Hello,

I resently bought a flintlock musket here in Sweden, the seller told me it might be american. Since there are many american entusiasts here I hope that I can get some help. I have not recieved the package yet but I post the pictures the seller had.

It is 152 cm long, 17,5 mm cal. There is a little piece of metal missing just under the flint. It has its original ramrod and everything.

My rifle:
[ Linked Image ]

[ Linked Image ]




The lock is a little bit similar to this lock from a Virginia Musket type II or III, the pic is from www.therifleshoppe.com. Here you can also se the missing piece.
[ Linked Image ]

Thanks for all help.

Newbie here. I'm not exactly an expert.. but It looks like a flint lock from my quick glance through of examples of the two types. The basic difference is a match lock, as I can see, has a little strong/rope to burn(Remember, think match and candle), while a flint lock literally has flint instead of this little string.

This is the best source on the subject I was able to find

The match lock
http://www.silcom.com/~vikman/isles/scriptori...match.html

The flint lock
http://www.silcom.com/~vikman/isles/scriptori...ntlck.html

Source(Scroll down for the links to the two above links)
http://www.silcom.com/~vikman/isles/scriptori...rearm.html

[ Linked Image ]

Edited: Whoops, thought you were asking how to tell if it was a flint lock. How to tell if its American? I haven't a clue. Maybe the wood? Design of the barrel(Like a Kentucky/Pennslyvania long rifle?). :eek:

In addition to the broken cock, the frizzen appears to be a crude replacement. You should be able to find replacement parts--either antique or reproduction--to repair the piece.

I'm not really a firearms guy, but yours puts me in mind of the French 1766 "Charleville" musket. I'm not sure why the seller thinks it's American. Looks more like a European military piece to me, but then I don't know anything about American muskets apart from reading one book, long ago, about the Harper's Ferry armoury. I'm not sure what an American musket would be doing in Europe. Maybe some modern collector just preferred American arms to the many, many fine European military arms of the period.

---

 Attachment: 84.66 KB



 Attachment: 19.54 KB

Any chance of getting pictures of the trigger guard, other side of the butt end and the barrel band?

The sling points make me think it's a military weapon, but the muzzle doesn't appear to support a bayonet, and is not in the pattern of any military flintlock I'm aware of.

The best I can do is copy this advice for you:

Quote:

I receive many requests for help on identifying old firearms. Some requests involve incomplete or insufficient information, as a result I cannot respond with a substantial or conclusive answer. Questions pertaining to value are also frequently problematic in that many subtle factors are involved. Thus, I can only offer a range of potential value in most cases. Look over the list below and include as much information as you can. Descriptive information needed includes: 1) Any written, stamped or engraved markings. These may be found on the lock(s), barrel, or on the rib between the barrels in the case of a double shotgun or rifle. 2)Proof Marks are usually found at the breech end of the barrel(s), often on the underside requiring removal of the barrel(s) from the gun to ascertain. These are quite significant in many cases as to origin of the gun. (note: If the information above is obscure, faint, or otherwise difficult to read please study it with a loupe or some magnification. Partial information found in this way is often helpful.) 3) In the case of military arms, inspector marks on the stock and elsewhere are also significant. U.S. arms were always inspected after 1796 and originally had a final inspectors mark on the stock opposite the lock. These are in an oval about 3/8" high with three letters in script. Look closely!!

Unless you have paperwork citing the history of the weapon, I'd buy it for what it is (an enjoyable piece of history) and not the story. My instincts say it looks like a fowling piece, but thats just a hunch. Is the weapon rifled or smoothbore?

What you have there is almost certainly a Charlevillle (French) musket. The brass pan is a dead give away, as are the trigger guard and butt stock shape. The frizzen does appear to be a replacement. The lock, with its double throated cock and small tail at the back of the lock plate is also characteristic of the Charleville. It appears that the fore end cap and barrel band are missing but the photo is not clear enough to be certain. The engraving on the lock plate, only part of which is visible in the photo, appears to start with "Tu.." which is probably Tulle, the French arsenal. Some fowlers were marked "Tulle" and I suppose some military locks could turn up marked the same way.

It is entirely possible that the musket came from the US. The French provided large numbers of them to the Continental Army during the revolution. The first US produced musket, the Model 1795, was based on the Charleville.

The Charleville is quite distinctive so I am 99% sure that is what you have.

A better shot of the lock plate would help in identifying it. Also one of the breech could be useful.

I wouldn't be so quick to say its a 1777 (aka Charleville). For one, the barrel bands are not correct. Also, though its hard to tell, I'd say the muzzle is off too.

If it says "Tulle" on the lock plate, then it IS French (or at least the lock plate is hehe).

If it says "Tula" (in Cyrillic), it is Russian, quite possible considering their wars with Sweden. It is not uncommon to find Norwegian and Russian guns in Sweden.

Edit: Here is a Tula lock:

[ Linked Image ]

Looking at the rear of the hammer, it is a simple post compared to the rounded knob at the rear of the 1777 (Charleville) hammer. Also, the marking "Ту́ла" looks rather similar to what I can see on your musket (the "Ty" at least).

