Re: The oldest known handgun in existence, ca. 1400-10

[Matchlock]

I should mention that the hook, like the firing mechanism, seems to be a working amendment as it is not wrought to the barrel but split in half, drawn over the muzzle and riveted on the underside.

The comparison with the attached illustrations of 1405, 1410 and 1411, with no support hooks present, indicates that the hook which actually defines a haquebut (German: Hakenbüchse) was an invention of the first half of the 15th century.

For having patience with me you are credited with additional images.

Matchlock

[Matchlock]

A few more details of this 600 year-old handgun.

Michael

[Pukka Bundook]

Very interesting to see the spring-loaded serpentine,
This must be an extremely rare hand gun!

Lovely pictures, Michael.

Best wishes,

Richard.

[fernando]

Hi Michael,

... which actually defines a haquebut (German: Hakenbüchse) was an invention of the first half of the 15th century ...

I wonder about paralel situations, like the picture i am posting here, of a large Malabar 'Esmerilhão' (Merlin); considered an early stage exemplar ( XV-XVI century transition), due to still being equiped with a wooden hook. Having been found that this type of hooks broke easily with the kick of the gun against bulwarks and battlements, they started making them in iron, still in the beginning of the XVI century.
Text and gun from the great collection of Rainer Daehnhardt, as illustrated in his work 'Homens Espadas e Tomates' (1997).

Fernando

.

[fernando]

Also amazing is that this Malabar example doesn't have a firing mechanism, having to be ignited manualy.
What can you tell us about this, Michael ?
Any correction to its dating ?
Fernando

[Matchlock]

Hi Michael,



I wonder about paralel situations, like the picture i am posting here, of a large Malabar 'Esmerilhão' (Merlin); considered an early stage exemplar ( XV-XVI century transition), due to still being equiped with a wooden hook. Having been found that this type of hooks broke easily with the kick of the gun against bulwarks and battlements, they started making them in iron, still in the beginning of the XVI century.
Text and gun from the great collection of Rainer Daehnhardt, as illustrated in his work 'Homens Espadas e Tomates' (1997).

Fernando

.



Hi Fernando,

Sorry to have to destroy a possible myth but Rainer Daehnhardt's gun is far from being European and/or early 16th century.

The barrel is clearly Indian, 18th/19th centuries, the stock is a crude modern reproduction missing only the tiniest touch of original German style...

Mind: hooks were never parts of the stocks but only of the iron barrels! Otherwise they would have made no sense at all.

Michael

[fernando]

Hi Michael, thanks a lot for your coments.


Sorry to have to destroy a possible myth but Rainer Daehnhardt's gun is far from being European and/or early 16th century.

As you will notice, i have quoted that the gun is from the Malabar (Southwest India) and not from Europe.


The barrel is clearly Indian, 18th/19th centuries, the stock is a crude modern reproduction missing only the tiniest touch of original German style...

If you say so i will have no doubt ... but i don't think he ever said it is of German style either.


Mind: hooks were never parts of the stocks but only of the iron barrels!

So i must assume this stock shape never existed ?


Otherwise they would have made no sense at all.

Sorry for my ignorance, but i don't understand; what is the difference between the hook being placed in the stock or in the barrel ? doesn't it prevent the firing impact (kick back) in both cases ?




Sorry Michael, but these are all doubts from a layman like me. I am not worried about this specimen being a mith, nor about Daehnhardt's sincerity; i don't like helping to build gurus. But i need to be sure to myself that this thing is a fake ... to the extent that i can tell it in his face when i see him.

Thanks again
Fernando

[Ed]

I think that the shearing force of the recoil would break off the hook unless it was heavily reinforced. Of course, a metal hook is simly a reinforced wooden one without the wood. :D

[Matchlock]

I think that the shearing force of the recoil would break off the hook unless it was heavily reinforced. Of course, a metal hook is simly a reinforced wooden one without the wood. :D


You are doubtlessly right, Ed: a wooden hook set against a castle wall with the muzzle sticking out the fire slit would not have stood the immense recoil. Mind that the barrels at those times were filled up with (poor) black powder by two thirds of their length!

Michael

[Matchlock]

Hi Fernando,

Let's cut a long story short:

You are right in assuming that this type of hooked stock originally never existed - neither in India nor in Europe.

The one that you illustrated must be modern, for what purpose ever.

As Ed supposed, a wooden hook would never have stood the recoil - please see my reply of today to his posting. This is due to the graining of the wood.

Calling this crude phantasy stock a fake would imply a bad intention on the maker's side. I do not mean to put a suspicion on anyone. This is not what this forum is for, I believe.

Just do not take this gun for an original, enough said.

Michael

[fernando]

I think that the shearing force of the recoil would break off the hook unless it was heavily reinforced. Of course, a metal hook is simly a reinforced wooden one without the wood. :D

Sorry for my ignorance but ... what am i missing here?
Don't i see that the Berne Harquebus has the hook peened through the stock ?
On the other hand, isn't the system of casting the hook to the barrel a 'third generation' development ?
If i well understand, in the first step the gun had a gunstock with a wooden shoulder on the underside, as shown in a specimen in the museum of Pilsen, which dates to around 1400.
But as this design involved severe stress to the wood, which did not withstand the strain for long, the next step was the development of an iron hook with bands or nails being fitted to the shaft, further improved by positioning the hook on the barrel with a band and securing it in the shaft with a cross pin.
It was only after this that, the hook was either forged directly on to the barrel or cast with it, when of bronze.
This is the way i understood an article written by Bernhard Rietsche, in his work Meine gotischen Handfeuerrohre (page 47), which was gently passed to me by a notable person in this Forum ;).
However i know i don't have the minimum preparation to discuss this subject, so i beg you to correct me if or where i am wrong :o .
Fernando

