A fine Nuremberg matchlock Landsknecht harquebus, dated 1539

[Matchlock]

Richard,

The half rounded muzzle is an ornament characteristic of the 1520's-1530's and disappears right after.

The stock of my 1539 harquebus is definitely apt to be fired from the shoulder; please study the Nürnberg illustration of 1532 posted again below - it depicts almost the same kind of stock. On the other hand there are historic illustrations showing harquebuses being held freely in front of the breast or even the belly well up to mid 16th century. So these short guns were handled either way. We sometimes even see them put on top of the shoulder, which actually hardly makes any sense.

Actually, the first butt-plates appeared in the 1530's and were made of bone, like in crossbows, but only for high quality decorated pieces. Plain military guns were generally made without butt-stock protection up to the early 17th century although in some cases we find iron butt-plates as early as the 1580's. They seem to have become standardized widely only by the beginning of the Thirty Years War, though.

Btw, I started a thread on its own on the aiming of guns in late 15th to mid 16th century illustrations.

Michael

[Pukka Bundook]

Thanks for your reply, Michael.

In the pictures above, I could not decide if the stock was being held against the shoulder or not. To me, it looked short, as though it was being held in the hands, and not against the shoulder.
This may be just the artists impression, and makes it rather difficult to say for sure.
If your gun is long enough in the stock to fit aginst the shoulder, then this is very good information to have! (even if the stock is rather short for a modern man,,,)

A Q. re. the rests the guns are fired from in the above paintings;

I see in each of the pictures, the plank of the rest is half-lapped in the centre, and bound with iron.
Do you know if they were joined such as an aid in transporting them?
I cannot think they each had a join like this simply because the planks were too short.

Thank you again for your time!

Richard.

[Matchlock]

You are right, Richard,

Short harquebuses usually have very short buttstocks mostly meant be held in the firer's hands in front of his breast.

My Straubing harquebus is an exception from that rule in having a rather long buttstock while its pal, still preserved at the Straubing museum, is proportioned perfectly. Maybe mine was stocked for a guy with longer arms.

Like you, I have often wondered because of those Maximilian rests. I am not able to solve the problem, sorry. Your command of physics is much better than mine, no doubt about that.

Michael

[Pukka Bundook]

Michael,

Thank you for again answering my questions re. buttstock lengths.
I know of no other source I could turn to for this information!

Thank you for sharing details on early butt-plates, as I was in the dark about these as well!
Maybe the Maximilian rests must remain a mystery....and a mystery it is, how each one is joined in exactly the same manner.

All the best,

R.

[Matchlock]

Richard,

I am afraid that no one ever cared for such minuteae (in fact, Jim's gotta be credited my for teaching me that charmin' Latin word - hope I spelt it right; I used to be good at Latin at grammar school but forgot most of it by now ... ) before.

We do, though ...

m

[Matchlock]

... at the Brukental Museum, Sibiu/Romania.

The scans taken from very bad prints in a 1970's Romanian catalog.

Michael

[Pukka Bundook]

Michael,

These locks appear to be the most "rustic" I've seen whilst still having all the essentials of a matchlock mechanism!

I think it is more the blacksmith construction than anything, as these snapping mechanisms appears of sound enough design.
By the stocks, it looks like they have been badly neglected for a very long time!
I see an exclamation mark after the calibre of the first one, (12mm) I sometimes think we might miss important details if we don't take note of your notes!
This does appear a rather small bore. Is this very rare?

The last lock appears of a rather advanced design, with it's trigger sear, yet the quality of work seems very provincial.

In a way, One would think it was a lock similar to this that the Japanese copied forever.....except their springs were never up to much!

You really do post some interesting stuff!
Can you tell me Michael;
The snap-lock with button on the side-plate, Is the button pressed with the thumb?
I have never had hold of one, so must ask!

Also, The Snap-locks often work the opposite way to a sear lock, the cock moving forward to the pan.
Is this for ease in cocking?, or because the cock snapping down into the pan could send powder back over the fence into the firer's eyes, if made with the cock snapping backwards into the pan?........or some other reason?

Thanks again, and please forgive my questions!

R.