U.S. Surcharged French Musket

[rickystl]

A collector friend of mine is considering purchase/trade for this musket. (Wish I had seen it first )
He believes this is a Model 1766 French Musket with a double U.S. Surcharge. U.S. is plainly stamped on the top of the breech and tail of the lock plate (sorry for two of the photos having off lighting).
At first glance I thought this looked like a U.S. 1795 Musket due to the shape of the comb on the butt stock and the ram rod style. But, the lock plate in front of the hammer is plainly marked: Maubeuge.
He mentions the gun is in really nice "attic" condition. It all seems to be there, nothing missing.
Hmmmm, :hmm: What do you guys think? Thanks for looking.

http://i743.photobucket.com/albums/xx74/rickystl/Maubeuge/P1010032Medium.jpg[/IMG]

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

It is in beautiful condition! Hopefully your friend will keep it in close to that condition as possible, it has not been fooled with at all and that is a good thing.

The "US" markings were almost always applied after our Revolution when these muskets as well as the Brown Bess were the primary weapons of the US army though some may have been so marked during the Revolution.

Rather than go into a long post about the early US service use of these muskets, you and your friend should buy copies of the two best sources on our early use of these muskets:

U.S. Military Flintlock Muskets, and Their Bayonets, the Early Years, 1790-1815,
by Peter A. Schmidt

and

American Military Shoulder Arms, Vol. 1: Colonial and Revolutionary War Arms

as well as

American Military Shoulder Arms, Volume II: From the 1790s to the End of the Flintlock Period Both of the above are by George D. Moller and are recent, high quality reprints of the original volumes and are well worth the money. They and the Schmidt will give you the latest, high quality, well researched information about US military shoulder arms.

 

[ericb]

Va - While I agree it's certainly original & "right", I find the Comb & Wrist interesting for a '66. Thoughts?

Eric

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Not sure, Eric, it looks right to me. I may be missing something. How does it look improper to you?

 

[ericb]

When I think of a '66, I usually think of a Higher Comb, and maybe a less defined wrist. But I don't profess to be Expert on the matter, and have not seen very many original '66's - though as I recall they did have higher Combs. Could be my Idea of a '66 has been tainted by the looks of current Repros?

 

[rickystl]

Hi Va. Thanks for your reply, especially the referance material. Much appreciated. Rick.

 

[rickystl]

Hi Eric. That was my thoughts exactly on the stock comb. But, unlike the 1777 or 1795 notice the thumb groove being retained like the 1763/66.
Then I ran across this while searching on the Internet. Notice toward the bottom what it says about stock changes during the 1770's. That may put this gun being made somewhere between 1770 and 1776? I know there are some pretty good experts with french guns on this Forum. Hopefully we will get some additional responses. Rick.

Model 1766
The Model 1763's sturdier design proved to be a bit too heavy, so in 1766 the musket's design was lightened. The barrel wall was thinned, the lock was shortened, the stock was slimmed, and the Model 1763's long iron ramrod cover was replaced by a pinned spring under the breech. The trumpet shaped ramrod of the Model 1763 was also abandoned in favor of a ramrod with a lighter button shaped end.
Though usually considered to be a separate model, the Model 1766 was often referred to as a "light Model 1763" musket, especially in U.S. Revolutionary War invoices.[3]
Despite being thinned down, the Model 1766 proved to be rugged and reliable.
A total of 140,000 Model 1766 muskets were produced.
[edit] Models 1770 to 1776
Several changes were made to Charleville muskets during the 1770s. References are not consistent with respect to the naming of these models. Some consider many of them to be distinct models, while others consider them to be only variations of earlier models. Most of the modifications during this period were relatively minor.
The Model 1770 had a modified lock plate, stronger barrel bands, and a modified ramrod retaining spring. The Model 1771 moved the bayonet lug and strengthened the barrel. The Model 1770 and 1771 are often grouped together as a single model. The Model 1773 was similar to previous models, but again modified the ramrod retaining spring. The Model 1773 is often considered to be a minor variant to the Model 1770/1771. The Model 1774 had a shorter trigger guard, and the tail of the frizzen was cut square. The ramrod design was also modified in the Model 1774, giving it more of a pear shaped head.[4] Similarly minor changes were made for the Model 1776, which is often not considered to be a separate model.
Throughout the 1770s, the stock was modified in an inconsistent fashion. Some muskets were produced with a much more pronounced comb on the stock than others, which have an almost nonexistent comb.
A total of 70,000 Model 1770 to 1776 muskets were produced.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

When I think of a '66, I usually think of a Higher Comb, and maybe a less defined wrist. But I don't profess to be Expert on the matter, and have not seen very many original '66's - though as I recall they did have higher Combs. Could be my Idea of a '66 has been tainted by the looks of current Repros?

I think you may be confusing the '66 with later patterns, the wrist and comb shown here are those of the 1766 model. Also, the Indian muskets do reproduce the French muskets in an interesting way, their comb is very different from the original - very "boxy" in appearance - so you may be getting some of the feeling from seeing those. Good thoughts though and it does show that you are looking. :thumbsup:

 

[ericb]

Thanks Guys - I feel enlightened. Ricky's comment "Throughout the 1770's the stock was modified in an inconsistant fashion" explains a lot. Va's comment on the current "Boxy" repros reminds me of why I eventually went with the Pedersoli 1777 AN IX over the '66. As much as I wanted a "Rev War" Gun, I could tell the moment I saw the high comb on the '66 that it was gonna be a cheek-cracker. FWIW I can shoot the '77 with it's lower comb and cheek-hollow all day long and it's as gentle as a Lamb. (Ok - a rather big, robust Lamb, but a still a Lamb).

Eric