[Matchlock]

Sorry for my ignorance but ... what am i missing here?
Don't i see that the Berne Harquebus has the hook peened through the stock ?
On the other hand, isn't the system of casting the hook to the barrel a 'third generation' development ?
If i well understand, in the first step the gun had a gunstock with a wooden shoulder on the underside, as shown in a specimen in the museum of Pilsen, which dates to around 1400.
But as this design involved severe stress to the wood, which did not withstand the strain for long, the next step was the development of an iron hook with bands or nails being fitted to the shaft, further improved by positioning the hook on the barrel with a band and securing it in the shaft with a cross pin.
It was only after this that, the hook was either forged directly on to the barrel or cast with it, when of bronze.
This is the way i understood an article written by Bernhard Rietsche, in his work Meine gotischen Handfeuerrohre (page 47), which was gently passed to me by a notable person in this Forum ;).
However i know i don't have the minimum preparation to discuss this subject, so i beg you to correct me if or where i am wrong :o .
Fernando


As there are lots of early guns in both Berne and Pilsen, please post pictures of the two pieces you quoted.
Michael

[fernando]

Hi Michael

... Calling this crude phantasy stock a fake would imply a bad intention on the maker's side. I do not mean to put a suspicion on anyone. This is not what this forum is for, I believe.


I am sorry for my lack of diplomacy ... or education, if you prefer.
But good faith fits in this Forum as it fits anywhere. If a person quotes an item as an early specimen, implicitely omitting it is a replica or a modern reproduction, such person is lacking transparency ... here or anywhere in the world. I know this author for some ten years; i don't think he has a necessity to 'sell cat for hare'. I can allways find a way, with the best of my diplomacy (?), to ask him why the specimen support text drives us to beleive the gun is an original, when it is not.

My respects
Fernando

[Matchlock]

I first met Rainer Daehnhardt in 1990 and know quite a bit about him and his pieces.
Enough said.
Michael

[fernando]

As there are lots of early guns in both Berne and Pilsen, please post pictures of the two pieces you quoted.
Michael

According to Bernhard Rietsche, the specimen in Pilsen is illustrated in ZHWK 1900-1912 p. 118); i wonder if you have such publication.
The Berne specimen seems to be quite popular, as largely divulged in the Internet. It is also, for example, in Clephan's work 'An outline of the History and Development of Hand Firearms' (page 47). I also happen to have a picture of it, myself.
But again, i may obviously be labouring in error, and confusing the whole thing.
Fernando

[Matchlock]

According to Bernhard Rietsche, the specimen in Pilsen is illustrated in ZHWK 1900-1912 p. 118); i wonder if you have such publication.
The Berne specimen seems to be quite popular, as largely divulged in the Internet. It is also, for example, in Clephan's work 'An outline of the History and Development of Hand Firearms' (page 47). I also happen to have a picture of it, myself.
But again, i may obviously be labouring in error, and confusing the whole thing.
Fernando

O.k.
Now this is Berne inv.# 2193. See Rudof Wegeli: Inventar der Waffensammlung des Bernischen Historischen Museums in Bern, vol.4, Feuerwaffen, 1948, p.153f.

As the text mentions, the hook is of iron and hammered through the stock as an addition in the gun's working time. As this must have proofed less stable, hooks were fire welded to the barrels from ca. 1440-50.

My library of more than 3,000 books and catalogs contains the complete original edition of the Zeitschrift fuer Historische Waffenkunde from its origins in 1897 until today. I have been a member of this society for more than 25 years.
Michael

[Matchlock]

O.k.
Now this is Berne inv.# 2193. See Rudof Wegeli: Inventar der Waffensammlung des Bernischen Historischen Museums in Bern, vol.4, Feuerwaffen, 1948, p.153f.

As the text mentions, the hook is of iron and hammered through the stock as an addition in the gun's working time. As this must have proofed less stable, hooks were fire welded to the barrels from ca. 1440-50.

My library of more than 3,000 books and catalogs contains the complete original edition of the Zeitschrift fuer Historische Waffenkunde from its origins in 1897 until today. I have been a member of this society for more than 25 years.
Michael


BTW, give my greetings to Bernahrd Rietsche. He came to see my collection only a few weeks ago.
Michael

[Matchlock]

According to Bernhard Rietsche, the specimen in Pilsen is illustrated in ZHWK 1900-1912 p. 118); i wonder if you have such publication.
The Berne specimen seems to be quite popular, as largely divulged in the Internet. It is also, for example, in Clephan's work 'An outline of the History and Development of Hand Firearms' (page 47). I also happen to have a picture of it, myself.
But again, i may obviously be labouring in error, and confusing the whole thing.
Fernando


Now here is the Pilsen handgonne that you mean, Fernando.

I was in the Pilsen Armory in 2000, being kindly allowed by Dr. Hus to handle and photograph all the items I liked to.

The stock of this piece with the staged wall support may be original and may have worked against the recoil with this small and short barrel as the "hooked" stage is both very long and thick! It would never work with a long barrel and slender stock as in Daehnhardt's gun, though.

I enclose another early 15th century Pilsen handgonne with an iron hook drawn over the barrel (!) and put through the stock - the last stage before welding the hook directly to the barrel for optimum stability.

I have tried to do my best and sure hope to have made things as clear as possible. I spent 30 years of my life studying to be able and tell wrong from right.

Michael

[Ed]

Mind that the barrels at those times were filled up with (poor) black powder by two thirds of their length!

Michael


Yes but it would never have combusted.

[Matchlock]

As you can see in the first Pilsen gun, what actually works as the real wall support is a small rudimentary rectangular iron piece extending down through the stock, and being a vertical prolongation of the rear underside of the barrel! It may have been shortened later.

So there is a wooden stage, true, but this was not the wall support because it would have been too weak!

