Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post - A Good and Rare Austrian Combined Wheellock and Matchlock Musket, ca. 1665-70

Matchlock · 8th January 2014, 10:20 PM

A dealer had this on his site, labeled 'price on request'.

Although it has been heavily altered it still is an interesting piece to study.

I'm giong to tell you what the dealer did not say in his description:

From the foregoing we know that the hole drilled through the butt horizontally denotes that this musket, too, comes from Salzburg where it was screwed to the walls of the exhibition rooms.
What is further remarkable is the fact that the wheel shaft has been sawn down. It is now much too short to enable the main spring to be spanned. This was certainly done during the gun's working life as it was the easiest method to render the wheellock ignition inactive. Only the matchlock serpentine could still be employed.

We can but speculate what the reason may have been. From many samples, not just from this series, that I have closely researched and tested, including my own muskets, I can tell that the wheellock action was extremely accident-sensitive and certainly often failed to work, especially in the heat of a fight.

And our gun in discusssion of course was a real 'military' musket.

In most cases, either the brim of the spanning recess in the wheel, and/or the nose of the sear designed to rest in it, will very soon tend to lose the decisive keenness of both their respective edges - resulting in the wheel not being kept in the 'spanned' position any longer. In the experimental arrangement of my researches, some 20 years ago, and with an original wheellock mechanism of ca. 1600 clamped in a jaw vise, and spanned and triggered every 45 seconds - in order to simulate the loading action of a musket - , the action started to falter after around 10-12 times of repetition, and failed to withstand at about the 15th test. The sear nose was retained no longer.

What more can be commented? The Suhl barrel marks of this specimen are extremely faint and impossible to identify, which can rarely be observed with muskets from this series.
The trigger is in a position way too far at the rear end stop, which may denote that either the trigger spring is broken or the lock has been mounted both crudely and inadequately.

Nothing else? Really?
Notwithstanding the fact that the trigger is in the correct position now, this is the very same, identical gun that I presented in the previous post #20! Just compare the incised V-shaped musketeer's inital and the nicks on the buttstock!

Always keep your eyes open for each tiny detail before buying a gun!!!

Best,
Michael

8th January 2014, 10:20 PM	#21
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	A dealer had this on his site, labeled 'price on request'. Although it has been heavily altered it still is an interesting piece to study. I'm giong to tell you what the dealer did not say in his description: From the foregoing we know that the hole drilled through the butt horizontally denotes that this musket, too, comes from Salzburg where it was screwed to the walls of the exhibition rooms. What is further remarkable is the fact that the wheel shaft has been sawn down. It is now much too short to enable the main spring to be spanned. This was certainly done during the gun's working life as it was the easiest method to render the wheellock ignition inactive. Only the matchlock serpentine could still be employed. We can but speculate what the reason may have been. From many samples, not just from this series, that I have closely researched and tested, including my own muskets, I can tell that the wheellock action was extremely accident-sensitive and certainly often failed to work, especially in the heat of a fight. And our gun in discusssion of course was a real 'military' musket. In most cases, either the brim of the spanning recess in the wheel, and/or the nose of the sear designed to rest in it, will very soon tend to lose the decisive keenness of both their respective edges - resulting in the wheel not being kept in the 'spanned' position any longer. In the experimental arrangement of my researches, some 20 years ago, and with an original wheellock mechanism of ca. 1600 clamped in a jaw vise, and spanned and triggered every 45 seconds - in order to simulate the loading action of a musket - , the action started to falter after around 10-12 times of repetition, and failed to withstand at about the 15th test. The sear nose was retained no longer. What more can be commented? The Suhl barrel marks of this specimen are extremely faint and impossible to identify, which can rarely be observed with muskets from this series. The trigger is in a position way too far at the rear end stop, which may denote that either the trigger spring is broken or the lock has been mounted both crudely and inadequately. Nothing else? Really? Notwithstanding the fact that the trigger is in the correct position now, this is the very same, identical gun that I presented in the previous post #20! Just compare the incised V-shaped musketeer's inital and the nicks on the buttstock! Always keep your eyes open for each tiny detail before buying a gun!!! Best, Michael Attached Images Last edited by Matchlock; 9th January 2014 at 01:28 AM.