Here is the whole gun:

[ Linked Image ]

As you can see, the barrel band springs are facing the same way as yours, unlike with a 1777 (Charleville). On a 1777 the springs face right, on a Tula 1808 they face left. Also, the trigger is a different shape than on any French military musket I've ever seen.

The muzzle still does not look right though, which leads me to believe it was "bubbarized" by a civilian or by the Government for sale to civilians. You see, what is missing is the bayonet lock, something seen only on military arms. It would be useless on a civilian arm and perhaps was removed to stop its re-use as a military weapon.

All in all, it is certainly not a military 1777 Charleville musket. It is also not American, as a general rule, most guns went across the Atlantic in the other direction. So any in Europe would be very rare, brought back individually by collectors in recent years. Besides this, it doesn't match any American military muskets and it doesn't look like it was intended to be a civilian firearm.

It may be a French musket produced at Tulle (perhaps a trade gun?) but my bet is on it being an 1808 Tula musket which found its way to Sweden in the Finnish war of February 1808 to September 1809.

The springs, lock plate, hammer, bands and stock all point to Tula. The barrel and muzzle are hard to positively identify without more information or pictures.

The Charleville was made in several variations, and some of them had springs that were behind the barrel bands, in relation to the rear of the gun, just like the one you illustrate. The photo you provide of the Tula musket looks almost like a Charleville of 1776 or so vintage. I must admit, having more closely examined the engraving on the lock, that it looks more Tula than Tulle, the resolution on my monitor not being very good, and then the photo isn't either. If it is marked Tula then it must be Russian, or at least the lock plate is. The two guns look very much alike. I have several good quality photos of Charlevilles that clearly resemble the gun in the first photo, with the exception of the engraving on the lock. Did the Tula muskets use a brass priming pan?

My comment about the origin of the gun did not mean I think it is American made. Clearly it is of European manufacture. However, there is no reason to believe that it could not have come back to Europe from America in spite of the more common flow of arms from east to west.

Clearer photos will help.

To me, it looks like the Tula lock for near certain.

The lock-plate looks a little rounded behind the cock,( not flat like the Tulle plate), and the hammer (Frizzen) spring appears to have the same Tula finial. Also, the spur of the cock looks Tula for sure.....

Cheers,

Richard.

Thank you for all terrific answers! It´s great to have all this knowledge around!

As soon as I get the gun I will post better pictures so we can study the case further.

In conclusion so far; this is a russian "Tula" musket of the model 1808 or a french Charleville 1777 from the Tulle arsenal. If it is a Tula musket it would be based on the Charville 1777. The barrel is perhaps shortened because it can not be fitted with a bayonet perhaps for civil use. The frissen might not be original.

This is a really good forumarticle about the Tula muskets.
http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?t=69601
It states:
"The model 1808 Russian musket is an almost exact copy of the Model 1777 An/IX French Musket which was manufactured in .69 caliber. The pattern 1808 would be manufactured with only minor changes for 37 years until it was replaced with the pattern 1845 percussion musket."


I payed about 420 dollars for it I hope I didn´t screw up...

420$$$ Geez, what a good price. That's cheaper than a repro and a Tula!!!!!!! Great find Anders. I collect Russian WW2 weapons and that is a gem. Have you lived fired it or are you going to keep it as a collectible. I would not fire it.

Rodrigo

Well, it´s great to hear so many good responses! I became a little worried when the barrel might have been shortened, that could damage the value alot. I friend of my said that perhaps the barrel is supposed to be short, it could be an officers model and some of those could not be fitted with a bayonette. But of course that is hard to find proof for. :wtf:

I have not fired the gun yet because I have not recieved it yet. I will have to inspect it good first and look for cracks and stuff.

I can´t wait to get it....

There is one more thing that says its a Tula musket, there are two ridges on the plate just below the triggerguard. Those are on other examples of the Tula gun but not on the French examples.

Great pics Anders. 15th Century ? Tell us more. I love the garb and l love the Hackenbuse. I

Rodrigo

Thanks Bruce Willis (is that your real name?) I normally reenact the three periods 1300-1350, 1364-1389 and the time around 1700. The handgonne you pointed out was a reconstruction of a swiss 14th C handgonne that I just sold to a friend of mine in the same reenactmentcompany (Albrechts bössor www.albrechts.se). My blog is were I publish articles about different traditional handcrafts that I do, mostly smithing and historical handsewing. Sadly for you english speaking most of it is in swedish. If there is anything particular you are interested in please send me a PM, like how you make buttons out of mashed potato. :D


Those russians really copy things, I looked up just a couple of pics where didn´t se those ridges and asumed there was none on the Charleville muskets. I guess I just have to sit and wait for it...

I took the pic and blew it up on my computer screen the lock says TYNA which I think means it is a Tula but I could be wrong. T Y N A that is what it says. I cant show it blown up but here is a drawing.

---

 Attachment: 6.69 KB

here is a pic from the original posters musket I just croped

---

 Attachment: 17.05 KB



 Attachment: 17.38 KB