Tell me more! Charleville Musket

[JimW]

IIRC it's in Moller's book.

Here's a link to a College Hill write up for a musket they had where it's described:

" In 1773, all older M1763 and M1766 muskets in stores were upgraded by adding a band spring to retain the lower barrel band, which had previously been friction fit."

https://collegehillarsenal.com/french-m1766-charleville-musket

 

[FedericoFCavada]

@JimW yes! I think you are correct. the Mle. 1766 (aka. lightened Mle. 1763) had just a friction fit on the rear band, while the musket of Kyle Kalasnik has barrel band springs. So that is a later feature... Mle. 1768 or Mle. 1773, yes?

The French supplied enormous numbers of older pattern muskets to the Continental Army, and of course, the French troops who were co-belligerents against Great Britain used primarily Mle. 1777s. It is thought that some earlier French muskets (Mle 1728/1746) may have been captured during the campaign into Quebec from militia stores there.

By 1800, with so many wars of the French Revolution, and the parlous decline of the French arsenal system inherited from de Gribeauval, a "corrected" Model 1777 came in vogue, the "Corrige de l'An IX" for year 9 of the French Revolutionary Calendar (the month of "Fructidor" An IX, to be more precise...). This corrected some of the flaws of the earlier 1777, changing the attachment of the front barrel band, etc. On paper the design was superb, but in execution, given the disorganization of the Jacobin/ Montagnard period before 1794, the metallurgy resulted in flawed parts, springs, etc. After Napoleon took over, tests determined that the failure rate was double that of the enemy's Tower "Brown Bess" muskets, that flints didn't really last much past 30 shots (a flint was usually issued with every 20 cartridges), and other defects. The quality of gunpowder used was bad too, so charges were often 185-grains, with about 15 grains used to prime the pan, and the 170 to launch the bullet. The tremendous fouling caused by the powder caused the balls issued for use in the musket to decrease in size... Finally to "20 to the pound" or .62 caliber, from a nominal .68/.69/ 17.5mm bore. The United States' Continental Army used a "19 to the pound" ball of .643 caliber, weighing about 8 tenths of an ounce. In the early U.S. Republic, after the implementation of the Springfield arsenal and armory in Massachusetts, and eventually Harpers Ferry, Virginia, the ball size was .65. The "Charleville" Mle. 1766 served as the basis for the Model 1795 U.S. musket, while the "corrected" An IX version of the 1777 was used to inform designs of the Model 1812. The Charleville (the 1777 was actually made in a host of arsenals during the Napoleonic Wars, including in the Netherlands, Turin Italy, Mabeuge, Tulle (source of many naval weapons), Charleville, St.-Etienne, etc. etc.) heritage is still evident in the U.S. Model 1816 or "standard" that saw use, essentially, from 1817 through the Mexican War 1846-1848, even if it was supplanted by the 1835/1840. Like the French Mle. 1822 bis, a number were converted to percussion.

 

[FedericoFCavada]

As far as bayonets go, I have it that the Model 1777s and after had the locking ring on the socket, while previously they did not, yes?

 

[rob63]

IIRC it's in Moller's book.

Here's a link to a College Hill write up for a musket they had where it's described:

" In 1773, all older M1763 and M1766 muskets in stores were upgraded by adding a band spring to retain the lower barrel band, which had previously been friction fit."

https://collegehillarsenal.com/french-m1766-charleville-musket

Thanks. Mr. Prince's write up does suggest that his information came from Moller. I asked because that was actually the feature that identified it as a M1768 to me. Ahearn and Neumann both state that it was done in 1768. I guess Moller found something saying otherwise. It's astonishing that after all these years simple things like that don't seem to be settled and can still change.

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

Kyle:

Could you post photos of the other side, bottom, etc?
On these muskets, variations are sometimes only identifiable from such angles.

 

[FedericoFCavada]

IIRC it's in Moller's book.