Allright?

Michael

[Matchlock]

Yes but it would never have combusted.

???!!!
Please help my aged mind along, Ed!
Michael

[fernando]

I first met Rainer Daehnhardt in 1990 and know quite a bit about him and his pieces. Enough said
I thaught so ... i had the feeling that you knew him, since the moment you posted that coment on the Malabar gun.
I also know him since about that long; i buy weapons at his shops and frequently listen to what he has to say about questions i ask him on pieces i take to him for apreciation. I have also read a couple of his books. Our relation is only a little more than that between customer and supplier. However i never had the chance to visit his private mannor house and apreciate his collection. But up to this moment i don't have an actual reason to dislike him; given the discount that everyone has virtues and defaults. Our talks are about weapons and their history; nothing else.



As the text mentions, the hook is of iron and hammered through the stock as an addition in the gun's working time.
I knew it was of iron; as you know, i quoted this specimen just because the hook is in the stock and not in the barrel; i confess i ignored it was applied later in time.


As this must have proofed less stable, hooks were fire welded to the barrels from ca. 1440-50
So.


My library of more than 3,000 books and catalogs contains the complete original edition of the Zeitschrift fuer Historische Waffenkunde ...
Fascinating; so you are in a condition to tell if the 1900 catalogue contains the Pilsen gun with a hook in the stock, as Bernahrd Rietsche relates ?
I surely would like to hear your coments about this particular subject. Eventualy also Daehnhardt quotes that hooks were first made of wood; i still have to learn a huge lot about this fascinating area of early firearms.

... give my greetings to Bernahrd Rietsche. He came to see my collection only a few weeks ago.
I don't have the honour to know the Gentleman; i incidently know his quoted article since a week ago. And i was far from realizing that such would be the origin of a misunderstanding.

My respects
Fernando

[Ed]

???!!!
Please help my aged mind along, Ed!
Michael


Sorry, I mean that a large mass of unignited powder would have been expelled from the barrel.

You can see the same effect today if you overload a black powder rifle. The powder that never got a chance to burn is expelled.

[fernando]

... The stock of this piece with the staged wall support may be original and may have worked against the recoil with this small and short barrel as the "hooked" stage is both very long and thick! It would never work with a long barrel and slender stock as in Daehnhardt's gun, though. ... I spent 30 years of my life studying to be able and tell wrong from right. ...
I don't have the slightest doubt that you know more about this subject while you are asleep than most people awake, and i thank you a lot for your patience and teachings. Only there are positions to consider; for example Bernahrd Rietsche states without hesitation that the Pilsen specimen was a clear example of a wooden hook being a primary solution to recoil. I assume you have read his article ... have i made a wrong reading ? So i was misguided by such source. And as Daehnhardt has aproached the same problematic of the wooden hook fragility, i assumed it made sense.
The Daehnhardt's gun is an Indian item... not necessarily an example of European haquebus expertize. Allright, it has an atypical design and you say such stock could never work; noted.
But ironically, every wooden hook experiments, after time, ended up failing.
But i bother you no more. Now it's my turn to say: enough said

With respect.
Fernando

[Ed]

This thread has gotten me to thinking.

I wonder how bad the recoil was for these little guns.

Lets think about it a bit together.

- The actual charge of black powder was limited. Filling a barrel all the way might not result in greater velocity/force for the projectile than filling it 1/8 of the way. This is directly related to recoil.

- there was not a fine ball to bore fit, couldn't be. This would result in lowered velocity and recoil.

- it isn't clear that using modern powders for testing is appropriate.

These are sorta random thoughts that bear on the basic question of the reality of using vey early handguns.

If there were a way to really duplicate the performance I could run some live tests out back.

[Matchlock]

This thread has gotten me to thinking.

I wonder how bad the recoil was for these little guns.

Lets think about it a bit together.

- The actual charge of black powder was limited. Filling a barrel all the way might not result in greater velocity/force for the projectile than filling it 1/8 of the way. This is directly related to recoil.

- there was not a fine ball to bore fit, couldn't be. This would result in lowered velocity and recoil.

- it isn't clear that using modern powders for testing is appropriate.

These are sorta random thoughts that bear on the basic question of the reality of using vey early handguns.

If there were a way to really duplicate the performance I could run some live tests out back.


Hi Ed,

The old black powder was, as I noted, quite poor in performance. Of course, there was one or more rolling balls used but then followed by a heavy wad, often a wooden plug; so the recoil must have been hard. Hadn't it been very hard there would have been no need for hooks.

In an earlier posting I mentioned the firing tests that the Landeszeughaus Graz carried thru with 400 year old guns, and gave the literature. An accompanying video shows the heavy recoil of the various pieces which sometimes made the testers step back or aside.

A friend of mine builds exact copies of earliest guns and fires them the old way, using 500 year old powder recipes. The recoil is very hard, comparable to a 12 or 10 gauge shotgun with "nomal" loads and going worse with heavy ones. The testers had black shoulders after each time they tried.

Michael

[Matchlock]

I don't have the slightest doubt that you know more about this subject while you are asleep than most people awake, and i thank you a lot for your patience and teachings. Only there are positions to consider; for example Bernahrd Rietsche states without hesitation that the Pilsen specimen was a clear example of a wooden hook being a primary solution to recoil. I assume you have read his article ... have i made a wrong reading ? So i was misguided by such source. And as Daehnhardt has aproached the same problematic of the wooden hook fragility, i assumed it made sense.
The Daehnhardt's gun is an Indian item... not necessarily an example of European haquebus expertize. Allright, it has an atypical design and you say such stock could never work; noted.
But ironically, every wooden hook experiments, after time, ended up failing.
But i bother you no more. Now it's my turn to say: enough said

With respect.
Fernando

Fernando, have you seen the pictures of the Pilsen gun mentioned by Bernhard Rietsche that I posted? It was the short rectangular iron lug protruding from the underside that would soften the recoil, not the lug of wood; the last was only for support to rest the gun comfortably.
It looks as if the short iron lug was originally a hook and broken off or shortened later.
In any case it had the function of a wall hook.

