French Musket?

[1srelluc]

A Gunboards member suggested that i post up a old musket I found last week.....Thanks in advance for any help with this one.



It looks along the lines of a Model 1728 French Inf. Musket of the French and Indian War era but not exactly. Maybe a composite musket that started life as a 1700s French musket? The bore measures .743".....Barrel length 46". OAL is 61".

I found two proofs on the left of the barrel.



The lock had no markings on the outside but this was found inside. There is no S-shaped side-plate or side plate of any kind. I suspect the lock was a replacement. It still works fine.

[rich pierce]

By the wood it looks like a restock of a French musket of the timeframe you mention; possibly stocked in ash.

[conquerordie]

I believe on 1728's only the front barrel band hand a retaining spring. The other two were friction fit. No side plate, maybe a restock from after the F and I war .

[1srelluc]

I believe on 1728's only the front barrel band hand a retaining spring. The other two were friction fit. No side plate, maybe a restock from after the F and I war .

I agree, at least from the very few pics I've seen.  This is what it looked like when I found it.



Oh and this mark was under the wood on the bottom of the barrel....I forgot about that one.



And yeah, the stock does look a lot like ash and as best as I can tell it never even had a provision for a side-plate. That and the lock screws are flush with the side of the lock. If a side plate was used then the lock screws would have stuck out from the lock some.

[Hungry Horse]

I believe this is an early restock done in America, of hickory. The barrel bands are the early spring pin type, not simply friction fit. Other than the missing side plate all the parts are the right age to be from the same gun.

  Hungry Horse

[WESTbury]

Check out page 172, Fig 359 of Bill Ahearn's book Muskets of the Revolution for photos of two Liege produced French style muskets sent to New France. Your musket may possibly be one of this type. Unfortunately, there are no photos of the off-lock side.
 
Your musket is a very interesting looking long arm.

[1srelluc]

Do any of the markings I posted ring any bells?

[1srelluc]

I believe this is an early restock done in America, of hickory. The barrel bands are the early spring pin type, not simply friction fit. Other than the missing side plate all the parts are the right age to be from the same gun.

  Hungry Horse

Something I noticed when removing the bands/springs was that the slots cut for the aft and middle bands were longer than the springs used in them with some type of filler used in both slots.

[WESTbury]

Do any of the markings I posted ring any bells?

I looked in George Neumann's book an as far as I could see, none of the marks matched any shown in George's book.

I'll keep checking.

[alex e.]

Its upside down in the picture,  but the "NC" That  are overlapped,  is the mark of Nicolas  Carteron, an arms inspector  at St. Etienne, around the 1740s-1763. I'd have to check about the other marks,  most likely acceptance/ proof/barrelmakers marks..
 The crown over the double entwined Ls is the king's  royal symbol.
These are in the Kevin Gladysz book,page 156

Probably  a post war restock IMO

[smart dog]

Hi,
The proof marks on the barrel are for St. Etienne (1740-1770).  The upper mark may be for Nicholas Carteron who proofed barrels during 1742-1763.  I believe the barrel lock and hardware are from a French model 1754 musket.  I believe the lock maker was Marcellus Chomier.  It was definitely restocked from an old French musket.

dave

[1srelluc]

Hi,
The proof marks on the barrel are for St. Etienne (1740-1770).  The upper mark may be for Nicholas Carteron who proofed barrels during 1742-1763.  I believe the barrel lock and hardware are from a French model 1754 musket.  I believe the lock maker was Marcellus Chomier.  It was definitely restocked from an old French musket.

dave

Was it common to restock recycled muskets full length like that and for what purpose, militia, trade? I would have thought they would have shortened them up some if they were being repurposed as fowlers or such. 

Sorry if that is a stupid question but I know very little about pre-Revolution arms but what I read here and there. 

[rich pierce]

Short barrels were considered inferior in those days. Shortening on purpose would be like eliminating 2 cylinders on a V-8 in the 1960s.

[1srelluc]

Short barrels were considered inferior in those days. Shortening on purpose would be like eliminating 2 cylinders on a V-8 in the 1960s.

Makes sense. Established gun doctrine dies hard even today. 

[bones92]

Perhaps re-stocked to put into service during the RevWar? 

[backsplash75]

Great restock, thanks for sharing! It is odd that it has early french style stock architecture but omits the sideplate (the latter something I tend to put into the early federal period but the stock profile suggest earlier work).

this is what she looked like originally. As mentioned above, the 1728/46 models only had springs on the top (muzzle) band. Model 1754 gets a middle band spring, and the swivels move to the triggerguard, I believe that is the last model with that pointed finial buttplate too.

[1srelluc]

Great restock, thanks for sharing! It is odd that it has early french style stock architecture but omits the sideplate (the latter something I tend to put into the early federal period but the stock profile suggest earlier work).

this is what she looked like originally. As mentioned above, the 1728/46 models only had springs on the top (muzzle) band. Model 1754 gets a middle band spring, and the swivels move to the triggerguard, I believe that is the last model with that pointed finial buttplate too.

Another thing I thought was odd was that they left the ring swivel on the band with no provision for a sling attachment point on the aft end. There is not even a hole where one might have been at one time.