Here's a link to a College Hill write up for a musket they had where it's described:

" In 1773, all older M1763 and M1766 muskets in stores were upgraded by adding a band spring to retain the lower barrel band, which had previously been friction fit."

https://collegehillarsenal.com/french-m1766-charleville-musket

Much of this article conflicts with my own understandings... For instance, I do not think any, or very, very few Mle. 1717 muskets ever left Europe. Tulle produced so-called "fusils de chasse" that went to the navy, the forces organized by the navy, and to the North American colonies. The Model 1728 was certainly used in the Seven Years' War/ French and Indian War, and a somewhat simplified pattern, sometimes referred to as the "Mle. 1746" because it often had that date stamped on the barrel tang, was used in the war too. I do not think very many Model 1754s made it overseas. ...

 

[TNBandit]

I like it a lot. It's my understanding that when the Springfield Armory developed the Model 1795. our first in house made muskets, they took a lot of design features from the Charleville.

 

[Kyle Kalasnik]

Kyle:

Could you post photos of the other side, bottom, etc?
On these muskets, variations are sometimes only identifiable from such angles.

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

I've found the 1998 dated softcover book, still available, I think, called "Battle Weapons of the American Revolution" by George C. Neumann to be an excellent resource for weapons of this era, very nice photos in consistent style makes it easy to compare.
He describes the Model 1763 as the start of a "new series" of muskets, soon lightened to make the Model 1766, which is what Kyle has.
Neumann says the term "model 1768" is a collectors' misnomer, not really a separate Model, and not recognized as a separate model by the French, and is a term used by American collectors to refer to arms showing the changes made to earlier models to update them (mostly adding that rear bandspring, already mentioned in this thread), and these updates were made by the French starting in 1768 through 1773.
Neumann says that the first American model muskets were copies of these Model 1766 muskets with the 1768 (through 1773) updates.
We Americans have similar shorthand names for slight variations in later US Springfield flintlocks, labeling them as a separately named model, when the arsenal didn't consider them a new model. Calling this a Model 1768 it is a convenient way for collectors to describe a "model 1766 musket with updates made from 1768 through 1773" which is a pretty cumbersome name, eh?

 

[Cavalier]

@Kyle Kalasnik I love Charlevilles. Yours looks beautiful! Thanks very much for the photos!

John

 

[Kyle Kalasnik]

I've found the 1998 dated softcover book, still available, I think, called "Battle Weapons of the American Revolution" by George C. Neumann to be an excellent resource for weapons of this era, very nice photos in consistent style makes it easy to compare.
He describes the Model 1763 as the start of a "new series" of muskets, soon lightened to make the Model 1766, which is what Kyle has.
Neumann says the term "model 1768" is a collectors' misnomer, not really a separate Model, and not recognized as a separate model by the French, and is a term used by American collectors to refer to arms showing the changes made to earlier models to update them (mostly adding that rear bandspring, already mentioned in this thread), and these updates were made by the French starting in 1768 through 1773.
Neumann says that the first American model muskets were copies of these Model 1766 muskets with the 1768 (through 1773) updates.
We Americans have similar shorthand names for slight variations in later US Springfield flintlocks, labeling them as a separately named model, when the arsenal didn't consider them a new model. Calling this a Model 1768 it is a convenient way for collectors to describe a "model 1766 musket with updates made from 1768 through 1773" which is a pretty cumbersome name, eh?

I am currently waiting on Neumann's book, it is in the mail. Can't wait!

Appreciate you for breaking it all down and making it easier to understand. So simple, yet informative. Many thanks.

 

[Kyle Kalasnik]

@Kyle Kalasnik I love Charlevilles. Yours looks beautiful! Thanks very much for the photos!

John

Thank you very much, the wife thinks it's ugly compared to my Civil War arms. But what does she know, look who she's married to.

 

[James N.]

I'll take the opportunity to post my slightly later French (and French-occupied Belgian) shoulder arms. The one at bottom above and below is a modern Japanese repro M.1763 but the top is what's called a fusil deparelle (sp?) which translates as parts gun. These were indiscriminately made up from various M.1760's and M.1770's muskets mounted in new stocks and it may well be that there were no two exactly alike. This one was made at and so stamped on the lockplate St. Etienne near Lyons.

The three above are, from the top: a curious Liege-marked musket or musketoon that is shorter than a regular M.1777 or An IX musket and lacks the regulation French inspection markings on the stock; a An IX so-called Dragoon Fusil marked Charleville and M.1777 on the tang; and another Charleville-marked An IX cavalry carbine or musketoon dated 1812 on the barrel and 1813 on the stock.

