the general quality of the weapon is not that of a national manufacture
it is undoubtedly a period piece, probably rarer than a real regulatory weapon
but this rifle was not made the Charleville factory
that's what the froggies says
Well, I have to question this. Why would anyone go to the trouble of counterfeiting a weapon (musket not rifle) that was readily available at the time in huge quantities? Moreover go to the trouble of "counterfeiting" the Charleville engraving? It's preposterous. The gun was taken in trade for fishing gear at my dad's sporting goods store in 1946, when these muskets had little,. if any, value. Sorry. Not buying their expert opinion. Let me check in with my museum contacts and get back.
Just a quick follow-up before I get images to others. There are two sites worth checking out:
https://auctions.morphyauctions.com...le_Model_1766_Flintlock_Musket-LOT459533.aspx
And The "Revolutionary" Charleville
I have compared my gun with their specs with the following results: (FWIW)
Lock 6 ¼ by 1 ¼" Yes
Trigger guard 12 ¾" Yes
Butt tang 2 ½" Yes
Sideplate 3 7/8" Yes
Furniture Iron Yes
Frizzen – mine does not look 'right' because the tip has been damaged, bent down. Plus the sort of curled up part that pushes down on the pan, has clearly been snapped off. In other words if the musket had slammed into something against the frizzen, it would have bent the tip of the frizzen AND likely snapped off the lower part of the frizzen.
So far as the Charleville engraving I am trying to locate a photo I saw of one where the "quality" of the engraving is no better than mine. Also, if you look at the stock, it even has hand-cut marks you find on the stock, period musket.
Funny, this reminds me of one of the great stories of the American Revolution. The "Continental", the America currency, became nearly worthless largely due to counterfeiters. But, those who were savvy could immediately detect the counterfeit currency from the legit stuff: because on the counterfeit bills, "Continental" was spelled correctly!
https://auctions.morphyauctions.com...le_Model_1766_Flintlock_Musket-LOT459533.aspx
And The "Revolutionary" Charleville
I have compared my gun with their specs with the following results: (FWIW)
Lock 6 ¼ by 1 ¼" Yes
Trigger guard 12 ¾" Yes
Butt tang 2 ½" Yes
Sideplate 3 7/8" Yes
Furniture Iron Yes
Frizzen – mine does not look 'right' because the tip has been damaged, bent down. Plus the sort of curled up part that pushes down on the pan, has clearly been snapped off. In other words if the musket had slammed into something against the frizzen, it would have bent the tip of the frizzen AND likely snapped off the lower part of the frizzen.
So far as the Charleville engraving I am trying to locate a photo I saw of one where the "quality" of the engraving is no better than mine. Also, if you look at the stock, it even has hand-cut marks you find on the stock, period musket.
Funny, this reminds me of one of the great stories of the American Revolution. The "Continental", the America currency, became nearly worthless largely due to counterfeiters. But, those who were savvy could immediately detect the counterfeit currency from the legit stuff: because on the counterfeit bills, "Continental" was spelled correctly!
Last edited:
well, i'm just trying to help by communicating to you the opinion of well known french collectors
I try to be careful, as I said before, my English is ..... what it is!
.... and I'm afraid of being misunderstood
this rifle may have been assembled from several "wrecks" because at that time, everything that was salvageable was reused
in this case, the stock doesn't match the metallic parts ( it looks like a "1777" whiles the rest seems to come from a "1766" or "1763 light"
but the engraving of the plate leaves no doubt ...... this mechanism was not made in a French arsenal where the quality controls were very strict
I am trying to attach a photo to show the quality of the original engraving
I also join the best answer that I recieved at the french forum
mon avis - , ce serait une copie artisanale de notre fusil réglementaire modèle 1766 (ou 1763 "léger"), du moins pour la platine. Avec des simplifications de fabrication.
Pour le reste du fusil (crosse, canon...), il y a peut être un ré-emploi de pièces de différents modèles.
La platine a bien un bassinet en fer, qui a le profil en V des modèles 1763 et 66. Le chien percé en coeur, plat, reprend aussi la forme de ceux des 1766.
Par contre les perçages (pour les axes, les ressorts) de la platine ne sont pas au même endroit. Le pied de batterie est très réduit. La vis de serre pierre est allongée, et ne semble pas percée. Le ressort de batterie est assez rudimentaire
Le marquage "Charleville" me semble assez hésitant.
La crosse n'a pas le busc important caractéristique des 1763 et 66. Elle a un aspect beaucoup plus "moderne" (style 1777).
Le canon présente un tenon de baïonnette sur le dessus (sur les 63-66 il est en dessous), dans l'axe du point de mire brasé sur l'embouchoir. Cela rappelle les canons du modèle 1770
I guess you will easlily find a way to translate (I could make some mistakes trying to do it by myself)
I hope you'll find the infos you'r looking for
QW
I try to be careful, as I said before, my English is ..... what it is!
.... and I'm afraid of being misunderstood
this rifle may have been assembled from several "wrecks" because at that time, everything that was salvageable was reused
in this case, the stock doesn't match the metallic parts ( it looks like a "1777" whiles the rest seems to come from a "1766" or "1763 light"
but the engraving of the plate leaves no doubt ...... this mechanism was not made in a French arsenal where the quality controls were very strict
I am trying to attach a photo to show the quality of the original engraving
I also join the best answer that I recieved at the french forum
mon avis - , ce serait une copie artisanale de notre fusil réglementaire modèle 1766 (ou 1763 "léger"), du moins pour la platine. Avec des simplifications de fabrication.
