Author Topic: Pedersoli 1766 Charleville kit arrived. Pics added (Read 7922 times)

Clark Badgett · « **on:** March 08, 2020, 02:49:35 AM »

I'm on a flintlock musket kick right now, so I ordered one of the Charleville kits from Dixie. They don't have a good picture of just how the kit comes on their website so I was a little apprehensive until it arrived.

Yesterday afternoon it was waiting on my doorstep and I quickly brought it to my garage and unpacked it. I was expecting a stock that was pretty much ready for sanding and as cast metal parts. Well, here is the reality of the kit.

All parts are fully inlet and done so with pretty good fits, remember military gun.
There is a LOT of wood left to take off, which I was quite happy about.
I still haven't figured out why they shape the comb like the M1763, but no problem I can carve that down to the right shape.
The trigger guard is the correct shape and size and polished, but some genius decided to make it 2 pc instead of 1 pc. I could have it tig welded and reshape it but with the work load of our welders, I'll just leave that be for now.
The forward barrel band has an odd lip under the entrance for the rammer that will have to be ground off.
The rammer is the wrong shape, so I will either have to find a correct one or make one which wouldn't be that hard if I can find some .275" steel rod.
The buttplate and barrel bands are as cast and the side plate looks like it was stamped from cold roll so polishing is in order.

All together I'm happy with it and will order another kit to convert into an M1795 Springfield Type 1.

Daryl · « **Reply #1 on:** March 09, 2020, 05:23:18 AM »

Cool! Looking forward to either the build pictures or the finished ones.

Clark Badgett · « **Reply #2 on:** March 09, 2020, 08:29:51 PM »

Reduced the high shape comb down. Sorry I forgot to take a before picture. A ways to go before it’s at its final shape.

Clark Badgett · « **Reply #3 on:** March 09, 2020, 08:32:32 PM »

Rough ground the forward and rear band and remove the lip off the forward. Will take the file to the and finish them tonight. I’ll change the steel sight to the correct brass sight once I figure out the whole soldering thing.

Clark Badgett · « **Reply #4 on:** March 10, 2020, 04:10:15 AM »

As you can see. The touch hole is little low in the pan. Nothing that a trip to the Bridgeport mill and a white lightning won’t fix.

JLayne · « **Reply #5 on:** March 15, 2020, 01:57:22 PM »

Thank you for posting this thread. I have always wanted a replica Charleville, and have been weighing getting the Pedersoli kit versus the finished musket. The reason I have been leaning toward the latter is that there seems to be very little instructional information on building these kits out there for novices. Looking forward to seeing more posts/pictures as you progress.

Jay

smart dog · « **Reply #6 on:** March 15, 2020, 02:27:24 PM »

Hi,
Don't worry about the touch hole position. It is fine for a thick barreled musket. It may not be positioned for fastest ignition but is the best for reliable ignition shot after shot.

dave

Clark Badgett · « **Reply #7 on:** March 15, 2020, 08:47:57 PM »

Quote from: smart dog on March 15, 2020, 02:27:24 PM

Hi,
Don't worry about the touch hole position. It is fine for a thick barreled musket. It may not be positioned for fastest ignition but is the best for reliable ignition shot after shot.

dave

Thank you for the advice. I've been looking at as many musket touch holes as I can find, and it does seem that they normally sit just a little lower than on the rifles I can see. This touch hole is fully below the top line of the pan and I' not 100% sure if that is good or not, but I could easily relocate it on the mill at work if need be. Maybe I'll try shooting it first and then fix it if I want it better. One thing that I have noted is, original touch holes are huge on muskets, some even look like they could be .125" in diameter.

smart dog · « **Reply #8 on:** March 16, 2020, 04:34:32 AM »

Hi,
My comments are based on a lot of experience with muskets. The charge is set off by radiant heat and the max heat occurs after the powder in the pan has burned a bit to accumulate that heat. With a thick barrel (with no funneled vent liner) the higher radiant heat still ignites the charge even when the barrel is fouled. With a higher vent location, the priming may ignite the charge faster but not necessarily reliably in a big barrel after multiple shots and fouling. That is why you see large vent holes on muskets and their position lower in the pan. When you are shooting at birds on the fly, a sunrise vent position is best, but when shooting at people in battle, a lower position is more reliable.

