Charleville Infantry Musket Guidance

[cwhermann28]

I am interested in a period correct Charleville, (mainly for use with SAR color guard and some re-enacting) and am also interested in building a musket from a kit.  I have experience with both woodworking (but no fine chisel work) and metal working with plenty of tools and thought a kit project through the winter would be a good challenge.  Trying to decide on the kit is what led me to this forum.
My original plan was to purchase a Pedersoli made Charleville and then build a colonial era hunting gun (Fusil de chasse or Northwest Trade) from a kit. Now the dilemma - I would like early Rev War period Charleville, with the 3 band springs which started showing up in the late 1766 models or the 1768 models (depending on the source) and Pedersoli only offers the 1766 (2 spring bands) or 1777 model.
From posts here and other forums, it seems the Pedersoli models are not really period correct from a number of aspects the most period accurate would be a TRS kit so I am considering building the Charleville and putting the hunting gun on hold. Information on this and other forums indicate the TRS stocks leave much to be desired and may not be the best kit for a first time builder? (not to mention the extensive lead times).  I have not located any Charleville kit vendors other than TRS or Pedersoli.
Having a "period accurate" Charleville is important to me, and the question(s) for the experinced builders in the group: Is tackling a TRS kit unrealistic for a first build?  Are there other options for a more period correct Charleville?

[Clark Badgett]

The Pedersoli kit can be turned into a nice correct M1766, which is correct with either 2 or 3 band springs, depending on what then current directive they were updated to, not all were. I bought a M1777 rear band spring and inletted it on mine, as most examples I have access to, had the 3 spring. There will be a lot of wood to remove from the kit and the stock will need to be completely reshaped which is achievable. With the exception of the trigger guard, lockplate, hammer and barrel, all the metal will need to be polished and the front band will need the cast in front sight removed and a brass one soldered in place. A TRS kit is certainly doable, but is quite advanced, even for us metal workers that are newish at this. I would call them and ask them to not inlet the parts other than the barrel as it's known here that their inlets might be off some.

[smart dog]

Hi,
Search for a Charleville musket made by Miroku.  You may be able to find one on the gun auction sites or at Rev War events. They are the best representation of the 1763 "lights", which you call the models 1766 and 1768.  They only miss having the ramrod retaining spring.  They were sold under the Navy Arms label.  Your other choice is a TRS part set.  If you want an assembled lock, you'll probably wait quite a while.  They are not kits but rather part sets and can require some well developed building skills that include metal work.

dave 

[cwhermann28]

Dave and Clark - thank you for the advise - I am sure I am going to be seeking more as I start the journey of building guns.

You have confirmed what I was considering after reading additional posts, going through build threads and watching videos, - that I need to adjust my expectations a bit and start off with a Kibler (or possibly a Chambers) kit for my first build and get through one or two of the "easier" kits as a minimum before tackling something like the TRS or Pedesoli Charleville kit.  Besides, if it were not for my involvement with the Color Guard, a military musket would be further down the priority list of guns I would want build.

I am also thinking I would be better off by picking up a low cost, India import Charleville to meet my Color Guard needs and then using the savings (vs. a Pedersoli) to put towards another kit to gain some build experience.  As long as it is shiny, makes a loud bang and lots of smoke, very few (if any) folks at a parade or ceremony are  going to care if it is period correct.  In the meantime I can keep my eye out for a Miroku.
Curt

[kutter]

I would stay away from a TRS 'kit' at this point.
They take a lot of work, not the usual clean up of the metal and wood inletting and presto,,there's your rifle!
Their stocks are nortorious for sloppy inletting of the hardware pieces and I can attest to that.
You will spend a lot of time fixing oversize (pre)inlet areas to make rough cast metal parts fit.
It is certainly good practice for restoration work if that is what you are looking for.
If you do go this route, the excellent advise to have them inlet the bbl only and rough turn the outside stock contour ONLY is a good one.
Maybe do the ramrod hole too. But so you know, They often do the RR hole in the lower forend my milling down inside the the bbl inlet. Not the full length drill-it-out operation from the muzzle.

Metal parts are 'as-cast' and are rough. They take a lot of filing up to get them ready to inlet.
If the part is undersize to the pre-cut stock inlet, you are really starting from behind the 8-ball.
The side plate on a Queen Anne Musket was so bad I just ended making one from scratch.
Sometimes peening the metal can stretch it to meet the oversize inlets,,sometimes not.

