New smoothbore comeing.

[babills]

Well i did a little horse tradeing, and i have a Mirkou 1766 charleville 69cal comeing next week. Cant wait to shoot it. What is a good load for this gun? Does anyone have any info on this gun? I no dixie gun works sold them and they were imported by navy arms. But how were these guns for reliability? Thanks Denny

[northmn]

I know nothing about the Charleville except that I think the 69 would be a very nice bore size.  I had a repo Brown Bess which took a 715 ball and was a little too much of a good thing.  My Bess was very reliable.  Good luck and enjoy.  I hope it does not belt you in the cheek too much as the old military muskets were not known for their fit and did not have enough drop at the comb.  A musket usually uses a fairly modest charge for its bore size, I would start with 80-90 grains of 2f.  The Bess worked OK with 2f primer.  Paper cartridges are fun in these also.  It a 14 gague so if you want to use shot that size wad will work. Have fun and shoot the h--l out it.

DP

[Daryl]

The only Charleville I am aware of is the Model of 1777.  I was not aware the earlier French guns were made at Charleville as well, but rather at Saint Etienne & perhaps a few at Tulle.
They are .69's and same calibre and models as used in the States.
The Charleville of 1777 had a very short 'pull' with a high comb, which was a cheek smasher.
The US issue paper ctg., up until about 1820, that is, held 165gr. of powder and a .64" ball. This charge included the 4 or 5 gr. used for prime.
It will be interesting to see this Japanese gun, as the brass pan of the Charleville was only used from 1777 on.
In around 1820, the ball size was increased to .65" and powder charge reduced in the ctg. to 135gr. which included the prime.
You may find shooting 70 to 90gr. is all you'll like.
As to reliability, well, that depends on how well made this gun is. The originals of 1680 through 1820 were just fine as the locks possessed much more sparking ability than needed.

[The other DWS]

if you forget and wrap your thumb around the wrist,  Its also a hellacious nose smasher with a patched round ball.  I had a couple authentically blood stained colonial shirts to show for my slow learning curve.

Even if you make the questionable assumption that men were a lot smaller then; I don't understand how they came up with so short a butt, unless it was a deliberate design intended to discourage their infantrymen from trying to take aimed shots

[Daryl]

" unless it was a deliberate design intended to discourage their infantrymen from trying to take aimed shots "

Might have a point there, DWS.  Those were the rules - no aiming.  The M1777 has a very short pull and enough recoil a forward thrust shoulder might not hold.  I have seen 2 originals - can't remember where, that had deeply dished-out cheek areas.  The St. Etienne of 1745 was a very nice gun, though, as well as the M95, I think it was.

[TPH]

The only Charleville I am aware of is the Model of 1777.  I was not aware the earlier French guns were made at Charleville as well, but rather at Saint Etienne & perhaps a few at Tulle.
....................

Daryl, the majority of the muskets sent as aid by the French to the American Revolutionary forces were the M1763 and M1766, most of which were made at Charleville. True, there were guns in the shipments made at St.Etienne, Tulle and Maubeuge (my French spelling is atrocious, my apologies) but most, at least most were Charleville manufactured and the Americans then as now called them Charleville muskets. As a matter of fact, what we as collectors call our M1795 Type I - III muskets were called at the time of production and use "muskets, Charleville pattern".

The French M1777 was rarely seen in American hands at the time of the Revolution, it was the most modern of French military arms and was mostly reserved for issue to French troops. As a matter of fact, the M1777 was so new that some of the French regiments sent to America during the Revolution may have still been equipped with earlier muskets rather than the M1777. A very few may have been in the shipments of muskets sent here during the war, but not many.

[The other DWS]

As I recall Ravenshear had a Really NICE repro of the early ones---St Etienne '37 or so--- back when I was re-enacting but it was WAAAAY out of my price range,  but I got to play with one that belonged to a friend.    Also got to play with Matt Switlik's hand built Fergy for a weekend at the River Raisin.

Then reality set in, and it was back to my meatball Charleville kit gun.

[Daryl]

TKs for the clarification, THP.  There are/were a number of the '77 pattern guns, ie: 1995's pictured in the Firearms of the American West chronology.

[babills]

Thanks for the info guys. I will be getting it in the mail next week cant wait to shoot it ill get some pics up and hopefully a range report.

[Nate McKenzie]

I used to have a Miroku 1763. Shot real well with 75 gr. FF Dupont and a >675 ball and .015 patch. It was much more comfortable to shoot after I hollowed out the cheek side a little. I've seen som originals with this modification.

[babills]

I would like to see pictures of a hollowed out cheek piece so if i have to do it, i no what to do.

[Daryl]

The ones I saw, were as if a big sharp scoop took a bite out.  the earlier guns had better stock shape than the 77, so maybe it will be OK.