I am afraid that Herr Riestche had overlooked that detail.

With my respect and best wishes,
Michael

[Ed]

Hi Ed,


In an earlier posting I mentioned the firing tests that the Landeszeughaus Graz carried thru with 400 year old guns, and gave the literature. An accompanying video shows the heavy recoil of the various pieces which sometimes made the testers step back or aside.



Michael


Can you point me to that posting/video?

[Matchlock]

Done, Ed.

Michael

[fernando]

Fernando, have you seen the pictures of the Pilsen gun mentioned by Bernhard Rietsche that I posted? It was the short rectangular iron lug protruding from the underside that would soften the recoil, not the lug of wood; the last was only for support to rest the gun comfortably.
It looks as if the short iron lug was originally a hook and broken off or shortened later.
In any case it had the function of a wall hook.

I am afraid that Herr Riestche had overlooked that detail.

With my respect and best wishes,
Michael

Duly noted Michael,
I must say that the part of this topic that has mainly raised my curiosity was whether indeed the first generation of harquebus recoil hooks was made of wood ... even soon to be assumed they were doomed to failure.
Fernando

[fernando]

Done, Ed.

Michael

Can i also be contemplated, please ? :)
Fernando

[Matchlock]

Fernando,

Unfortunately I have no knowledge of

- any original illustration from the Gothic period

- any photo of a doubtlessly original piece

- any existing piece that is undoubtedly original comprising barrel and stock

with a "wooden hook".


I will, however, ask Herr Rietsche about his reference and report to you.

Best,
Michael

[Matchlock]

Can i also be contemplated, please ? :)
Fernando


Sorry, Fernando, and all of you,

Here are the details of the catalog and video, and the contact.

Maybe the URL will not work; I do not know how to copy it.

[Matchlock]

Fernando,

I hope to be able now and sort out the qestion if there were wooden hooks to guns. Let's stick closely to terms, meaning that a hook has to look like a hook and a lug is - well, a lug.

In his Park Land Arms Fair catalog article, Bernhard Rietsche refers to ZHWK, vol. 2, 1900-1902, pp. 119. This article by Paul Sixl is based on the Pilsen guns and solely refers to the piece that I posted twice above, and a third time below, with the large wooden base to its underside. In fact, Sixl does not call this a "hook" but attributes its function to absorbing the recoil. He writes that pressing the heavy piece down on its rest must have reduced the kick back.

He also mentions a historical drawing in Vienna codex ms. 53 (actually, in his first quote in ZHWK vol. I, 1897-1899, p. 182, he calls it codex ms 55) arguing that the stock of that drawing was absolutely identical ("in voller Übereinstimmung") to the one in Pilsen.

Let's check out the two pieces ourselves. Here is the Pilsen gun once more, contrasted to the gun from the Vienna codex.

Not only is there almost no similarity, let alone "identity" between their stocks, the Vienna gun has in fact no wooden lug or "hook" at all. So this argument is missing any base.

Things remain the same they used to be:
There is no original historical source evidence of the existence of "wooden hooks".
What makes the Pilsen gun special is the big wooden lug on its underside that was certainly used to rest the heavy handgun (Sixl gives its length with 130 cm and its weight with 10,37 kg) e.g. on a wall. This lug alone was doubtlessly apt to soften the recoil a bit, but, as I pointed out before, it does clearly have a rudimentary iron lug protruding from the underside which must have served as the real recoil stop. It may even be the rest of a regular hook.
The Pilsen gun is not really an example for a wooden hook.

Only iron hooks could stand the recoil and prevent the wood from being heavily damaged. It cannot be categorically excluded that heavy wooden lugs were the first stage in recoil prevention, but if so, they were certainly not "hooks", and it was not for long. The next stage were iron hooks nailed thru the stock (as is the case in the Berne gun) oder drawn over the barrel and rivited, as in my piece. From ca. 1440-50 we know both the earliest illustrated sources and various surviving haquebut barrels with integral fire welded wrought iron hooks. Bronze barrels had cast hooks, of course.

Michael

[fernando]

Hi Michael,
Thanks a lot for investigation and consequent revelations.


... Let's stick closely to terms, meaning that a hook has to look like a hook and a lug is - well, a lug ...
... He writes that pressing the heavy piece down on its rest must have reduced the kick back ...
... There is no original historical source evidence of the existence of "wooden hooks".


Allright, no wooden hooks :shrug: .
Now, if you allow me the impertinence ...
What if we don't (strictly) stick to terms ?
Like if we are flexible to the extent that when we mention hook, this may as well be a figure of speech; after all, hooks have so many shapes ... i mean, what instead of mentioning hook, we just call it a 'device', comprehending hooks, lugs, stumps, when they all serve the same purpose?!
If you allow me the correlation, i was reading about the appearance of the stock in portable firearms; the author reminds us that, after all, the stock is ( or also is) an implement to absorb the recoil.
Is this 'reasoning' any 'reasonable' ?
I know, in this case the human shoulder, or chest, plays the role of the wall.
This is what happens when you pay attention to laymen :shrug: .
If you don't have any more patience, just send me to that part :eek: .
Fernando

[Matchlock]

Fernando,

I think that most reasoning is "reasonable". This is why I did not exclude the possibility of a real existence of wooden devices to reduce the recoil.

Of course such existed as the lug of the Pilsen gun sure does, apart from being a rest, effect one more thing: it makes the gun heavier where this is most useful to keep the kick back low.

