Author Topic: Pedersoli 1766 Charleville question  (Read 2125 times)

Offline Clark Badgett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2260
  • Oklahoma
Pedersoli 1766 Charleville question
« on: January 31, 2020, 08:53:14 AM »
I’m wanting a Charleville to shoot and it seems the Pedersoli is the only option. Does anybody here own a more recently produced specimen care to post pictures of the barrel markings? Also is the quality worth the $1500 price tag?
Psalms 144

Offline Daryl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15839
Re: Pedersoli 1766 Charleville question
« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2020, 10:36:24 PM »
I just watched Mike Bellevive's video on that 1766 Charleville. I would say no, not worth it for their 1777, but worth it for the 1766.
That opinion is based upon the shoot-ability of the guns. The 1777 is a cheek-bone smasher. Mike also addresses this in his video.

Daryl

"a gun without hammers is like a spaniel without ears" King George V

Offline Clark Badgett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2260
  • Oklahoma
Re: Pedersoli 1766 Charleville question
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2020, 10:52:40 PM »
Daryl, I saw that video. Reminded me that I’ve always wanted one but never got one for some reason. I do see that DGW has the 66 available in kit form as well which saves some cash and would make fairly easy project. I’m just wondering if there is a big billboard engraved on the barrel like is found with most Italian reproductions
Psalms 144

Offline Bob McBride

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2840
  • TENNESSEE
    • Black Powder TV
Re: Pedersoli 1766 Charleville question
« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2020, 10:55:54 PM »
There is a billboard. I see the Charleville in defarbed form every few months on gunbroker

Offline Hungry Horse

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5565
Re: Pedersoli 1766 Charleville question
« Reply #4 on: February 02, 2020, 08:04:48 PM »
 Wasn’t the Charleville musket that was imported from Japan a 1763 model? With a lock tuneup they were a pretty good shooter.

  Hungry Horse

Offline Daryl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15839
Re: Pedersoli 1766 Charleville question
« Reply #5 on: February 02, 2020, 09:19:30 PM »
I always thought the 47 had the best stock shape for shooting. I was not aware that any other year/models than the 77 (until now), were called Charleville.
Daryl

"a gun without hammers is like a spaniel without ears" King George V

Offline Clark Badgett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2260
  • Oklahoma
Re: Pedersoli 1766 Charleville question
« Reply #6 on: February 03, 2020, 06:56:36 AM »
Daryl, the French seemed to give each slight improvement a new year model designation. Seems the M.1763 was the first to use the reinforced cock, but it was heavy so the put it on a diet and the M.1763/66 was born. There is even several models in the 1770s and they are all mostly the same musket. Gotta love the French.
Psalms 144

Offline Hungry Horse

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5565
Re: Pedersoli 1766 Charleville question
« Reply #7 on: February 03, 2020, 07:48:49 PM »
 The interesting thing about these guns is how close they were getting to parts interchangeability. A friend called me one day and asked if I would come over and look at a French musket he had just purchased. He had stopped at a gun show in Marin County on Super Bowl Sunday, and bought it for cheap from a vendor that needed gas money. It was a compilation of French musket parts ranging from 1757 to 1777. The more I looked at it the more I came to believe it was not a new assembly. It had no modern material, or signs of modern tools. It’s lock was a 1757 flat plate,with a goose neck cock, and a brass pan, marked Meubeuge. The barrel appeared to have been shortened to carbine length, but on close inspection, showed no signs of having been shortened, and had a wedding band hiding under one of the barrel bands. The barrel bands all used the later step springs, but some bands had holes for the earlier pin versions. The stock was a much later stock than the lock, and had small wood fillers around the buttplate tang, and the barrel tang as well, both having lost small pieces over time. The touch hole, and the bottom of the pan didn’t line up, so the smith simply filed a notch down to the touch hole. I would love to see what kind of ignition time this thing had. My point is there were no doubt many muskets assembled from random parts, either procured from France, or scavenged from the battlefield.

  Hungry Horse

Offline Daryl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15839
Re: Pedersoli 1766 Charleville question
« Reply #8 on: February 03, 2020, 11:44:50 PM »
Meant 57, not 47.
An interesting gun indeed, Hungry Horse.
Daryl

"a gun without hammers is like a spaniel without ears" King George V

Offline Clark Badgett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2260
  • Oklahoma
Re: Pedersoli 1766 Charleville question
« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2020, 07:15:00 AM »
Daryl, the numbers are confusing. French martial muskets are like the Johnny Cash song "One piece at a time".

HH, Now that I'm actually studying the French flintlocks, I'm noticing that the random part or two shows up on American fowlers here and there. I was planning on building an American English style fowler next, but I just might bump the Fusil de Chasse up in the order.
Psalms 144