Talk:Ussaro Mod 1786

When writing a summary

Please note who makes it, what country issued it, etc. when speaking of a relatively obscure non-American firearm. Thank you. MoviePropMaster2008

Thank you Commando552 for the summary. It is necessary when the gun is not commonly known MoviePropMaster2008

The Ussaro Mod 1786 is actually a replica made by Davide Pedersoli of Italy (you can check it out on their product catalogue) of the French Model 1777 "Dragon" version of their "Charleville" Musket. You can tell the weapon designation is Italian because "Ussaro" is Italian for Hussar (in French it's "Hussard"). Also carbine versions of infantry longarms of the period were traditionally designated "dragoon" models since dragoons, as notional mounted infantry, were expected to carry longarms as part of their regular armament (other cavalry units might or might not).

"The Ussaro Mod 1786 was a light cavalry musket derived from the Charleville Musket. It became the standard weapon for all the French cavalry corps (hunters, cavalrymen, grenadiers, lancers, carabineers and dragoons) including the hussars, who preferred this rifles for it's lightness and short length. With slight modification this gun was distributed to some infantry corps and to the navy."

Some grammar issues aside, there's also plenty of factual inaccuracies. There's no such thing as a "light cavalry musket", it's called a carbine. French "hunters" are called "Chasseurs". There's no such thing as grenadiers in the cavalry, although there were "grenadiers a cheval" or Horse Grenadiers. Neither the Napoleonic-era carbine or musket are rifles, since both are smoothbore. And the infantry never received carbine versions of the Charleville, though the artillery did. -Phalanx

I wont speak to the usage or it being a replica, but I'm fairly sure you are thinking of a different carbine. The 1777 Dragoon had a barrel that was a couple of inches longer along with a stock that went much further up the barrel. I have seen this gun referred to as a 1786 Hussar, but don't know if this was an actual rifle that existed at the time, or whether it is a made up replica. --commando552 (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2012 (EST)

Huh, whaddaya know, turns out there IS an obscure "Mousqueton d'Hussard" out there, which is ramrod-to-butt (which explains the super-short-looking ramrod, which made no sense to me). I'll be damned if I can find an actual picture or scholarly article about an original, though. Why they chose to replicate such a rare weapon is beyond me, but hey. Given the apparent lack of surviving originals I'm assuming it was a specialist weapon that didn't see much use. That being said, it's definitely "Mousqueton d'Hussard 1786" or "Mod. 1786 Hussar Carbine" rather than "Ussaro 1786", and my comments on the wiki text re unit names and weapon terminology still stand (especially where it's referred to as a rifle, Napoleon never issued a single rifled longarm to his troops)> As far as I know, the 1777 Dragoon is the standard cavalry longarm, which would make sense since I've seen plenty of those in the flesh, but never one of these Phalanx (talk) 06:18, 7 December 2012 (EST)

No "hunters", but "chasseurs"! Sorry for the bad literal translation. Czech does not distinguish between a soldier and hunter as a hunter in the woods, for both meanings uses the term "Myslivec" (hunter).--Pandolfini (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2012 (EST)

Phalanx, is this what you would call a Model 1777 Dragoon Carbine:

If so, I thought it was called the "Cavalry Carbine" (Mousqueton De Cavalerie), as the Dragoons used "Dragoon Muskets" (lighter, slimmer muskets with a slightly shorter barrel). As to what you said about no infantry getting issued carbines, I think some did. The 1777 Cavalry Carbine had a side sling bar, but there were "infantry" versions of it that omitted this (the one pictured is such, not that you can tell as it would be on the left side) that I heard were used by Chasseurs a Pied and the Voltigeurs. The only reason I'm trying to work it out is that while looking what this gun had supposedly been in I noticed that the one from Brother Grimm has a longer stock, meaning it is the 1777 Carbine, and want to get my facts right before I make the page. Also, random question, do you know how the ramrod goes down into the butt as even if the ramrod was straight (in other pictures I have seen it doesn't slant down like this one) it doesn't look like it would get past the wrist. --commando552 (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2012 (EST)

That does look like the one. I've seen the cavalry carbine referred to as the "fusil des dragons" quite a few times. However, if you note above the ramrod it does seem to be sporting a bayonet lug, which no cavalry carbine would have, so it might be that it's a Voltigeur variant (Tirailleurs would've had these as well, I think). However, I was under the impression that only the british provided their light infantry forces with a different musket (or rifle for the 95th/60th) and that the French just had an upgraded version of the regular Charleville as their light infantry longarm, slightly lighter and more refined in terms of craftsmanship but cosmetically identical. The thing that puzzles me about the carbine you've listed above is that it seems far too short to be effectively employed with the bayonet against cavalry, are we sure it's not just for dismounted artillerymen? Granted my expertise is actually in the British army of this period, but unless that's an original you've posted above it looks to be like a cobbled-together version, carbine specs but infantry bayonet lug.

As to the ramrod-to-buttplate, I'd assume either there's some trick of perception and you CAN trace a straight line along the gun (try copying it into paint and drawing along the hypothetical line of the ramrod, seeing if it fits) or it actually flexes (note how in the picture in the original article it appears bent) and because it's steel, it bounces back into true when it's extracted (a slight bend wouldn't have made it useless in any case). Phalanx (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2012 (EST)

I got confused with my description of that gun, not sure if that has a sling bar or not, it is a pic of a replica I got from a Gun Mart add. This is the gun I was talking about, it is an original 1777 carbine, which is presumed by the owner to be an infantry version as it lacks the saddle bar (along with being fitted with a bayonet lug). I have also found several replicas with the sling bar that still have the bayonet lug such as here, here and here. To add to my confusion, I also found a few more examples (here) of guns that are described as 1777 carbines and have the same length barrel but have a longer stock. --commando552 (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2012 (EST)

It's a bit of a mess, isn't it? In terms of the sling bar, bear in mind that it's a pretty darn fragile piece of kit, especially when you take into account metallurgical technology of the period and the stresses of mass production, it's basically a thin metal ring that's attached to the screw that holds the lockplate into the stock and it's expected to hold the entire weight of the carbine as it jolts up and down as the cavalryman rides along. I imagine they broke in ridiculous amounts, which is why you might see originals, such as the carbine you posted, without it. Also bear in mind that quite a lot of cavalrymen, particularly in inclement weather, would probably have these in a bucket saddle holster like they did their pistols, to keep the powder in the lock dry, making the sling bar an irrelevant and possibly annoying addition, so they might have removed it themselves. Consider the amount of odds and ends a Napoleonic cavalryman had hanging off himself, the last thing he'd want is for the sling bar to hook onto something as he was readying his weapon.

However, since it's unlikely that any movie armourers would sacrifice an original An IX carbine just for the sake of a movie, I think we're more than OK modifying the article to say that this is Pedersoli's Ussaro Mod. 1786, which is a reproduction of the 1786 "Mousqueton d'Hussard", which is a carbine variant of the 1777 "Charleville" Musket. What do you think? Phalanx (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2012 (EST)

P.S. The main reason for my skepticism regarding the carbine you posted earlier being issued to infantry has to do with length. There was a prevailing tactical doctrine that a musket and bayonet had to be "x" in length in order for an infantryman to drive off a cavalryman slashing down at him with a sabre, which is why, for example, the British Baker Rifle was fitted with a 23in sword bayonet rather than the standard 17in socket bayonet, since it was shorter than the regular Brown Bess Phalanx (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2012 (EST)