I've been wanting a Revolutionary War era Charleville for a LONG time, but just never came across one when I had the disposable funds available.  I finally found one at the right time!  

Granted, this one is not a purebred Charleville; seems to be the Charleville pattern 1763 (?), but has some parts from other period rifles.  The lock appears to be from a Brown Bess, for example.  The barrel is 42 inches and the caliber is .69.

More pics here:  https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjB79Rd

Neat!

rob

Did you buy this as an original? There are a lot of things from the pictures that point that it is not a Revolutionary era Charleville.

At BEST, it’s an M1816, with a late Brown Bess lock, with a M1839 pattern sling, and if the front sight on the forward band isn’t brass its a modern replacement. Rammer is post 1840 as well.

ETA: there are no visible proof marks on the barrel. The French, English and US governments all proofed their barrels on arsenal production barrels, so the barrel might be modern as well.

Very nice.

The collage 3-in-1 picture looks like an Ancestry Guns ad.

This is why I post here!  

I got this for $1200 out the door - not from Ancestry.  I've always wanted a wall-hanger to go in my patriotic-themed office, but didn't want to buy a reproduction Pedersoli.  From the brief research I did, it seems that it was sold originally by Ancestry Guns, and in fact, I ganked their pics rather than try to take my own crappy ones.  Here's the ad I found for it when I looked up the original auction number that was included with the "certificate of authenticity" that the seller passed on to me from Ancestry.

I got it from an individual that at some point (I assume) had bought it from Ancestry, based on this ad I found:

https://www.gunsinternational.com/guns-for-sale-online/rifles/military-rifles---non-us/antique-charleville-pattern--69-cal--flintlock-musket-w-british-tower-lock--late-18th-french-british-fusion-military-musket.cfm?gun_id=102223134

While I don't know much about muskets or Charlevilles, I think that the lock looks like a Brown Bess 3rd model India pattern.  There isn't exactly a plethora of information on old muskets and the sites that look authoritative seem to couch a lot of their 'definitives' with "but there were exceptions", particularly with rifles in the early US that were apparently cobbled together from multiple sources.  So I didn't really question a whole lot on it; price seemed fair and I didn't see anything suggesting that Ancestry Guns was not legit other than people mentioning that they over-price a lot of their stuff.

BTW, if the barrel is modern, someone did a hell of a job on the bore inside it, all the way down.  It looks worse than most of my old WWI era C&R rifles when I used my borescope to look down it.

The front sight is definitely brass.  
The bayonet lug is on the top of the barrel.
The only markings I can see on the visible part of the barrel is what appears to be a small triangle just forward of the frizzen on the barrel (visible in Pic 6), but there is some pitting on the top of the barrel adjacent to the pan.
I assumed the sling was modern.  The leather is very supple and there aren't any real wear marks on it, but a good amount of green corrosion near the hardware on the sling (not the musket).

I can take further pics, including of the inside of the bore if it will help.

There literally is a plethora of information on old muskets. I alone have at least a couple dozen books on military muskets alone, probably 2/3rds of that number is on American and French muskets.

People have been faking wear and patina on firearms since the centennial of the Revolution, at least in this country. It’s nothing new, and some are even very good at it.

Thanks?  

Doesn't help though!

What help do you need? Without examining it in person and in detail I can’t say whether or not each part is original. I can say that it is an M1816 musket stock and furniture, an M1840 or M1842 rammer (or 1777 or later if French), an East India Type 2 lock and an M1839 type sling that was in use and production until the mid Trapdoor era. I can say with some certainty that the barrel without proofs is not an Arsenal product nor even acceptable for military usage. Now beyond that, it’s a guess. It could be an attempted outright fake or simply a ‘Bannermans’ cobbled together piece for sale. It is not a Charleville, or American Charleville pattern musket (M1795). It’s not an M1812 musket. I can tell you that if the parts are original the stock was from an M1816 type 1 which was only in production until roughly 1820ish.

Thanks.  That's kinda more what I was after (and yes, I realize some of that was in your first post ).  While I understand that it's difficult to really provide a lot of accurate detailed info on something like this with just pictures, that helps.  Apart from shipping this to someone, how can I determine if the barrel is period-accurate?  Would seeing the inside of it with a borescope help?

An M1816 is a Springfield musket that was a close American-made copy of the Charleville, right?  Are all the barrel bands likely from an M1816 as well?  The front sight post is indeed brass (someone asked earlier in the thread).

The ramrod - I assumed it was from a 1763 Charleville as Dixie Gun Works makes a reproduction one that has the same shape:  https://www.dixiegunworks.com/index/page/product/product_id/4903/category_id/444/product_name/RP0679+Ramrod+%28repro.%29+for+Original+Charleville+1763+Musket

No the M1816 was a fairly radical departure from the earlier muskets which were fairly close copies of the French M1766. The shape of the buttstock was redesigned, the barrel bands were similar but the long retaining springs went in front of the 2 lower bands while the front band remained similar. The lock was a closer copy of the French M1777 and was the first US musket to by regulation use the brass powder pan. Get out of the habit of verifying something by the reproduction of any musket made by Italians. The M1766 used a button head rammer, as did all regulation US muskets until the M1840, which switched to the trumpet shape.
If you wish to have a very good source on US flintlock muskets without having to locate a lot of sometimes expensive books, then locate a copy of Kent Johns book, Springfield Armory Infantry Muskets 1795 - 1844. Its a very thorough book with documentation and very clear and close up pictures. For such a short book it packs a lot of punch and condenses several other longer and much more in depth works.
https://www.trackofthewolf.com/Categories/PartDetail.aspx/271/2/BOOK-SA-IM

Thanks!

Apart from shipping this to someone, how can I determine if the barrel is period-accurate?  Would seeing the inside of it with a borescope help?

It’s not. It doesn’t have the V/Eagle head/P proofs, the date  on the tang nor the Arsenal applied Alpha-numeric serial number of original M1816 barrels. Plus its very evenly browned which didn’t happen with M1816 type 1 muskets. Now when it was cobbled together is the question. When obsolete muskets and/or part were bought off the government then were put together and they sold almost all of them to settlers heading west, even flintlocks. Poor settlers needed affordable guns to use to forage and protection. See the photo below for the barrel markings
Attached File

Understood; makes sense in that regard.

What doesn't make logical sense to me is that if someone were trying to purposefully age the barrel, why wouldn't they have done arguably the most easy part and put fake stampings on the barrel prior to 'aging' it?

Or could this be a period barrel that was made by someone and was not a military barrel or made by an arsenal?

I am actually thinking it wasn’t an actual attempt at a fake. There are lots of more legitimate reasons as to how this came to be. It could have been built by some contractor for one of the state militias in our pre Civil War era. It could have been built from parts by the several surplus houses in the last quarter of the 19th century to sell to the civilian populace. It could have been built during the resurgence of muzzle loading hobby from various parts to use for recreational shooting or early reenacting. It it could have been built as a functional movie prop. Lots of possibilities. And honestly it will look good as display in an office.

If original it could haver been assembled by an American gunsmith who was given battlefield salvaged parts to work with  We had a couple in our collection.

That would be the situation with the 1794 musket contracts. There are several old cobbled together muskets from both the Revolution era and the early republic era that often display parts from different eras and different nations. With Cornwallis’ surrender in 1781 the fledgling United States was in possession of more stands of muskets than any other nation of that era. It is believed that 1800 was the first year that our own version of the Charleville, the M1795, finally used all domestically made parts.