Better views of the Dragoon fusil, musketoon, and another M. No. 1 Revolutionary Liege-made Hussar musketoon.

 

[Kyle Kalasnik]

View attachment 422027

I'll take the opportunity to post my slightly later French (and French-occupied Belgian) shoulder arms. The one at bottom above and below is a modern Japanese repro M.1763 but the top is what's called a fusil deparelle (sp?) which translates as parts gun. These were indiscriminately made up from various M.1760's and M.1770's muskets mounted in new stocks and it may well be that there were no two exactly alike. This one was made at and so stamped on the lockplate St. Etienne near Lyons.

View attachment 422026
View attachment 422028

The three above are, from the top: a curious Liege-marked musket or musketoon that is shorter than a regular M.1777 or An IX musket and lacks the regulation French inspection markings on the stock; a An IX so-called Dragoon Fusil marked Charleville and M.1777 on the tang; and another Charleville-marked An IX cavalry carbine or musketoon dated 1812 on the barrel and 1813 on the stock.

View attachment 422029

Better views of the Dragoon fusil, musketoon, and another M. No. 1 Revolutionary Liege-made Hussar musketoon.

View attachment 422030

You've posted those beauties before, . Nice to see them again.

 

[Cavalier]

@Kyle Kalasnik I always thought the Charleville was the most classically beautiful long arm of the black powder era. Contrary to your remarks above, your wife may indeed have excellent taste in husbands. It would certainly appear so from the beautiful collection you possess. My wife should be so furtunate!

John

 

[Kyle Kalasnik]

@Kyle Kalasnik I always thought the Charleville was the most classically beautiful long arm of the black powder era. Contrary to your remarks above, your wife may indeed have excellent taste in husbands. It would certainly appear so from the beautiful collection you possess. My wife should be so furtunate!

John

Thank you, I'm truly humbled.

 

[Cavalier]

James N. Thanks for the great photos. That's a collection to be proud of!

John

 

[Kyle Kalasnik]

James N. Thanks for the great photos. That's a collection to be proud of!

John

Yes it is. Very nice.

 

[bayonet]

I've found the 1998 dated softcover book, still available, I think, called "Battle Weapons of the American Revolution" by George C. Neumann to be an excellent resource for weapons of this era, very nice photos in consistent style makes it easy to compare.
He describes the Model 1763 as the start of a "new series" of muskets, soon lightened to make the Model 1766, which is what Kyle has.
Neumann says the term "model 1768" is a collectors' misnomer, not really a separate Model, and not recognized as a separate model by the French, and is a term used by American collectors to refer to arms showing the changes made to earlier models to update them (mostly adding that rear bandspring, already mentioned in this thread), and these updates were made by the French starting in 1768 through 1773.
Neumann says that the first American model muskets were copies of these Model 1766 muskets with the 1768 (through 1773) updates.
We Americans have similar shorthand names for slight variations in later US Springfield flintlocks, labeling them as a separately named model, when the arsenal didn't consider them a new model. Calling this a Model 1768 it is a convenient way for collectors to describe a "model 1766 musket with updates made from 1768 through 1773" which is a pretty cumbersome name, eh?

Mr Neumann did the Hartford, CT (moved to Sturbridge, Mass) antique arms show before he past on. I took all his books up there to have him autograph them and he wrote inspirational stuff along with his signature. Great guy. I brought one of the Polearms in his book from him and will forever kick myself in the rear for not buying a sword he had I wanted.

 

[bayonet]

I believe the OP musket shows the modification of 1773 as well (my model of 1766 has it as well) with the added rear band spring.

Finding a bayonet that fit was a challenge for me. The barrel on mine is the correct length, but something seemed odd. Eventually I did find one, and just wonder if the variation is the way they all are.

View attachment 422003

I found the correct bayonet for mine, it just need 2 minutes of filing inside the socket and it fit fine. As far as the Brown Bess I took it to a show and the third to the last table had one that fit fine. Only took maybe a year of hunting for one that fit.