Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post - Malaysian matchlock musket (satinggar espingarda)

Philip · 21st February 2016, 10:39 PM

Cathey,
I have a Malay gun of the same "model" as yours, same stock profile and style of decoration. It's a monster:
Weight 11.76 lb , approx. 5.88 kg
Caliber 16.5 mm, approx. .62 in
Barrel thickness across flats at breech 32 mm (almost 2x bore diameter)
Overall length 61.75 in., approx. 155 cm

The point of balance is 68 cm from the end of the buttplate, this is where the piece sits level if rested on a block at that very point. I am of average height and have been shooting all kinds of rifles since I was a kid, and even a bigger guy than I am will have trouble keeping aim from a standing position because most peoples' arms aren't long enough to reach the balance point and simultaneously support the weight of the gun. Imagine how much trouble a people of shorter and lighter build like most Malays would have!

So clearly the dimensions of these guns makes them most unsuitable for hunting, especially in tropical rainforests. Another thing, the heavy serpentines coupled with the weakness of the brass mainsprings make for an extremely slow lock time after the trigger releases the sear. Positively sluggish! Most game animals wouldn't hang around that long.

In the paucity of written references on these guns, I recall seeing some mention of these being fired from some kind of support, possibly for defensive purposes. Can't recall the title and author at moment, unfortunately. But it makes sense considering how massive these things are. The extremely thick barrel walls at the breech probably mean that a really heavy powder charge can be accommodated, far more than would be safe in a lighter hunting gun. Were these intended for shot, or ball? Hard to say. My example has no sights, so hard to imagine any utility with a solid projectile. If a gun like this were loaded to the max with buckshot, and fired at attackers from atop a palisade, it would be in its element for sure.

For comparison purposes, I have 2 other specimens, of different buttstock shapes and deco style. One has the flaring butt that you compared with Japanese style gunstocks, that's almost as heavy as the piece I'm discussing here and it too has no sights. The other one is longer but a good deal lighter and and aimable, and it has a foresight in the form of a little tube at the muzzle, but no backsight.

It's conceivable that these mega-muskets did play the same tactical role as "gingals" did in Burma, India, and China (and the corresponding "fusils de rempart" or "Wallbüchsen" in Europe), supplementing the artillery. Recall that the Malay Archipelago was famous for its "lantaka" cannon, those bronze swivel cannon which were based on Portuguese and Dutch prototypes.

21st February 2016, 10:39 PM	#25
Philip Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: California Posts: 1,036	data on a comparable example Cathey, I have a Malay gun of the same "model" as yours, same stock profile and style of decoration. It's a monster: Weight 11.76 lb , approx. 5.88 kg Caliber 16.5 mm, approx. .62 in Barrel thickness across flats at breech 32 mm (almost 2x bore diameter) Overall length 61.75 in., approx. 155 cm The point of balance is 68 cm from the end of the buttplate, this is where the piece sits level if rested on a block at that very point. I am of average height and have been shooting all kinds of rifles since I was a kid, and even a bigger guy than I am will have trouble keeping aim from a standing position because most peoples' arms aren't long enough to reach the balance point and simultaneously support the weight of the gun. Imagine how much trouble a people of shorter and lighter build like most Malays would have! So clearly the dimensions of these guns makes them most unsuitable for hunting, especially in tropical rainforests. Another thing, the heavy serpentines coupled with the weakness of the brass mainsprings make for an extremely slow lock time after the trigger releases the sear. Positively sluggish! Most game animals wouldn't hang around that long. In the paucity of written references on these guns, I recall seeing some mention of these being fired from some kind of support, possibly for defensive purposes. Can't recall the title and author at moment, unfortunately. But it makes sense considering how massive these things are. The extremely thick barrel walls at the breech probably mean that a really heavy powder charge can be accommodated, far more than would be safe in a lighter hunting gun. Were these intended for shot, or ball? Hard to say. My example has no sights, so hard to imagine any utility with a solid projectile. If a gun like this were loaded to the max with buckshot, and fired at attackers from atop a palisade, it would be in its element for sure. For comparison purposes, I have 2 other specimens, of different buttstock shapes and deco style. One has the flaring butt that you compared with Japanese style gunstocks, that's almost as heavy as the piece I'm discussing here and it too has no sights. The other one is longer but a good deal lighter and and aimable, and it has a foresight in the form of a little tube at the muzzle, but no backsight. It's conceivable that these mega-muskets did play the same tactical role as "gingals" did in Burma, India, and China (and the corresponding "fusils de rempart" or "Wallbüchsen" in Europe), supplementing the artillery. Recall that the Malay Archipelago was famous for its "lantaka" cannon, those bronze swivel cannon which were based on Portuguese and Dutch prototypes.