dave

JLayne · « **Reply #9 on:** March 19, 2020, 11:15:08 PM »

Seeing your post was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back for me. Always wanted a working replica of a Charleville like the one carried by U.S. Continental Army troops during the Revolution. So I saw your post, agonized about it for a few days, and finally ordered one of the Perdersoli 1766 Charlevilles in finished form. I see that most of the information that I am able to locate online says the 1766 Charleville is the one that would have been issued to American troops in the Revolution once the French started shipping them over. However, I notice that the 1766 Pedersoli replica seems to have a higher, more boxy looking comb on the buttstock than I see on photos of originals, most of which seem to have combs that appear more similar to the comb on the Perdersoli 1777 Charleville replica. I thought I would ask on here to see if some of you who are much more familiar with military muskets of the era can explain the discrepancy?

Thanks,
Jay

Daryl · « **Reply #10 on:** March 20, 2020, 12:24:08 AM »

IIRC, the 1777 Char. Was the worse cheek slapper.

Clark Badgett · « **Reply #11 on:** March 20, 2020, 12:30:28 AM »

Quote from: JLayne on March 19, 2020, 11:15:08 PM

Seeing your post was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back for me. Always wanted a working replica of a Charleville like the one carried by U.S. Continental Army troops during the Revolution. So I saw your post, agonized about it for a few days, and finally ordered one of the Perdersoli 1766 Charlevilles in finished form. I see that most of the information that I am able to locate online says the 1766 Charleville is the one that would have been issued to American troops in the Revolution once the French started shipping them over. However, I notice that the 1766 Pedersoli replica seems to have a higher, more boxy looking comb on the buttstock than I see on photos of originals, most of which seem to have combs that appear more similar to the comb on the Perdersoli 1777 Charleville replica. I thought I would ask on here to see if some of you who are much more familiar with military muskets of the era can explain the discrepancy?

Thanks,
Jay

Indeed, you are correct in noticing the incorrect comb profile of the stock. Pedersoli usually makes a quality product even if not exactly correct in ever aspect. Here are the points that I have found incorrect with the kit that I'm working on. Let's start with the stock. The comb does indeed need to be lowered and rounded, and this I have observed from images of at least 6 different M1766 muskets. The trigger guard on the repro is made from 2 pieces riveted together, originals were one single part. The barrel only has 1 flat on the lock side, there should be a second flat on the side plate side as well. The forward barrel band has a little lip that extends downward near the ramrod hole, that needs to be ground straight and repolished and the sight on the band needs to be replaced with a brass one. And finally this is the one that irks me the most, the ramrod is 2 piece and completely wrong. They make the correct style for the US M1795 which they should just use on the Charleville and M1816 also. I'm not sure exactly where those Italians got the idea to use that long taper end on the ramrod, when the button head was the predominate style of the era and they use that style on their Brown bess offerings. All told, there is nothing that I can't fix on this kit if I decide to do so, but a couple of the issues are just tedious, like setting up a lathe to turn a long thin rammer so it doesn't flop all over the place.

Clark Badgett · « **Reply #12 on:** March 20, 2020, 12:34:15 AM »

Quote from: Daryl on March 20, 2020, 12:24:08 AM

IIRC, the 1777 Char. Was the worse cheek slapper.

That is why the M1812/14 was so short lived. Us Yanks changed the stock back to the normal style without the cheek cutout with the M1816

Clark Badgett · « **Reply #13 on:** March 22, 2020, 03:42:24 AM »

Look at those lock panels. Double what the should be

Much better and close to what you find on originals.

Clark Badgett · « **Reply #14 on:** March 22, 2020, 03:46:32 AM »

What on earth is this? And why is it so huge?

Much better now and closer and ready for sanding.

