Yard Sale Find

[eleejr]

I would value your collective thoughts on this flintlock musket. The overall length is 57.75", and the barrel length is 42.5" (measured from the outside, as there appears to be something at the bottom).  The diameter of the bore at the muzzle is .718".  I have not attempted to clean it, but I can find only one small inspector's mark on the breech end of the barrel, possibly a Roman numeral on the side plate, and no markings on the inside or outside of the lock.  Cleaning might reveal more.  The metal fittings (especially the trigger guard) resemble a 1768 Charleville, but the overall dimensions aren't correct.  The stock appears to be walnut, and there's a curious flat section below the trigger guard.  Distance from the rear of the bayonet lug to the muzzle is 1.5" which leads me to think that it hasn't been cut.  I'm thinking War of 1812 era, but I am anxious for more educated opinions - my thanks in advance.

[T*O*F]

(measured from the outside, as there appears to be something at the bottom).

Be careful!!!  It's probably still loaded.

[eleejr]

Treating it as such!

[ntqlvr1948]

very nice yard sale find ,, It looks like a Charleville.....maybe a restocked one because of that flat spot.

[ntqlvr1948]

But the barrel length is not and caliber too big for a Charleville musket....regardless I wish I would have been at that sale!

[eleejr]

Miked the bore at .718 which is smaller than my first measurement.

[2 shots]

  63/66 charlie is my guess. with the band springs might be a 68 [?] convesion.

[WESTbury]

No bridle on the lock and looks like no tapped hole to mount a bridle. The tail of the battery is not curled either. The lock is not a product of Springfield or Harpers Ferry. Possibly an independent state contractor.

[Tim Crosby]

 What a find, does the lock work? I'm wondering what is holding the cock in position in this Pic, I can see two notches but the sear isn't in either.

  Thanks, Tim

 

[eleejr]

The lock doesn't work and the mainspring is just resting in place. The interior is notably different from the 1795-1808 locks I have found online and more similar to that of a Charleville musket.  Could this be an American copy of a Charleville, which might account for the dimensional differences and lack of a bridle? 

[WESTbury]

  Could this be an American copy of a Charleville, which might account for the dimensional differences and lack of a bridle?

Double bridle locks were pretty much the standard for military flintlock in the latter half of the 18th Century. There could be exceptions, but that would be really out of the ordinary. Anything is possible as the lock could be an assembly of unassociated surplus or salvaged components. The same goes for the rest of this particular musket.

Any marks on the bottom of the barrel?

[eleejr]

Answering that question with any certainty will require a cleaning that I have thus far avoided, as I may not keep this and people seem to like them in an "attic" condition.  I have looked and seen nothing, but I will look again.  John Gunderson presently has a musket for sale that has similarities to this one, including the barrel length of 42.5" and the punch marks on the interior lock parts.

https://www.gundersonmilitaria.com/musketm1763styleGmGCC501.html

[WESTbury]

Answering that question with any certainty will require a cleaning that I have thus far avoided, as I may not keep this and people seem to like them in an "attic" condition.  I have looked and seen nothing, but I will look again.  John Gunderson presently has a musket for sale that has similarities to this one, including the barrel length of 42.5" and the punch marks on the interior lock parts.
https://www.gundersonmilitaria.com/musketm1763styleGmGCC501.html

Well, that is interesting. Different pattern lock components, looks like an integrally forged round bottom pan.

If you place the cock in the firing position, can you see the presence of the end of a screw to mount a bridle?

[eleejr]

No sign of a screw...

[WESTbury]

No sign of a screw...

I guess that you would have to dismount the cock to see the area in question.

Photo below, of the interior of a Charleville lock, provided for reference.

[eleejr]

My thanks for the reference photo.  Interesting that there is no screw holding the mainspring in place on mine, nor does there appear to be a space for one.  The rear lock screw positioning is different as well. 

[Clark Badgett]

But the barrel length is not and caliber too big for a Charleville musket....regardless I wish I would have been at that sale!

French barrels were anywhere from .69-.73”. However this is probably a contract gun.

[Bob Roller]

No sign of a screw...

I guess that you would have to dismount the cock to see the area in question.

Photo below, of the interior of a Charleville lock, provided for reference.

This is a common style of lock mechanism in both military and smaller rifle locks and still is today.
I made a number of these in sporting rifle locks and while they lack sophistication,they do work.
The warning about it still being loaded is true until proven wrong.Uncle Ignatz may have got powder
out of a couple of modern shotgun shells in the absence of black powder to load it.
Bob Roller
 

[WESTbury]

This is a common style of lock mechanism in both military and smaller rifle locks and still is today.
I made a number of these in sporting rifle locks and while they lack sophistication,they do work.
The warning about it still being loaded is true until proven wrong.Uncle Ignatz may have got powder
out of a couple of modern shotgun shells in the absence of black powder to load it.
Bob Roller

Here is a photo of the exterior of the lock I posted above.

Kent