CSA ? Converted 1777 Charlieville Pattern De Culle .69 cal musket

[kc3]

I am still trying to figure out exactly what this gun is.

Here is what I know and believe so far. It was a revolutionary war period flint lock. It was most likely used by the French troops that were sent to aid the US. It was converted to percussion probably by the CSA for use in the civil war. I have no documentation just anecdote and researched supposition.

The full story –

It has been in my family since the 1940's.

We were told it was a Charlieville but, it has the name De Culle marked on the lock. The gun is clearly patterned after the 1777 model Charlieville either Dragoon or Navy. I could only find 2 examples of a De Culle weapon on line. One was a Lock that was by itself and no info, the other was a converted 1822 pistol that had considerably more markings. The full name on those samples where Mre Rle De Culle whereas this gun is Mre ump De Culle.

It is a .69 Cal. It was definitely a Flintlock when it was manufactured. it is close in size to the 1777 model. Barrel length 40.5" overall 55.5 barrel tip to top of butt plate. There is a cheek cut on the left side of the butt stock and there is the two finger grip ridges behind the trigger guard which where both constant with the 1777 Charlieville. Further, the brass fittings where consistent with both the Dragoon and Navy versions of that arm. Finally there is a casting mark on the inside of the front barrel band that appears to me to be 1790 or 1780 followed by 140, but it is quite eroded. 

We were told it was converted to percussion by the confederacy for the civil war. This may be possible as there were a number if conversion armories especially in 1862 for which there is a 62 stamped on the breach plug and bottom of the barrel. There is also what appears to be inspector stamps (IC) on the lock, outside of the trigger guard, the front barrel band and very lightly visible on the stock just behind the brass lock screw backing plate (I am not sure what that part is called). The hammer and hammer retaining screw are not original as they were not on the gun when we got it. In the 70's I adapted a Springfield type hammer to get it fire-able.

Some oddities:

1 the center barrel band seems incorrect for this gun as the stamped symbol is unlike any of the others on this gun. 

2 The barrel is riffled and French made .69 cal muskets at that time were dominantly smooth bore. My best guess rifling could be broached into the bore at the time of conversion especially as mini-balls replaced the round ball and patch ammo. The 69 cal mini-ball fits and fire properly and quit accurately I might add.

3 I am not sure if the ram rod is correct for this gun. It is the correct shape but the markings are deeper and a different type style the markings on the lock. But this is how it came to us.

I have included a good many detail pictures. I have these all in high res. If you need others let me know.


Any Help with the ID would be greatly appreciated. –ken


Some detail pics:




I do Have Hi rez Images if they would be of help email me kc3@kenconroy.com

[Clark Badgett]

How do you know it was converted to percussion in the CSA? When both Union and Confederate Arms agents showed up in Europe to find much needed arms for their rapidly expanding armies, they found many nations ready and willing to empty their obsolete vaults filled with muskets that had already been convereted over there. In fact I would eb most comfortable saying this conversion was done in an established Eurpean armory rather than a new start up Southern one. The favorite American conversion was a simple cone in barrel arrangement rather than a complete bolster added to the breach.

[kc3]

Clark B, Thank you for the response. In fact I do not know if it was a confederate armorer that did the conversion. I am having trouble finding anything on the maker De Culle.  The only information that I have is anecdotal information that was handed down from my grand parents who were told by the person that gave them the gun in the 1940's.  

There was a company Isaac & Co which was in London that supplied arms to the south. the only reason I mention them is the IC stamp on the various parts of the gun. But this may be coincidence. Again I do not know and I am have a hard time finding info.

In the end this may have just been a gun that came over with someone from Europe and is of little consequence. Still I don't know. That is the challenge.

[Clark Badgett]

S. Isaacs Campbell & Co. was a major supplier to BOTH sides, and primarily in British goods. That musket is not an accepted British pattern. Yours looks to be more continental, kind of a French/Germanic hybrid. And there is a very good chance it did come over during that sad chapter of our history. Both sides literally emptied the store houses of arms in Europe. If it would launch at least 1 projectile it was bought.

Those obsolete muskets didn't end their lifes in that war. Bannermans sold just about every surplus musket they could get hands on to those moving west, all the way up until the late 1880s.

[Niall]

This was originally a 'Charleville' type musket made at the French state Armoury at Tulle during the First Empire period 1804-1814.The conversion looks like an early type where the bolster lump is screwed and brazed.The conversion plus rifling would denote it as a T Bis.I would say it was converted either in service or by the  'trade' in Liege before possibly being shipped to the US during the CW.
I can't clearly see the marks or components in your photos but I could root around my references  and get some more info. I was puzzled by the hammer until I reread your original post.You could source the proper hammer easily enough.

