Quote:
|
Originally Posted by katana
Hi,
after a little more searching found some more info....
Marsigli (1732) Stato Militare dell Imperio Ottomono : Mid 16th C. muskets were `9 palms long' and had a range of 500 to 600 paces, according to reports during the Siege of Malta. Balbi said "we see
the Turkish arqubusers and their most excellent gunpowder shoots much further than ours and have much more penetration because they are longer and have better gunpowder.:
In 1680s…
Marsigli : "….The Turks relied on Christians for their firearms and that the firearm carried by the Turkish soldier is a much heavier musket than any other and takes a ball of 6,9, 12, 15, 25 drams; and
this is a matchlock. Another gun is very similar to the Spanish type but with a different mechanism… (Patella/miquelet lock). The third is the smallest and can be used in one hand is a pistol made like the
(Spanish-like) gun and takes bullets of 4,6,8 drams. The ottoman muskets were much too heavy to carry on campaign or to shoot without a rest, and the musketeer was forced to step back to
absorb the recoil."
In the book "Guns for the sultan: military power and the weapons industry in the Ottoman" ... By Gábor Ágoston there is a reference to barrel length and caliber ...all 16th - 17th Century.
matchlock 120cms 16mm
matchlock 150cms 16mm
matchlock 133cms 19mm
On that basis, once the length of the stock is added ....a 'palm' of 20cms would be 180cms on the '9 palm' (30cm stock ?) and around 140cms for the 7 palm.
Other references mention that the Ottoman muskets were longer than the Christian defenders' in the Siege of Malta ....but there are no measurements.
Regards David
|
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