I hope the two of us can happily meet under this compromise.

Michael

[fernando]

... I hope the two of us can happily meet under this compromise ...

Sure thing, Michael :) ;) :cool:

[Matchlock]

Sorry, Fernando, and all of you,

Here are the details of the catalog and video, and the contact.

Maybe the URL will not work; I do not know how to copy it.


I have been informed that the video is sold out.

Those who are interested in the catalog (in German but the measurement results like muzzle velocity, impact etc. are perfectly understood and there are lots of b/w photos) please email:

infopoint@museum-joanneum.at

The link should work this time.

Michael

[Spiridonov]

what is the calibre of handgonne with matchlock? what is the barrel length?
Barreel is 6 or 8 meshes?

[Matchlock]

Spiridonov,

The barrel is 33 cm in length measured from the touch hole, the caliber is 23 mm smoothbore.

Michael

[Matchlock]

The barrel is hexagonal (six-sided) throughout.

Michsel

[Spiridonov]

I think? that this handgonne is fake

[Matchlock]

I think? that this handgonne is fake

Anyway, what makes you think so? :( :shrug:

m

[fernando]

Yes, let's see what Spiridonov has to say; he seems to be qualified in this field :cool: .
Fernando

[Matchlock]

Right, Fernando,

I'm keen to profit from his competence. Hope he'll share it. :cool: :rolleyes:

Michael

[Pukka Bundook]

Good day to you, Michael and Fernando!

I am also waiting with interest for a reply, but I'm beginning to turn a funny colour.....

With best wishes,

Richard.

[fernando]

Spiridonov, are you still around ? :confused:
Fernando

[Matchlock]

Thank you, Fernando and Richard,

Well, I guess that Spiridonow obviously has taken his time studying profoundly what I posted in November and consequently drawn his expert conclusions. After all, he may have a far better collection than I, more books and may have been to more museums than I have. Who knows? :D

We should not worry too much, though, my friends - to each his own ... :rolleyes:

Michael

[Matchlock]

A similar tiller gun preserved at the Springfield Armory - wooden staff replaced, no mechanism.

Sadly no better photo available.

MIchael

[Matchlock]

The description of the Springfield Armory piece.

[Matchlock]

The so called Berne gun, preserved at the Historic Museum Berne, Switzerland; sadly not seen on display for decades like almost all their weapons.:o :(

The oak stock is the original one while the hook nailed thru the stock seems to be a working addition of ca. 1430-40 when the first hooks turned up.

The stats are:
oa. length 95.2 cm, oa. weight 4.15 kg, barrel length 18.5 cm, octagonal throughout, length of bore 15.0 cm, outer muzzle diameter 5.6 cm, bore 3.5 cm.

A very similar wrought iron barrel, ca. 1380-1400, and retaining one of its originally two iron stock bands, is in my collection (attchaments below). Its eight sides alternate in width which, according to my experience, is characteristic of almost all of the earliest octagonal barrels. Like on the Berne gun, the touch hole is some 3 cm forward of the rear end. Unlike the Berne gun, the bore of my item has been drilled out within its working life. You can see the drill marks on the inner wall of the barrel, as well the place on the bottom which the point of the drill left. This accounts for its present cylindrical bore which most probably was of conical shape originally.

Michael

[Matchlock]

Please go to

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=7076

Michael

[cornelistromp]

Hi Michael,

found yesterday in the real armeria in Madrid two early examples.
Dated 1450 but both can be a bit earlier.

sorry, I could not make better pictures with my mobil phone

best regards

[Matchlock]

Thank you so much, Cornelis.

I found the attached pictures.

These items are very difficult to date. I should assign a dating of "early 16th century" to the first and "ca. 1400" to the last, though, based upon the specific shapes of the barrels.

Best wishes,
Michael

[fahnenschmied]

Some time ago I found some inspiration in the interesting mechanism posted by Matchlock at the beginning of this thread. No, I haven't set out to duplicate it, but it did seem a useful addition to my handcannon.
Yes, that was going to be a Tannenberg style gun....I only wanted my father to bore it and turn the exterior roughly - I was going to rasp it off much like the original, all crooked and irregular - but my father spent alot of money on a milling cutter to cut the angles, so I only filed the milling marks off, for the moment. I make "serpentine" powder for it too...
This modernization didn't take long to make, once I figured it out. The spring limits the upward travel of the tinder-holder....the shorter you trim the front off the spring, the higher it will rise. At first glance, I thought the "trigger" part was made thick to give it weight, and I had no idea what the spring was doing on top. Besides, it looked too weak for anything. With careful looking, though, I saw that the spring wraps underneath the serpentine arm. Simple, only two nails, and a stub of the spring is driven into the shaft.
Sighting is good - I "pinch" my target between the muzzle and the tinder, and unlike the later matchlock, I can see my ember all the way down, and also see if my priming is still there. I am still a little frightened by the loud cracking report given by my "primitive" powder! Ordinary FF powder just makes a big boom like a flintlock pistol or so.

[Matchlock]

Well done, fahnenschmied!

Michael

[Spiridonov]

You can see the drill marks on the inner wall of the barrel, as well the place on the bottom which the point of the drill left.
Michael, Hallo! Do you really think that it was drilled at the 1380-1400 yaer?

[Matchlock]

Hello Alexender,

No, there definitely was no drilling of barrels before ca. 1430, a time when they were mounted first with hooks, but not yet wrought integrally.

As I wrote, I surmised that both the Berne gun and my barrel were drilled out somewhen in their later working life, which may have been during the 15th century.

As you know I have a Nuremberg wrought iron haquebut barrel which cannot have been made before ca. 1490/1500 but the inner surface of which has never been drilled! Not only is it of totally irregular 'bore' :rolleyes: at the muzzle but one can look inside and see heavy distortions going on down to the rear! The only ammunition it could have possibly fired would be some kind of shot ... I am sure you recall seeing it in my collection when you were here in August.