Pour le reste du fusil (crosse, canon...), il y a peut être un ré-emploi de pièces de différents modèles.
La platine a bien un bassinet en fer, qui a le profil en V des modèles 1763 et 66. Le chien percé en coeur, plat, reprend aussi la forme de ceux des 1766.
Par contre les perçages (pour les axes, les ressorts) de la platine ne sont pas au même endroit. Le pied de batterie est très réduit. La vis de serre pierre est allongée, et ne semble pas percée. Le ressort de batterie est assez rudimentaire
Le marquage "Charleville" me semble assez hésitant.
La crosse n'a pas le busc important caractéristique des 1763 et 66. Elle a un aspect beaucoup plus "moderne" (style 1777).
Le canon présente un tenon de baïonnette sur le dessus (sur les 63-66 il est en dessous), dans l'axe du point de mire brasé sur l'embouchoir. Cela rappelle les canons du modèle 1770
I guess you will easlily find a way to translate (I could make some mistakes trying to do it by myself)
I hope you'll find the infos you'r looking for
QW
Attachments
Also, though I have to get back to work, I looked at two Charlevilles up for auction. One had no armory stamping on the lock, one had Charleville and it looks just like mine. Mine is, of course, corroded. This link gives a detailed measurement of all the Charlevilles, and mine matches the 1766 perfectly, save for the bent frizzen. There was an early 1766 stock carried over from the previous model, your source may be thinking of that. There is also, on the lock plate, a star inside a circle -- extremely hard to see ) which also indicates it's a Charleville. Otherwise, I do not see anything on the gun that's "wrong". However, the stock is absolutely correct. It is the "lightened" stock, whereas some very early 1766 weapons apparently had a carry-over.
https://books.google.com/books?id=I...e&q=charleville musket stock markings&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=I...e&q=charleville musket stock markings&f=false
Check out this link -- my gun looks exactly like this.
http://www.aagaines.com/man/charlevilletfrencha.html
Also, here is a detail from the gun on line, followed by the exact same detail on mine...
I love the French, but they also knew they were right about the "N-Ray".
http://www.aagaines.com/man/charlevilletfrencha.html
Also, here is a detail from the gun on line, followed by the exact same detail on mine...
I love the French, but they also knew they were right about the "N-Ray".
I hope you own a true "veteran of the American Revolutionary War" that crossed the Atlantic a long time ago, with the "Marquis de Lafayette"
to (try to...) answer your question, making copies of famous weapons has always been a traditionnal and very important activity of the belgian gunmakers......I would not be that surprised if your gun had, somewhere , the letter ELG stamped in a crowned oval
the arms-museum in Lièges used to present a lot of these weapons, before it was "updated"
hoping to be userstandable.....
to (try to...) answer your question, making copies of famous weapons has always been a traditionnal and very important activity of the belgian gunmakers......I would not be that surprised if your gun had, somewhere , the letter ELG stamped in a crowned oval
the arms-museum in Lièges used to present a lot of these weapons, before it was "updated"
hoping to be userstandable.....
Hi, not sure where I would look for ELG, however, it seems like all measurements, all other markings, and all the hardware are exactly as they should be for a 1766. For instance it was suggested that the stock was from another year musket, yet not only does the stock on my gun look exactly as it should for a 1766, but it even has an exact marking found on the stock of a recently appraised and auctioned 1766. Plus, again, the question: why would anyone counterfeit the Charlesville stamp when the guns were essentially, without value. In other words I cannot find any merit in the critique that this is not an original Charleville.
The N-Ray
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_ray
The N-Ray
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_ray
dans ce cas, vous avez pu lire la réponse du collectionneur français dans la version d'origine ce qui évite tout malentendu en ce qui me concerne
j'espère que l'authenticité de votre fusil se confirmera
bonne chance pour la suite
QW
I'm afraid that I'm not smart enough to understand about the "N ray"
but that's not important
be good!
j'espère que l'authenticité de votre fusil se confirmera
bonne chance pour la suite
QW
I'm afraid that I'm not smart enough to understand about the "N ray"
but that's not important
be good!
Last edited:
I hope you will have good news and that the authenticity of your rifle will be confirmed
you will then have an incomparable pleasure, while thinking of the adventures which he could live ,during the war of independence and the following ones ...
I also hope that you'll find the missing mainspring
Don't forget to let us know about the results
now i'm going to take an aspirin .....trying to write in english is definitely a headache
take care!
you will then have an incomparable pleasure, while thinking of the adventures which he could live ,during the war of independence and the following ones ...
I also hope that you'll find the missing mainspring
Don't forget to let us know about the results
now i'm going to take an aspirin .....trying to write in english is definitely a headache
take care!
Gentlemen, the "D" is a Charleville inspector mark and is on almost all 1863/1868 Charlevilles. I have worked preserving one that had proven Provance that it was issued to a soldier in Rhode Island whose unit was issued some of the 100,000 (then obsolete) 1868 muskets provided by the French. We owe the French a lot for their support. The "D" was also on the lock.
Attachments
By the way, the Charleville in the previous post had a resurfaced frizzen. When I had the musket in the shop, I compared it to one of my Miroku reproduction Charlevilles and the Miroku was an exact copy in every deminsion. I love the Charleville, it was technologically superior to the Short Land Pattern British Musket. (Brown Bess)
Similar threads
