The match lock of Leonardo da Vinci

Fernando K · 26th July 2010, 10:26 PM

Google translation:
Hi, Jim

First, declare that English is not my language, but this does not preclude that we do not understand.

I use the term "automatic" to express that the system has been referred to the fall of the coil and opening of the bowl, just press the shutter.

The ignition is reserved to a lit fuse.

In the drawing of Leonardo lack the bowl. This was forged in one piece with the barrel.

You will notice that in addition to the drawings, there is text and letters that identify the parts. But I do not know, and I hope further research in order to know.

Affectionately

Fernando Keilty
Argentina

Original Spanish:
Hi, Jim

Ante todo, declaro que el ingles no es mi idioma, pero ello no será obice para que no nos entendamos.

He usado el término "automático" para expresar que el automatismo está referido a la caída del serpentin y a la apertura de la cazoleta, con solo apretar el disparador.

La ignición queda reservada a la mecha encendida.

En el dibujo de Leonardo falta la cazoleta. Esta estaba forjada en una sola pieza, con el cañón.

Notarán que además de los dibujos, hay texto y letras que identifican a las piezas. Pero no lo conozco, y espero una investigación mas profunda para conocerlo.

Afectuosamente

Fernando Keilty
Argentina

Matchlock · 27th July 2010, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fernando K

Google translation:

The ignition is reserved to a lit fuse.

In the drawing of Leonardo lack the bowl. This was forged in one piece with the barrel.

Fernando Keilty
Argentina

Hi Fernando K,

Thank you for your highly interesting post although Leonardo's drawings are well known basics in weaponry.

May I point out that an ignition pan (that's obviously what you mean by cazoleta) was never forged integrally with an iron barrel; as I pointed out in a former thread, they were always dovetailed and still today are easy to take off.
The attachments show the dovetailed pan of a mid 17th century German (Zella near Suhl) matchlock musket (author's collection).

The only exception was bronze (copper alloy) barrels where of course the pan was cast integrally.

Best,
Michael

Dmitry · 27th July 2010, 10:54 PM

*

Spiridonov · 28th July 2010, 12:01 PM

sacrilege

Jim McDougall · 28th July 2010, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spiridonov

sacrilege

?

Matchlock · 28th July 2010, 07:55 PM

I think I can assist in helping understand my friend Alexander: I'm sure with sacrilege he meant that the original load of powder was fired. If that were so indeed I would fully support his meaning.

Well, the photo shows the author and collector Merrill Lindsay (One Hundred Great Guns), who died some 20 years ago. The photo is taken from his less known book The Lure of Guns (1976). Unfortunately his own collection which was auctioned at Christie's revealed lots of failures due his not really experienced collector's eye.

Unforunately, the text does not refer to this photo, as often in his books. Lindsay bought that wrought iron barrel he is shown firing as an excavated find and I am sure he cleaned it very thoroughly as was his usage. In doing so I am absoutely sure he took out the original powder load. I once did the same with of my fine Munich haquebut barrel dated 1481 and have kept the load as kind of sacred ever since. Nevertheless, I tried to lit a small portion of it. Well, nothing happened. It was meal powder, of course. Not only had it gone wet and dried again many times of its 500 year history, its main substances had also become unmixed. So all it did was sparkle and bizz a litlle bit, but far from going up whoosh like a rocket.

To cut a long story short, I am far from believing that Lindsay used the original load for one reason or another. If we start from that presumption I think we should not call it a sacrilege - unless Alexander meant the fact of firing a 500 year old barrel. In that case I would say it is up to him how he feels about it.

Best,
Michael

Jim McDougall · 28th July 2010, 08:13 PM

Thanks for explaining. Im sure this must have been quite apparant to those well versed in guns, but for novices like me we need more than a single word to get the meaning.

Dmitry · 28th July 2010, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Well, the photo shows the author and collector Merrill Lindsay (One Hundred Great Guns), who died some 20 years ago. The photo is taken from his less known book The Lure of Guns (1976).

Indeed.
I applaud your knowledge, sir!

27th July 2010, 10:54 PM	#3
Dmitry Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 607	* Attached Images

28th July 2010, 07:55 PM	#6
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Sacrilege I think I can assist in helping understand my friend Alexander: I'm sure with sacrilege he meant that the original load of powder was fired. If that were so indeed I would fully support his meaning. Well, the photo shows the author and collector Merrill Lindsay (One Hundred Great Guns), who died some 20 years ago. The photo is taken from his less known book The Lure of Guns (1976). Unfortunately his own collection which was auctioned at Christie's revealed lots of failures due his not really experienced collector's eye. Unforunately, the text does not refer to this photo, as often in his books. Lindsay bought that wrought iron barrel he is shown firing as an excavated find and I am sure he cleaned it very thoroughly as was his usage. In doing so I am absoutely sure he took out the original powder load. I once did the same with of my fine Munich haquebut barrel dated 1481 and have kept the load as kind of sacred ever since. Nevertheless, I tried to lit a small portion of it. Well, nothing happened. It was meal powder, of course. Not only had it gone wet and dried again many times of its 500 year history, its main substances had also become unmixed. So all it did was sparkle and bizz a litlle bit, but far from going up whoosh like a rocket. To cut a long story short, I am far from believing that Lindsay used the original load for one reason or another. If we start from that presumption I think we should not call it a sacrilege - unless Alexander meant the fact of firing a 500 year old barrel. In that case I would say it is up to him how he feels about it. Best, Michael Last edited by Matchlock; 28th July 2010 at 09:27 PM.

26th July 2010, 10:26 PM	#1
Fernando K Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 671	Google translation: Hi, Jim First, declare that English is not my language, but this does not preclude that we do not understand. I use the term "automatic" to express that the system has been referred to the fall of the coil and opening of the bowl, just press the shutter. The ignition is reserved to a lit fuse. In the drawing of Leonardo lack the bowl. This was forged in one piece with the barrel. You will notice that in addition to the drawings, there is text and letters that identify the parts. But I do not know, and I hope further research in order to know. Affectionately Fernando Keilty Argentina Original Spanish: Hi, Jim Ante todo, declaro que el ingles no es mi idioma, pero ello no será obice para que no nos entendamos. He usado el término "automático" para expresar que el automatismo está referido a la caída del serpentin y a la apertura de la cazoleta, con solo apretar el disparador. La ignición queda reservada a la mecha encendida. En el dibujo de Leonardo falta la cazoleta. Esta estaba forjada en una sola pieza, con el cañón. Notarán que además de los dibujos, hay texto y letras que identifican a las piezas. Pero no lo conozco, y espero una investigación mas profunda para conocerlo. Afectuosamente Fernando Keilty Argentina

28th July 2010, 12:01 PM	#4
Spiridonov Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Russia, Leningrad Posts: 355	sacrilege

28th July 2010, 08:13 PM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,195	Thanks for explaining. Im sure this must have been quite apparant to those well versed in guns, but for novices like me we need more than a single word to get the meaning.