Attached please find images. It is the second last in the first pic and the one on the right in the row of muzzles.

Best,
Michael

[Matchlock]

One more detail, this time it's the one on top.

m

[Spiridonov]

Michael, I have made a mistake in translation of your post (25th February 2009 10:38 PM). That is why i was so wondered. I know that drilling is not possible for early 15 century. Shall you say me, when did this barrel was drilled? 100 years later that time when it was made? :D

[Matchlock]

Right, Alexender,

That's exactly what I think, if not even still later! ;)

Best,
Michael

[Andi]

Some objects of the Deutsches Historisches Museum Berlin, Germany.


Handgonne inventory No. V 87/15 dated ca 1450
Calibre 2,7, weight 2.320 g, Length 48 cm
http://www.dhm.de/datenbank/dhm.php?seite=5&fld_0=MI011708

Reconstruction of the Tannenberg handgonne which looks slightly different from the original one
http://www.dhm.de/datenbank/dhm.php?seite=5&fld_0=MI011706

A Reconstruction of Tannenberg handgonne - but with HOOK ??
http://www.dhm.de/datenbank/dhm.php?seite=5&fld_0=MI011707

[Matchlock]

Of course this is a long gun (German: Gewehr, Arkebuse or Langwaffe or arquebus, as, in English, handgun means a pistol or revolver (German: Faustfeuerwaffe).

Michael

[Andi]

I am wondering about the fact that DHM described its handgonne reconstruction with hook aquisition no W 86/1 as "Tannenberg-Büchse Nachbildung" (Tannenberg-Handgonne Reconstruction) while the original is without a hook. Even the second fragment of a bronze handgonne found in Tannenberg will not allow the reconstruction with a hook as this part was not preserved.
In my opinion DHM's description should have been expressed somewhat more generally without "Tannenberg".

[Matchlock]

Exactly, Andi,


I know their experts very well.
Like 99 per cent of all museum curators, they are art historians, and consequently do not know a thing about weapons in general, let alone earliest firearms!
Actually, they condemn weapons, and they despise everybody who is interested in those objects! :mad:
And that's a fact.
It's the same sad old story in any museum, wherever you go ...

And, of course, they do not care either ...


Best,
Michael

[Matchlock]

As this thread is almost six years old, and has had almost 10,000 views - thank you all for reading! - , it is time to post better photos of my 'cover gun' that this thread basically was about - see my starting post.

Best,
Michael

[Matchlock]

And a few more.

Enjoy, and thanks again!


m

[fernando]

Such unique and most fascinating specimen. Thanks for sharing the excelent photos.

[Matchlock]

My pleasure, Nando, ;)

As I obviously cannot present all of you with the real gun :rolleyes: , in a way I felt likeI owing the community better images.
Only very few people from the forum have attended my collection so far, and experienced the overwhelming impression of a room full of earliest Nothern European 'military' long guns, as well as hundreds of pieces of accouterments, including that very special 'perfume' of 400 to 700 year-old objects and leather.
Actually, only Alexender (Spiridonov) from St. Petersburg and Marcus from the Netherlands have made it to my home so far.

Best,
Michl

[Matchlock]

It's been done; this thread has collected over 10,000 views!
Thank you so much all of you, I will try and hang on posting.

Best,
Michael

[Marcus den toom]

And all things considered, my crusade of 10 hours by train was far (!) better than King Arthur his venture in Monthy python and the holy grail. Sadly i did not encounter any stereotypical French soldiers or three headed knights, other than that it was A journey well worth taking, for at the end lies the holy grail of all collections and a great tour :D

That handgun had such an athmosphere around it, you just could see yourself back into the past when this rarity was still wet from the minium.

ps Michl, only 119 post and you are at 4000, another milestone :cool:

[Matchlock]

Thank you so much, Marcus,

It was a pleasure to have such a quick and ready learner here, attending my objects!
I warned you though that these earliest firearms and accouterments definitely were highly contageous, in their massive, overwhelming physical presence - and arrayed in a perfect chonological succession which no museum in the world can ever match! :cool: :eek:
And that's a very sad fact! Since 1990, the date marking the German reunification, the official basic cultural German attitude has been to completely deny the fact that such extremely old and rare fireearms should be neither bought nor ever dispayed!!! No German museum is granted any financial aid any more to enable them and buy my singular collection unmatched worldwide!
Edged weapons and armor, on the other hand, still are considered to be 'morally inoffensive' and 'positive' - without any restrictions at all ... !

Best,
Michl

[Matchlock]

The first dated 1410, Cod.vind. 34;

the second, a watercolor, dated 1411, in a Kriegsbuch (book on war techinques), Cod.vind. 3039, fol. 38v, also representing the earliest known illustration of a bullet mold;

a third illustration, from the same illuminated manuscript of 1411, fol. 11r, for the first time depicts the use of superimposed loads!

Best,
Michael

[Matchlock]

The Word's Oldest Known surviving gun, ca. 1390-1410,
fitted with the earliest tinderlock mechanism,

and preserved in

The Michael Trömner Collection

Reattached here find an important contemporary and dated illustration.
The manuscript containing it is dated 1410, and the gun is almost identical to the author's sample, showing excaclty the same proportions, the very same sleeve of thin iron uniting the oaken tiller stock with the short octagonal barrel; even the slanted rear end of the stock is the same on both the drawing and the author's gun.
The illustration does not yet depict a lock mechanism, or a barrel hook.
Both were obviously not known by 1410, and are, as stated, working time technical amendments on the existing gun as well.

As stated formerly, hooks do not show up in contemporary illustrations before ca. 1430-40:

...


