Hi Micheal,
firstly....I decided to 'attack' this question in 'reverse' so I wanted to discover whether the 'palm' measurement used was the four fingers or the larger 20cms or so. Bearing in mind we were talking of the Turks and Maltese.....both in the Mediterrean area it seemed likely the translation of palm would be the larger measurement. (Bearing in mind the term was widely used by the Romans .....and with widespread trade and conquest would likely become a 'standard' measurement in the area. Also of course, the Byzantine empire (late Roman) was predominately in Turkey.
This made logical sense.
Secondly, there are many references to the fact that 15th Century Ottoman muskets were longer than the Christian's and were more accurate and had longer range....as these were still smoothbore ...the best way to have these better qualities ...is to lenghen the barrel (improved gunpowder could also improve range and the size of the projectile.)
Thirdly, Robert Elgood states in "Firearms of the Islamic world in the Tareq Rajab Museum, Kuwait" that......
"....There is a fine 16th Century Turkish matchlock barrel (with a rear peepsight and a grooved foresight, round at the breech with a tulip-shaped muzzle) in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, which has been mounted by a French gunsmith on a wheellock arquebus from the Royal Cabinet of Arms of Louis XIII (Inventory number 3)
The length of the barrel is 58 inches (and may be compared with that of (No. 3 in the Tareq Rajab Museum) The
Spanish arquebusier Balbi describes the Turkish muskets as “nine palms long”. Turkish matchlocks had a range of 500 to 600 paces according to sources. Christian accounts of Ottoman marksmanship, for example at the siege of Malta in 1565, give full if reluctant praise……”
Please note the Spanish use the larger measurement for the 'palm'. As the barrel described is 58" (divided by 9 ....gives us 6.4 inches), so we can only assume that the 9 palms long included the length of the entire musket.
Hope this clarifies
Regards David
PS.....
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Matchlock
Hi David,
I am afraid that the examples that you quoted from sources of a much later period than the mid 16th century (ca. 1680-1732), defining earlier pieces which are clearly related to as matchlocks moreover - Tannhauser speaks of wheel locks - cannot be proved right.
Rather than dealing with speculations: what is your opinion on the three actually surviving, original and dated (!) wheel lock (!) guns that I posted? They doubtlessly convey the closest possible impression of the proportions and measurements of a characteristic wheel lock gun of ca. 1540 to 1560.
Sorry but I strongly feel that the only reasonably acceptable scholarly method would in any case be to rely on facts.  
Best,
Michael |
Micheal I'm a little confused, the Turkish muskets were never described as 'wheellocks' ..................
".....Tannhauser had elected to avoid the rigors of the line by employing his marksmanship. Along with
his wheel-lock rifle, he picked up a Turkish seven-palm musket from the stockpile of captured weapons... "