The bbl inlet was very nice though.
It did take some spotting and scrapping to get it down in position, but about what I expected.

Here's a couple pics of what the parts look like as recv'd and one of the springs (frizzen) all polished up ready to be hardened.
The sear spring provided was un-usable so I made a new one from scratch.

Lot's of work as I said.









Trimming up a repro Charley would probably be the best bet. Everything works and is inletted already. You can
refit things you want and can do. Spif it up, reshape wood, refinish metal, work over the lock for better performance & smoother operation,,etc.
But you have an assembled musket in hand to start with.
It's a better first step IMO to build new skills and confidence. Then you can go one to one of the kits like a TRS if you feel the need and really like to file & polish stuff.

[cwhermann28]

Thanks Kutter
In my case it is not only all the work to finish the cast parts, it lack of knowing what the finished part is supposed to look like. 
Originally I thought I would kill two birds with one stone, get an historically accurate gun for reenactment and satisfy my desire to build a gun.  The more I think about it, (and learn about the effort to built a kit) I realize that if I was not involved in the reenacting, a military musket is not what I would choose to build (I would rather spend my time building a Fusil, trade gun or something my GG grandfather would have had on the wagon train in the 1860s). Add to this that the only Charleville “kit” I have located is TRS.
  I am now thinking that I should just get a commercial reproduction military musket as my “reenactment gun” which will I will probably never put a ball through.  I can’t see myself taking it to the range and at >10 lbs., certainly not hunting!  If I treat it more like a part of the costume, a “less expensive India gun” could fill the need.  Ease of cleaning after events was the reason I focused on the Charleville to begin with.
This would allow me to focus my time and “serious money” on a kit to develop skills, do some more historical research, and then build a gun I am really interested in.

[fahnenschmied]

You might build experience by reworking an Indian musket. Before you all bring out the pitchforks and torches, some of them are not too bad.  No Indian 1766 or 58 is any good.  The 1777s are tolerably well done from one maker.  That same makers 1728s are not very good, but a different maker - who Loyalist and Veteran Arms uses is better.  You can treat this like a kit, reworking and improving parts to make it better.  Here is my 1728, which came in a batch direct from India, but the same as Loyalist has.  The changes I have made to it - it needed a new frizzen, which could not be made to close.  I broke it trying to fix it so I forged a new one.,  I filed flats and facets better on the pan.  I improved the bevels and shaping of the finial on the frizzen spring.  The lockplate had hardly any bevels, I increased them, and not long ago refiled the moulding at the back to more closely match  the old ones. The hammer screw was stepped, I filed it domed.  I reshaped the top jaw screw,  I eventually plugged one of the buttplate screw holes and relocated it to a more typical location on the tang.  I soldered a little square bit to the band spring and filed a square hole in the upper band.  On the stock, I reshaped the comb a bit, brought the lock flats down to be closer to originals.  I may have bent the tang down a bit, but I no longer remember.  I also slimmed down the underneath of the fore end - original 1728s show a lot of rammer, especially towards the muzzle, seen from the side.  I added some markings to the lock plate, based on some original example, and slapped some small stamps on the sideplate, inspired by another original.  Originals 1728s vary a great deal in regards to locks, fittings and profiles.  Thus you can pick a particular old one, or parts of old ones, and modify yours to match as best you can.  Now lets see if I can stick some pictures on here.  I see here this was before I recut the mouldings at the back of the lockplate.

[fahnenschmied]

French muskets of this time seem to often have striped or curly sight colored walnut.
The Indian timber is not too drastically different in shade.  Here a few images -     

[cwhermann28]

Thanks fahnenschmied, I like the idea of treating the Indian made guns as kit to learn some skills.

[smart dog]

Hi,
India-made Charlevilles might be OK considered as kits but you risk ending up purchasing this,



a lock that needs really well developed skills to fix.  By the way this one cannot even be brought to full cock and look closely at the fit of the frizzen to the pan.

In contrast, here is a Miroku Charleville lock:





dave

[fahnenschmied]

The frizzen on my musket posted above wouldn't have held grains of rice.  I broke it trying to alter it and ended up forging a new one.  Had I bought it from a vendor I'd have sent it back, but it came directly from India, a group purchase of a dozen or so.  I'd have searched out a casting if I couldn't forge.  Many of the Indian muskets I've worked on had poor fitting frizzens, almost all of which could be corrected by filing the top of the pan and grinding the bottom of the frizzen.  Yes, the old Mirokus were nice - but they never made a 1717 or 1728, unforunately.