Michael Trömner
Rebenstr. 9
93326 Abensberg
Germany

All photos copyrighted by the author.

[Matchlock]

The watercolor attached below is from Cod. vind. 3069, dated 1411, ÖNB Wien (Austrian National Library, Vienna), fol. ....

Depicted are two men firing a handgun very similar to the one in
The Michael Trömner Collection

equipped with a mechanical lock action, and working on the Superimposed Load System:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=7638&highlight=superimposed+load+system
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=13586&highlight=superimposed+load
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=17891&highlight=superimposed+load
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=17895&highlight=superimposed+load
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=10126&highlight=superimposed+load
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=11974&highlight=superimposed+load
http://www.vikingsword.com (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=10126&highlight=superimposed+load)
esp. post #13;
/vb/showthread.php?t=10126&highlight=superimposed+load (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=10126&highlight=superimposed+load)


The whole length of the barrel in the watercolor of 1411 gets filled up with a series of loads, consisting of dust- or meal-like blackpowder and a piece of lead clod shot, pierced with a small central vertical hole to allow the fine powder to run down through, and connect the firing process to the same loads below, back until to the rearward load at the breech. In this case, the gun is not fired from the actual touch hole, but from the amount of powder filling up the central hole of the clod shot placed at the muzzle.
Right there at the muzzle, when touched with the red-hot tip of an igniting iron, or a glowing piece of tinder or a length or matchcord, the fire of the explosion of the top load will immediately set off the load behind it, and so on.
Once on, the action cannot be interrupted, or stopped; the gun must be held pointing in the direction of the enemies for a few seconds, or it will cause 'friendly fire'. And you will be well advised to wait for a few seconds more beore pointing it off - just in case of an ignition failure, while sparks my be lingering in the barrel before setting off the last load.
Using superimposed loads must have proved very dangerous - to the shooter himself. It is the author's thesis that for that reason, very few such earliest high-tech guns were ever built to work on that principle, and there are very few surviving guns.
The earliest of them all is a sixteen-shot single-barrel combined wheellock and snap-tinderlock musket, the barrel and lock bearing Nuremberg marks, and the barrel dated 1595, was in the William Goodwin Renwick Collection (Sotheby's, London, .. 197 .. , lot ... ), and was sold at auction last Butterfields, San Francisco, ...., lot ... .

The gun in discussion here is 200 years older.
This six hundred year-old handgonne preserved in
The Michael Trömner Collection

definitely represents the earliest document ever of a high-tech gun, for
- featuring a mechanical lock action
- and being constructed for automated firing additionally.

With a length of only 31.8 cm, and a bore of ca. 20 mm, this barrel
may not have taken more than three to five superimposed loads, depending on the amount of the primitive mixtures of blackpowder * needed 600 years ago - the first automatic gun of the world had been invented.
*Please cf.:
http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Falbrechts.se%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F08%2Fbulletcast_01.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Falbrechts.se%2Fhandgonnes-and-cannons-of-the-middle-ages%2F&h=245&w=229&tbnid=mEem7Sl2tQ6j0M%3A&zoom=1&docid=jod0-UBIFp2tqM&ei=G7UUVLzHEIXXyQP5mYDIAw&tbm=isch&client=firefox-a&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=1647&page=1&start=0&ndsp=19&ved=0CCUQrQMwAQ

"Gunpowder
In medieval Sweden gunpowder was called just “pulver”, wich translates into “powder”. There are quite a few old powder recipes still around, and the ones that suits our selected historical period
are referred to as, for example, Rouen, Lille, Rothenburg and Marcus Graecus. They all use the same ingredients, but the amounts differ. In the table below, they are compared to a modern “perfect”
gunpowder.

http://albrechts.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/kruttabell_01.jpg (http://albrechts.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/kruttabell_01.jpg)

Tests made at the Middelaldercenter (http://www.middelaldercentret.dk/) in Nyköbing, Denmark show a correlation between higher muzzle velocity and higher amount of salpetre. The ingredients were ground up and mixed, resulting in a so called dry mixed powder. This can be used as it is, but it will be more effective if mixed with alcohol, shaped into bars or pellets and then ground again, producing wet mixed powder or meal powder. The alcohol dissolves the salpetre, and lets the tiny sulphur crystals divide and evenly on the grains of charcoal, making the powder burn more even. It is important to note that there has
been some debate about the use of alcohol in medieval gunpowder, as distilled beverages is barely known at the time. However, sources speak of a “Henricus Brännewattnmakare” (Henricus, maker of burnt (distilled) water, meaning a producer of alcohol) in the city of Lund in the 1350′s, wich means that alcohol was in use at the time. If it was used to make gunpowder we do not know. Sulphur could be collected in volcanic areas in Iceland or Italy, while salpetre was produced by collecting dung and urine from livestock, and processing it, to extract the salpetre. Charcoal was abundant in medieval society."


Obviously, the need of a fire power higher than the usual single shot, with intervals of loading procedure, must have made the gunmen long for a multishot technique, to get a better chance to survive; so the human mind started thinking of a solution.

On the other hand, the fact that the superimposed load technique required two men acting together, with utmost concentration and painstaking care for several minutes, cannot possibly have been carried out with war raging all around those two persons trying to keep cool and reload - amidst all the battle turmoil and melee.

The author's thesis is that for these facts, only very few guns built on that principle are known to still exist; almost none from the period before ca. 1660 is any private collection still. Almost all of the earliest samples are preserved in important museums, the latest being the multibarreled wheellock carbines once in the Henk L. Visser Collection. All of them are in the collections of the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, The Netherlands, today.

The fact is that the only 600 year-old single-barrel superimposed-load gun, which is moreover the earliest recorded and perfectly documented high-tech gun in the world - for retaining the oldest mechanic lock action and recoil-preventing hook- , is,
among other singularly important items,
preserved in
The Michael Trömner Collection.

