Pedersoli 1795

[guad42]

Folks,
Did a search and came up dry. Does anyone have any opinions to share about the Pedersoli 1795 flintlock? Advice and comments welcomed.
-Sam Dolan

[ACo.]

Re: Pedersoli 1795

All I can say is that it is sort of similar in appearance to the original.... but not really. As far as function? I'll let others discuss that, I am not a fan of Pedersoli and can't understand where their good reputation comes from.

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Pedersoli 1795

Todd Watts has one of these converted to percussion (cone in drum). Perhaps he can weigh in. I have found Pedersoli
flintlocks to be good quality with hard to correct minor cosmetic details. The 1795 is a massive weapon, they copied
the 2nd or 3rd type so it differs a little bit from the Charleville. Good for war of 1812 or Seminole, but not too many 1795s
were made...hence it would not be a particularly common Civil War arm. Good finish, good springs and lock parts but pricey, too.

Better than the India made versions from Loyalist Arms, Veteran Arms, MVTC, etc.

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

Re: Pedersoli 1795

Having one of those myself, I will say the performance end was quite good, with a crisp lock, strong parts, and so far with a few Seminole War events under my belt with it, absolutely no misfires. I am very much happier with this arm than the Pedersoli 1816 or the other import 1816's. From the authenticity end, like Craig said, its a hard sell for much of anything but 1812, and the first two Seminole Wars, since they started cranking out 1816/1822's rapidly. All in all, I'm quite pleased with this one and its my "go-to" flintlock.

[guad42]

Re: Pedersoli 1795

Ross, Craig, and Co,

Thanks for the help. I too am some displeased with my 1816 (see my '08 threads) as the details that are not authentic have slowly started to bother me. Sure, its my fault for being duped, but when a working man pays $1300.00 for a shootin' iron, he expects a little better. It shoots fine, I even did a live fire demo with it last year on the History Channel, is clean and reliable, crisp response, etc. As it is the only non-Indian repop out there, I'll keep it for now. As to my interest in the 95s, it comes from a general and increasing interest in the 1790s - 1840s period of history. Wouldn't mind having one, so long as it is at least close to accurate.

Many thanks for the advice. In general, I have never "met" a nicer batch of folks than those I've met on these boards over the past three years.

-Sam Dolan

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Pedersoli 1795

Watts could probably do your Pedersoli as a cone-in-barrel, if you wanted something a little more unique. He perfected
the conversion technique by botching up my rock-lock several times. Looks good now, though. I like the idea of the Pedersoli 1816
but the decision to do the conversion cone-in-drum was not the best choice.

The events Ross does down in FL lend themselves to use of the 1795 more so than US Civil War. You really need a decent
smoothbore for CS/US (western theater) and early war(both). Probably a tad de rigueur but the best smoothbore musket
is still the Armi Sport US 1842, all things considered.

[guad42]

Re: Pedersoli 1795

Craig,
Yeah, I picked up an Armi Sport '42 when they had the big sale at Dixie, and its the weapon I fall in with for CS (when life actually allows me to fall in). I've just developed a certain lust for flint locks during the past couple of years. I enjoy shooting them and I like their history. Only trouble is, while there are many fine craftsmen who do a fine job building authentic civilian smoothbores, fowlers, and rifles; the military arms out there leave a lot to be desired, or so it would seem.
-Sam Dolan

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Pedersoli 1795

Yes, repro muskets (incl flintlocks) of the type that would offer Civil War provenance are kind of accretions of the originals, and the Italian
factories that produce them are as such, corridored museums of ignorance.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Pedersoli 1795

Hallo!

Well covered....

I would add while we are discussing the "betters of the worsts," that the Italian repro "M1795" is 'closer' to a M1795 than the Italian "M1816" is coser to a M1822.

;) :)

But, the further one gets away from the M1812 ("4th Class" weapons), the harder it gets to justify their use for the CW, and the greater the need for some kind of "fiction" such as the possibility of a Southern non-federal/state armory or grandpa's musket taken down from the fireplace mantle.