See similar http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/french-1822-t-bis-musket-al3494/#.Uy7Mp85supo

[Clark Badgett]

Niall I am wondering where that Germanic style middle barrelband came from.

[Steve Collward]

 In checking "French Military Weapons, 1717-1938" by Hicks, there is an illustration of a Musketoon/Model 1763 with that same style of center barrel band.  As the Model 1777 did not use this type of center band, perhaps this was a later replacement?

[Steve Collward]

kc3: 
  Pictured on page 179 of Neumann's "Battle Weapons of the American Revolution", is a French Dragoon Musket, Mod. 1770-1771 with a similar center barrel band as yours.  However, the trigger guard appears to be of a different style than the one on your gun.
  In the description, it is stated that the upper band, lower band, trigger guard and butt plate are brass, while the center band is iron.

[Old Bob]

That bolster is unlike any I've seen on a U.S. or CS altered musket. Most likely European. Neither side imported Charleville pattern muskets of that age. I suspect it was imported to Mexico sometime between the Mexican War and the fall of Maximillian.

[JV Puleo]

Neither Hicks or Neumann are authoritative on French martial arms... Hicks work was groundbreaking to say the least but its now close to 80 years old and George N doesn't proport to be an expert on French arms and isn't especially interested in those made after the American Revolution. There is nothing really good in English on the subject although I do know a new work is in progress, by a French author. I expect it will be out in about 4-6 months as it is being read by various experts now, mostly to correct minor problems in the translation.

The conversion itself looks as if it was done in the Belgian trade. It may have been a CW import, but that doesn't mean it was actually purchased by either government as large numbers of what were considered "junk" muskets were bought up by speculators in the hope of selling them, at a big profit, to either side. As often as not the speculators knew almost nothing about firearms and bought arms that neither government would accept. The South had a bigger problem with the blockade than it did finding serviceable arms to buy.

[kc3]

Thank you all. More info to work on. I have created an imgur album with the full hi rez images on it http://imgur.com/a/ZrgJs#0 Feel free to look or download for a closer look. If there is anything that I could photograph better please let me know.

The center band is almost certain to not be correct for this gun, but as you could see in the hi rez image there is a retainer spring there making it likely to have had three bands all along. 

This is a truly a perplexing gun as it seams it could be so many things. In the end it may just be something to have sitting in the corner waiting on the "zombie apocalypse" as I do have powder caps and balls for it :-)

[Robert Wolfe]

The middle band could be a Bannerman's repair. As I understand it, Bannermans (and others) would put together guns from various parts whether they were "correct" or not to make a salable gun.

[kc3]

Thank you Robert,

I am beginning to suspect the nature of what you suggest is most likely the case. Unfortunately it means that this riffle is of little consequence.  I guess it can just sit in the corner for anther 100 years or so. Some day for some future person it will have some value as long as it is kept in a fireable state. 

[Artificer]

Rifling of .69 caliber smoothbore muskets was not uncommon here in the U.S. prior to and during the beginning of the War Between the States.  As others have already mentioned, the arsenals of Europe were emptied of old, outdated muskets and converted to percussion and some of them were rifled (like your Musket) as well. 

Since every American Smoothbore Musket from  the M1795 to the M1840 were patterned after French Muskets (and generally followed the improvements made by the French through those years) they were all in ..69 caliber.  A good number of the M1820/22 through M1840 Models were converted first to percussion and later were rifled for a .69 cal. Minie' or Burton style elongated "Minnie Ball" bullet.  A good number of .69 caliber M1842 Percussion Muskets were also rifled.  These conversions were done before and during the War Between the States to get more guns in the hands of troops, though they were considered "substitute standard" as the M1855 and more importantly the M1861 Rifle Musket in .58 cal. was the then "modern" standard and was slightly modified in the hammer and bolster in the M1863.

One CLEAR exception to the .58 caliber rule was the Whitney Navy "Plymouth" M1861 Model Rifle as it was designed from the beginning as a .69 Caliber Minie' Or Burton Style "Minnie Ball" Rifle.  10,000 of them were ordered in 1861, but the first few were delivered in 1862 and the majority delivered in 1863.  However, it was probably the last major .69 rifled gun ordered by the U.S. Military.
Gus