1777 Charleville bicentenial repro?

[Denny303]

Hey guys, I have the opportunity to buy one, I know its obviously not original, but I cant find any information on it, and there is a coating of rust on the barrel so I cant make out any proof marks, manufacturer. etc. the lock has 1777 charleville and the word bicentennial on it, no maker I can see. The barrel bands seem rather cheaply made, and the fit and finish of the stock and bbl is sloppy at best. I would buy it IF I can be sure its not a non firing replica, it appears to have been fired but, I wont bank my health and safety on that. Hoping someone has some info on them or has one. Thanks guys!...Denny

[rfd]

words won't help much, good images will!

[Denny303]

which I do not have, I will try and get something in the next few days.

[Earlwb]

I was at first thinking it might be a 1766 model made for Dixie Gun Works but Pedersoli made some 1766 ones too. If I remember correctly the DGW version was made by Pedersoli or the Japanese (they made quite a few different guns for DGW and are high quality). But three French companies made 1777 Charleville replica muskets too. So it is likely one of theirs. The companies are the Arsenals at Charleville, Maubeuge and St. Etienne. So you likely have one of the French made muskets. They are typically .69 caliber and use .67 caliber patched round balls.

Now there are some non-shooting display replicas that were made and some of those look very real. I would double check to ensure you don't have a non-firing replica.
For example http://www.replicaweaponry.com/denix-colonial-charleville-replica-flintlock-musket-with-bayonet.html

[gnoahhh]

There were varying degrees of quality in those Charleville repros. Pics would go a long way toward ID'ing.

As a re-ennactor from that period, I can tell you that it was the Charlevilles that usually came off second best in the accuracy department versus the Brown Besses, but the Charlevilles are much easier to dismount for cleaning. Either one is fine for an American portrayal but Besses only for the Brits.

As for patched round ball ammo, sure you can do it if you want to but I would suggest learning to roll simple cartridges out of newsprint and shoot them that way. You would be surprised how accurate a smoothbore musket can be when employing paper cartidges. The ancients would have never even considered loading them with patched round balls in combat. Three or four shots per minute can easily be gotten off too with paper cartridges- something you can't hope to do if you mess around with PRB's. We used .670 balls in the repro C'villes, and .690's and .700's in our Besses. The trick is to roll a paper tube around a suitable mandrel with a rounded end (tie the tube off with string on that end, with only just enough paper to barely make the tube). I bet there are YouTube videos showing how it's done. Drop the ball in, tie off the tube by cinching it up right tight against the backend of the ball, pour in the powder, and fold/glue the tail of the cartridge shut. When loading, tear the cartridge with your teeth, prime the pan (hammer on half-cock), then dump the rest of the cartridge- paper and all- into the bore and ram it home. Many repeat shots can be made before needing to clean if a small enough ball is used.

[Gavetta]

there is one on gunbroker.stock looks like teak.there were similar muskets imported from india that had the cheap bands you describe and marginal quality you describe..