Curt

[guad42]

Re: Pedersoli 1795

Well put. I would not myself use a 1795 for CW events. There are too many better explanations for other older guns in the decades leading into the war that are reasonable, than a 60 or 70 year old grandpa gun.
-Sam Dolan

[ndnchf]

Re: Pedersoli 1795

Another alternative is to keep your eyes open for a Japanese made Charleville musket. They are out of production now, but were made for a good number of years by Miroku in Japan and sold through Navy Arms, perhaps Dixie too. These were advertised as 1763 models, but actually incorporate several updates that came out in 1768. IMO, these are very high quality muskets, not perfect but better than anything out of Italy or elsewhere. The stock is slim and gracful and a joy to carry. The US model 1795 was modeled on this musket and is almost a dead ringer for it. To my understanding, the only real difference is the lock/barrel markings and the shape of the ramrod head. I think Zimmerman does the conversion, perhaps others.

They come up used from time to time. I picked on up recently and have had thoughts of doing this conversion.

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

Re: Pedersoli 1795

I am a tremendous fan of the Japanese Charleville's, as mine is one. It was named "Stone Crusher" by its previous owner due to its strong lock and ability to break even the hardiest of flints by the end of an event. The only problem is, the older models, although resembling the 1816/22's in profile, lock, and lines, I found out it is quite difficult to retrofit to the US model due to locks not being interchangeable, and some barrel band fitting issues. A decent gunsmith could probably do the work, but I'm loath to take a decent Rev War musket and make it anything other than its intended purpose. Perhaps Blair and Craig can pipe in with their thoughts on the process.

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Pedersoli 1795

I suppose the 1795 is a better reproduction of a pre-Civil War arm than the US 1816 is of a common Civil War arm. Just like
the Italian made Enfield repro...very common arm, half-assed reproduction. The best you can say of the 1795 repro is that
it looks better than those repro Pedersoli Charleville flinties you see toted by the dirty, ragged, long haired hillybilly reenactor.
I really like the stock shape through the wrist and comb of the 1795, the reproduction does not really have the "thinness" you see in
the surviving originals. It is a very cool musket, graceful and at the same time, martial looking. Just, like I said, primarily for
pre-Mexican war reenactors.

Add a decent repro Civil War flintlock to the wish list. Under no circumstances consider going for the Indy/Paki teakwood and
conduit, shade tree, hand-made musket. Better to tote a farby repro Enfield like everybody else...or better yet, your US 1842.

The Jap Charleville is a decent weapon, but for Rev War use.

[guad42]

Re: Pedersoli 1795

Craig,

Aye. The Indian made guns frighten me. I had one once and wont have another ever. I am happy that my musket collection currently includes well made, solid FIREARMS, rather than middle eastern toy guns which I feel should be shunned and generally not allowed in the hobby. Not all rattlesnakes will strike, but its best to steer clear of them all the same. I like smoothbores and love my '42 from Pedersoli, despite the minor issues I experieced in the past (see thread; Problems with 1842 repro). I really appreciate all the advice and helpful information you've submitted here for thought. You're a gentleman.
Thank you!
-Sam Dolan

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Pedersoli 1795

Hallo!

The First Generation of repro "Charlevilles" such as those imported by Navy Arms for the Buy-cenntenial were a tad "better" than the later Italian and Japanese ones. As shared, even the first geenration repro's of the mixed model "M1763/66/68" were beefed up, but not as bulky as the later repro's have become when compared to the slender grace of the originals.

And a big problem with the Italian "M1816" is that they simply tweaked their "M1777 Charleville" to get more miles out of the production as a new offering- the "M1816.
(One of the hardest obstacles to overcome is the middle barrel band location.)

What a number of guys have done before as well as after Navy Arms thought there might be "something" going on for the 200th of the Indian War with a limited run of their so-called "M1808" and "M1809" Springfield- was to tweak the M1766 or M1768 a bit and then have the universal "Charleville" markings on the lock plate reengraved with any of the variations found on the US M1795.

But the circles turns full, as we get back into the problem for the CW with "4th Class" pre 1812 arms for 1861-1865...

Curt