1690-1790: 100 Years of French Naval Pistols By Charles Katsainos The year 1717 marked a great step forward in the progress of standardization of French armaments, and the development of more efficient methods of arms procurement, as well as the centralization of royal authority over both in France. The regulation of 25 January 171 7, creating the Model 1717 French infantry musket, the first truly regulation firearm in France, served moreover as an ideal pretext for the crown, by adducing the necessity for servicewide uniformity of this basic weapon, to impose the royal prerogative on the procurement, stockage and issuance of military weapons in the then most powerful nation of the world. The date 17 17 is more important as marking the beginning of the imposition of royal control over French armament pro- I curement, however, than as an indication of a significant technologic innovation or radical change in the weapons themselves. In essence, the characteristics of the 1717 musket fantryman is not to say that the decision was self-effectuating. do not differ in any marked degree from its non-regulation It took almost 3 decades for the replacement of the previous predecessors. The pertinent regulation of 17 17, moreover, ap- weapons by regulation-type arms. plied only to the infantry musket and associated rampart ver- Contracting for the production of the 1717 infantry musket sion. was opened to public competition in 1716. Technical require- Since the procurement of naval weapons in France-our ments were specified by the Chief of Artillery, the authority ex- main interest - followed a path of its own, it is appropriate to ercising technical supervision, inspection and control over the add a few comments on the means of arms procurement prior armaments of the land forces. Selection of the best weapon was to 1717, which continued to apply, in large measure, to naval the responsibility of the War Council which issued the regula- small arms for many years subsequently. tions on the basis of a royal ordinance. As in other European countries under the then-prevailing The successful gunmakers and/or entrepreneurs, six in all feudal system, the land-owning nobility raised and led their from the traditional arms producing towns of Charleville, troops in the name of and under the monarch. In return, the Maubeuge, and St. Etienne, were granted a virtual monopoly king paid for troop upkeep while overseeing the proper use of for the production of arms for the king's service. Their royal the funds provided. Quite understandably, complaints were privilege did not extend, however, to the weapons of the French rampant from both sides, particularly from the officer-nobles Navy for reasons which we shall examine later. who protested the impossibility of maintaining full strength A subsequent regulation of 18 January 1728, covering, in ad- units with insufficient funding from the crown. dition to a modified infantry musket, the individual firearms of In 1666, King Louis XIV, concerned over the state of arma- cavalry and dragoons, specified the characteristics of the ment of the units of his vassals, conceded to one Titon de musket and pistol for the former and the musketoon and pistol Villegenou the privilege of procurement of arms, their subse- for the latter. Although the War Minister's prior authorization quent storage in the royal arsenal (Magasin Royal) of Paris and was required (in order to ensure the king's priority and a cer- eventual issue, at fixed regulated prices, to the units command- tain control over production), cavalry and dragoon com- ed by the landed nobility. manders continued to contract directly with the now-Royal The new system represented some progress, since it Manufactories for their requirements. The initial regulation facilitated a certain uniformity and theoretically ensured a weapons of 1717-28 were supcrceded over 30 years later by reduced cost while, of course, providing certain monetary those of the 1763-66 "system" of arms. benefits to Titon himself. However, as the king could not legal- The French naval forces had also procured their firearms ly impose nationwide arms procurement through Titon, many and other weapons by contracting with private gunmakers, By commanders continued to pass their contracts with private- preference and tradition, the latter were located in the toms of i.e., the only available-gunmakers. These were, in essence, St. Etienne and Tulle. Since the French naval forces were the armorers of Charleville, Maubeuge, and St. Etienne, as responsible for two geographic areas, i.e., the Mediterranean well as some other minor localities, already providing for Sea and the Atlantic Ocean, it was both customary and Titon. economical for the St. Etienne entrepreneurs to provide for the The fact that the King of France decreed and assumed the needs of the southern fleet and those of Tulle for the ships