A rather rustic blunderbuss

fernando · 21st July 2012, 10:35 PM

Thanks a lot for your knowledgeable input, Simon.
Yes, i have found the information on the lock in an index made by J.E. & S.J. Gooding, published by Arms Collecting.com. I later double checked it in some other source out there. The precise contract period seems to have been 1760-1775, which in any case makes no difference in placing this lock under the Ordnance contract production. It is only possible that it was originally mounted in one of several thousand (Brown Bess) muskets which entered Portugal during the Peninsular War … and not only.
I have just checked a couple EDGE locks dated 1762. Comparing them with the present example, it appears that some components were replaced, namely the pan, the frizzen and its spring. Looking well to the present pan, i would say its configuration is somehow distinct; the original pan has both a different positioning and bowl shape, which could explain the touch hole off center situation.
Go figure whether the enlarged touch hole was an attempt to reach a better matching with the pan; in fact its widening is elliptical, giving it some ‘logic’. Or, as you suggest, to reduce the breach pressure; the barrel is indeed extremely irregular.
I wouldn’t go for the hoop construction fears; this barrel is so thick that it would relax any user, i would say.
But of course these are guessings from a non connoisseur

Thanks again for your precious technical enlightening.
P.S.
Would you say that this barrel could be any earlier than the lock ... so rustic it is?

.

Matchlock · 22nd July 2012, 01:38 PM

Hi 'Nando,

If the barrel is older than the rest of the gun the barrel tang must have been replaced as it is of characteristic 18th c. form, with the screw entering from the top.
I would also say that the buttplate shows the same rural rustic style as the barrel.

Conically widenened touch holes are known from Prussian flintlock muskets of the 1730's-80's; their purpose was to not have to apply priming powder to the pan: with the barrel loaded, and the frizzen closed, the musket was just put down on the ground a few times with the buttplate which caused a sufficient amount of powder to exit the touch hole and fill the pan.

Best,
Michl

fernando · 22nd July 2012, 05:52 PM

Thank you Michl,
Brilliant explanation for the touch hole; and a brilliant solution for the priming, too

.
... and a defined date for the barrel, assuming the tang is a contemporaneous setup, which i would admit so.
Danksche

.

21st July 2012, 10:35 PM	#1
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Thanks a lot for your knowledgeable input, Simon. Yes, i have found the information on the lock in an index made by J.E. & S.J. Gooding, published by Arms Collecting.com. I later double checked it in some other source out there. The precise contract period seems to have been 1760-1775, which in any case makes no difference in placing this lock under the Ordnance contract production. It is only possible that it was originally mounted in one of several thousand (Brown Bess) muskets which entered Portugal during the Peninsular War … and not only. I have just checked a couple EDGE locks dated 1762. Comparing them with the present example, it appears that some components were replaced, namely the pan, the frizzen and its spring. Looking well to the present pan, i would say its configuration is somehow distinct; the original pan has both a different positioning and bowl shape, which could explain the touch hole off center situation. Go figure whether the enlarged touch hole was an attempt to reach a better matching with the pan; in fact its widening is elliptical, giving it some ‘logic’. Or, as you suggest, to reduce the breach pressure; the barrel is indeed extremely irregular. I wouldn’t go for the hoop construction fears; this barrel is so thick that it would relax any user, i would say. But of course these are guessings from a non connoisseur Thanks again for your precious technical enlightening. P.S. Would you say that this barrel could be any earlier than the lock ... so rustic it is? . Attached Images

22nd July 2012, 01:38 PM	#2
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Hi 'Nando, If the barrel is older than the rest of the gun the barrel tang must have been replaced as it is of characteristic 18th c. form, with the screw entering from the top. I would also say that the buttplate shows the same rural rustic style as the barrel. Conically widenened touch holes are known from Prussian flintlock muskets of the 1730's-80's; their purpose was to not have to apply priming powder to the pan: with the barrel loaded, and the frizzen closed, the musket was just put down on the ground a few times with the buttplate which caused a sufficient amount of powder to exit the touch hole and fill the pan. Best, Michl

22nd July 2012, 05:52 PM	#3
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Thank you Michl, Brilliant explanation for the touch hole; and a brilliant solution for the priming, too . ... and a defined date for the barrel, assuming the tang is a contemporaneous setup, which i would admit so. Danksche .