The author's conclusion is that
- all those earliest high-tech guns must have got loaded before the action started,
- must have taken special training, and
- a number of multishot guns must have been kept ready, loaded and primed, for use by a small group of specialist gunmen.

When regarding those contemporary illustrations which are invaluable sources of documentation for dating, and evaluating the actually surviving gun preserved in heavily patinated, virtually 'untocuched' original condition for more than half a millennium, we notice that, in the respective picture, the relations of the actual sizes of persons and items are not congruent.
All technical objects, the gun, as well as the accouterments like igniting irons, the lower half of the earliest bipartite "bullet" mold for casting several shots of lead simultaneously - and probably consisting of sloapstone;
cf.:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=10126&highlight=superimposed+load
post #1;
http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Falbrechts.se%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F08%2Fbulletcast_01.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Falbrechts.se%2Fhandgonnes-and-cannons-of-the-middle-ages%2F&h=245&w=229&tbnid=mEem7Sl2tQ6j0M%3A&zoom=1&docid=jod0-UBIFp2tqM&ei=G7UUVLzHEIXXyQP5mYDIAw&tbm=isch&client=firefox-a&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=1647&page=1&start=0&ndsp=19&ved=0CCUQrQMwAQ



or the pierced pieces of clod shot, are drawn out of size.

In the Middle Ages, and especially before, by the end of the 15th century, painters like Albrecht Dürer entered the art scene taking the Renaissance influence from Italy to Germany, all objects that represented inventions of technique or other amendments, and important for the artist to point out to his fellowmen, were pictured oversized so they would not be overlooked.

Consequently, less important people like the rural population and working men, the 'little ones', were shown much smaller in size than, e.g., the king who was generally portrayed talking to the lesser in full splendor, and wearing the golden crown.


Michael Trömner
Rebenstr. 9
D-93326 Abensberg
Lower Bavaria, Germany

Self-established Academic Medievalist

Graduated from Regensburg University in 1982
Stipendiary recipient and member of the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes, Bonn

Author of BEHÄLTNISSE FÜR KOSTBARES 1500-1700, 2005
M. of the Arms & Armour Society, London since 1991
M. of the Gesellschaft für Historische Waffen- und Kostümkunde e.V., Berlin since 1987
Expertises in European weapons, ironworks, and furniture of the 14th through 17th centuries
Preservation and academic documentation of museum collections

[Matchlock]

For more on earliest samples of the superimposed-load principle, please cf.:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=13586&highlight=tannenberg, (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=13586&highlight=tannenberg)
esp. post #24ff.

Best,
Michael

[Paddy T.]

[...]

A Reconstruction of Tannenberg handgonne - but with HOOK ??
http://www.dhm.de/datenbank/dhm.php?seite=5&fld_0=MI011707

This example has been published in the exhibition catalogue of "Burg und Herrschaft" in the Deutsches Historisches Museum in Berlin in 2010. Following the catalogue it´s an original piece of the "Tannenberg type" and it´s dated to the early 15th century. The dating criteria are "the casted hook" and "the uncommen small caliber". The text mentions the common interpretation of the gun to be a replica of the 19th century because of the Whitworth-screw behind the ignition pan, but following the catalogue the screw is a plug for a later drilled second touchhole.

To be honest, I don´t believe the catalogue is right. The structure of the gun is very similar to the Tannenberg examples, it looks like a mixture of these two weapons and several other templates (and looks very wrong, of course ;) ). Furthermore, the original touchhole is situated inside the pan, it´s illogical why one more touchhole should have been drilled behind it. Maybe this piece is a 19th century replica and they´ve used the screw to close a hole which was supposed to support the core of the form while casting (which is a common practice in bronze casting for statues and stuff like that, but not for guns of course), because the muzzle seems to be cast and not drilled. The patina also appears to be modern. In addition, the provenance seems unhelpful, because the hook gun was bought by the museum from a private collection in 1986. :)

[Helleri]

Wondering about the use of the term "hand gun" in this context. Were they generally refereed to as such at the time these were made? Are these the direct ancestors of modern handguns? Is it just that it's the best generalized term we can apply to them modernly?

[fernando]

Wondering about the use of the term "hand gun" in this context. Were they generally refereed to as such at the time these were made? Are these the direct ancestors of modern handguns? Is it just that it's the best generalized term we can apply to them modernly?
Trying to jump off the name game; i guess that, at a certain stage in this thread it was pointed out that hand gun term would (only) be of German attribution. Although (also) in this thread we can see various early fire arms types, namely haquebuts and hand cannons, i think the issue as you put it is about the late. The name, you chose it, from 手銃, to hand cannons, gonnes or handgonnes. And yes, they were the first true firearms, those ancestors of modern portable firearms.
Whether there is unequivocal evidence of their genesis, based on few (several...) existing specimens, the names how they were called by then would be a different deal, i guess; depending on how people of the various languages an in different contexts baptized the numerous variations that kept appearing.
I guess i am not talking nonsense; may always be corrected by better knowledged ones, though :o.

.

[Paddy T.]

In German there are some medieval terms like "Handbuchse", "Hantbusse", "Fustbusse", "Handror" or "Handrohr". They all mean something like "handgun" in different variations. Many original pieces are clearly handguns, but some barrels can´t be assigned to be "handguns" or "cannons (=artillery)". These weapons are definitely the ancestors of our modern handguns. The oldest european handguns are the two pieces from Tannenberg castle in Germany, but there are older ones in China.

[Helleri]

Great information thanks. It occurs to me that "hand cannon" is still colloquially used to occasionally refer to very large revolvers with a caliber that makes for a lot of stopping power. It's interesting how terminology like this can basically stick with us for so long and keep finding new ways in which to be applied.