Clark Badgett · « **Reply #15 on:** March 22, 2020, 03:48:57 AM »

I think I’m going to go with this stock profile. I like it and it’s within the range found on originals.

rmnc3r · « **Reply #16 on:** April 11, 2020, 09:29:56 AM »

Timely thread, as I decided to finally finish a '77 I've had dormant for years - got around to polishing the front Band today.

What wood finish are you planning to use, OP?

Clark Badgett · « **Reply #17 on:** April 11, 2020, 07:23:28 PM »

This piece of walnut is so light that I'm probably going to stain it with some LMF walnut and then oil the stock with pure tung oil. I need to put up the pictures of the barrel work I just did last night.

Craig Wilcox · « **Reply #18 on:** April 11, 2020, 07:28:55 PM »

Pretty nice piece of wood on that musket! Should finish up brilliantly.

For your ramrod, see if any of the metal supply houses have a piece of 7 mm steel rod - it would be closer than any of the inch fractional sizes.

You are doing excellent work on the kit to make it look very much like a real Charleville.

rmnc3r · « **Reply #19 on:** April 11, 2020, 07:50:50 PM »

Quote from: Clark Badgett on April 11, 2020, 07:23:28 PM

This piece of walnut is so light that I'm probably going to stain it with some LMF walnut and then oil the stock with pure tung oil. I need to put up the pictures of the barrel work I just did last night.

Mine is pretty light too - I'm planning on Watco Danish Oil in Medium Walnut, with maybe a hint of Cherry, topped off with thinned out TruOil, and finished with Carnauba Briwax to cut the shine.

In regards to the front Barrel Band - Like the OP's - the Sight is cast in, but I will eventually grind it off and put on a proper brass sight. How were originals affixed? I surmise that it was a rectangular tenon soft soldered into place...?

Clark Badgett · « **Reply #20 on:** April 12, 2020, 01:03:56 AM »

Quote from: rmnc3r on April 11, 2020, 07:50:50 PM

Quote from: Clark Badgett on April 11, 2020, 07:23:28 PM
This piece of walnut is so light that I'm probably going to stain it with some LMF walnut and then oil the stock with pure tung oil. I need to put up the pictures of the barrel work I just did last night.

Mine is pretty light too - I'm planning on Watco Danish Oil in Medium Walnut, with maybe a hint of Cherry, topped off with thinned out TruOil, and finished with Carnauba Briwax to cut the shine.

In regards to the front Barrel Band - Like the OP's - the Sight is cast in, but I will eventually grind it off and put on a proper brass sight. How were originals affixed? I surmise that it was a rectangular tenon soft soldered into place...?

The sight as it is now is fairly close to original shape, but it's just steel. Originals had brass that was soldered on. If I was wanting to get real technical about this, I would be moving the bayonet lug on top and adding the band spring to the rear band as it seems most of the M1766s that came over had those updates. However I have seen at least 1 attributed original without those upgrades so I'm going to leave that part alone.

rmnc3r · « **Reply #21 on:** April 14, 2020, 04:22:50 AM »

Finished scraping the stock and remembered I have some Herter's French Red Filler - I will use that.

My rear and middle bands have a bit of play. I think I will weld a blip on the end of the spring, then file and try to help tighten them up a bit, but there is a sizable gap at the top of the band that could use a little welding filler to help tighten up the fit a bit more. But it begs the question - how tight/close a fit were originals?

I'm debating whether or not to put in a touch hole liner - slow ignition is distracting.

Clark Badgett · « **Reply #22 on:** July 26, 2020, 09:52:23 PM »

It’s been a while since I’ve found the time to work on my musket. I summoned my courage and decided to fix the front sight. Here it is ready for shaping after I soldered the brass on

Clark Badgett · « **Reply #23 on:** July 26, 2020, 10:50:59 PM »

Ready for polish and final shaping.

create high quality images

Marcruger · « **Reply #24 on:** July 27, 2020, 11:07:56 PM »

I do enjoy these "build alongs". Go Clark go. :-)

News:

Author Topic: Pedersoli 1766 Charleville kit arrived. Pics added (Read 7922 times)