fac- responsibility for directly providing the arms of the French in- ing the New World. French Mediterranean naval forces, in- Reprinted from the American Society of Arms Collectors Bulletin 44:7-14 Additional articles available at http://americansocietyofarmscollectors.org/resources/articles/ 1 cidently, comprised two distinct navies, one consisting of sail- 2,500 muskets per year. Arms made at Tulle, which furnished ing vessels and the other of the customary galleys propelled by all the weapons for the French colonies, were delivered to the I their chained oarsmen. naval arsenals of the Atlantic, namely, Rochefort, L'Orient, Naval forces and overseas possessions of the period were com- and Brest, where they were inspected and proofed by naval ar- bined under one department, the Ministry of Navy and Col- tillery officers. onies. In other words, the Naval Ministry provided individual Since Tulle was not subject to the authority of the War weapons for its ships' crews as well as the infantry for service in Ministry but to *at of the Navy, naval muskets, while generally the French possessions, the latter consisting mostly of so-called similar to those governed by "regulations" (especially of the St. "separate companies" (compagnies franches) similar to those Etienne style) beginning with the Model 17 17, had certain on board the galleys of the Mediterranean. characteristics of their own. An official document of the French Naval Ministry dated Although arms production at St. Etienne is recorded as far 1673, "Le Grand Reglement," (44 years before the first official back as the Middle Ages, procurement for the crown began in regulation governing infantry arms procurement) provided a 1553 when St. Etienne gunmakers were contracted to arm the description of firearms and edged weapons in use by the naval King's matchlock musket corps. The town continued thereafter forces. The Royal Ordinance of 1689 confirmed the disposi- as the key supplier of the French land forces. tions of 1673. A most interesting document of the French Naval The earliest mention of a St. Etienne contract for naval Archives dated 1693 (Series G. 205) provides a drawing of the weapons is dated 1690. A grenadier-type musket of the same French naval pistol based on the dispositions already set forth period, marked "GALERE DE FRANCE" on the barrel, bears in 1673. on the lockplate the name "G. Rousset," the latter a St. Etienne No specified dated regulation(s) nor regulation model(s) arms supplier for both the sail and galley navies. The same en- governed early French naval firearms procurement. The 1673 trepreneur, although with a different name spelling, viz. document served as the basic "blueprint" for gunmakers sup- Rouzet, emerges in official correspondence on arms procure- plying the French naval forces. Contracts were based on ment dated 1705. previous dispositions and general weapons characteristics, or By the beginning of the 18th Century, Tulle had managed, "standardized" types, with or without subsequent modifications thanks to the quality of its production, to retain a or improvements prescribed by the Crown. Custom, in other preponderant percentage of the orders of the Crown for words, as opposed to formal regulations and/or sealed pat- muskets for the French Navy and to hold on to its virtual terns, was the key factor. monopoly of furnishing muskets to the French Atlantic naval However, beginning in 1696, both caliber and barrel length forces and the colonies in the New World. were specified in contracts. By 1729, contracts for naval A Tulle contract dated 2 June 1696 mentions a Navy order firearms contained as many as 17 paragraphs defining all for 600 pistols with 14 inch barrels and a caliber of 20 balls to modalities of weapons ordered and their method of manufac- the pound. An order for 100 pistols the following year already ture. speaks of a barrel length shortened to 12 inches but still with A few words are in order on the respective key roles of the convex lockplates. Tulle, hotly engaged in competing with St. two French manufactories, Tulle and St. Etienne, serving the Etienne in furnishing naval pistols, appears to have delivered at naval forces and their production of firearms. least 2.000 to the French Navy from 1696 to 1711. Although there is mention of production of gun barrels in A drawing of what this pistol may have looked like is pic- Tulle as early as 1648, it was only in 1690 that one Michel tured in the aforementioned 1693 document (Series G. 205 of Pauphile I, descendant of a family of pnsmiths and the owner the French Naval Archives). Mounted in full stock walnut with of a mill, was contracted to furnish musket barrels to the two thimbles; small angle to grip; slight molding around lock; arsenal at the Atlantic port of Rochefort for the needs of the two-step barrel with reinforcement at muzzle, pin-held; convex French Royal Navy.