Torador breeching.

Pukka Bundook · 16th May 2016, 03:30 PM

Rick,

My camera has 'turned up missing' at present, but when it comes out of hiding I will attach a few pics.

I think the only important criteria with the chamber, was that a ball had a seat which prevented it over-compressing the powder. This May just be a carry-over from the European design as shown in your picture above, as with serperntine mealed powder, over -compressed powder will not ignite.
With corned powder, (as we all know) there is no such need for a chamber.
Did India in general continue with mealed powder longer?.........or was the old chamber design merely copied without much thought?

I do know from contemporary sources, that the matchlock was known (in general) to be more accurate and outrange the British musket. Did the huge powder capacity of the chamber help? I'd think so, at least in range!

Richard.

rickystl · 17th May 2016, 03:12 AM

Hi Richard.
Well, we know change came very slowly in this part of the world during the 19th Century. So the meal powder and breech design theory, at least early on makes sense. And if they thought the matchlocks proved accurate for it's day, there was probably no reason to change the design, even at the introduction of corn powder.
Of course, I'm just speculating here. But the fact that they continued to manufacture and use these matchlocks all the way up to the 1880's is a real mystery to me. That's well into the black powder cartridge period.
It seems that their thinking was after ignition, that building up initial pressure in the breech area, combined with the long barrel, offered better velocity and thus accuracy versus "building" velocity as it travels down the barrel. Just a thought.
In any case, the restriction in the bore seems to be designed to keep the ball from compressing against the powder.
By the way, do you think the picture posted here, showing the inside of the bore originated from a European matchlock design ?
If you've seen the YouTube video "Mughal Matchlock", they cut the breech of a Torador breech lengthwise. But the only show it for about 3 seconds. But it does show the design similar to the above photo. Which seems to duplicate my barrel.
Rick.

Pukka Bundook · 17th May 2016, 02:37 PM

Rick,

I think the matchlock continued in use so long in India because it suited irregular troops well. Easy to find /make ammo for including clay balls at times. no flint to find for the lock, no brass cases needed, and as long as the use was limited to irregular skirmish and not pitched battle, it worked very well.
It seems a good few flintlocks were converted to matchlock for use by Arab mercenaries, as that bis what they were used to and preferred.

The picture you post I shard to figure out what it is of, apart from a matchlock, as it doesn't really look like anything I have seen before. :-)

I believe the chambered breech is a copy of the European idea, but with the difference that in most European chambered barrels, the chamber is smaller than the bore proper, and as we have seen, chambers on Indian arms can vary. The important part of the chamber merely being to prevent the ball or other projectiles from over -compressing the powder.
I have been fine-boring this barrel, and that isn't as easy without a removable breech plug!........the reason being that the bore is a bit rough & pitted, so just smoothing it up a bit to see if it could be once again brought into use.
These are the seller's pictures below;
My camera still hiding.
The stock is So slim that it's just about not there at all!!

Richard.

rickystl · 21st May 2016, 09:29 PM

Hi Richard.
I agree with all your assessments and comments above. As you mention, the restriction in the bore was meant to keep the ball from compressing against the powder. While the breech designs do seem to vary, they all seem designed to handle heavy charges of black powder. The barrel walls at the breech are very thick.
Thanks for posting pics of your Matchlock. Yes, that would be a tough job with the bore not having a removeable breech plug. But the gun definately looks restorable. There appears to be a missing piece of wood behind the breech area of the stock. From the photos, it doesn't look broke. Just missing. Originally, maybe a different colored piece of wood, maybe with a horn cap ? Or maybe one piece of elaphant ivory somebody removed

But I don't notice any holes in the bottom section where nails or pins might have been (?). Anyway, be careful with that forearm. Sounds like it might be delicate.
Rick.

Pukka Bundook · 22nd May 2016, 03:39 PM

Rick,

Thank you for your reply.

Yes, the fore-end is like paper it's so thin!

I too wondered about the missing block behind the breech, as there are no holes where pins or nails held it in place, and no signs of glue either!
Looking at the sideplate, I can't see where a match -holder was located, so think it may have had a hole in the rear end of the missing block.

Any ideas of age on this?
Also usage?
I Think possibly made for sporting use, as it is a bit thin and delicate for warfare. (Think!)
I do wish these were easier to date, but looking at it overall, and the shape of the (very thin) sideplates, I Think late 18th C.
Again just think and would appreciate your thoughts.

It seems a book could be written about these. A book with actual facts that is, And dates for specific changes over the centuries.
Yes, I know it may never happen, and one has to look at lots of photos to try and figure out the finer details which often vary over the sub-continent.

I have another 2 recent purchases, and these are both still in the UK.
Will attach photos in separate threads.

Best,
Richard.

rickystl · 28th May 2016, 04:36 PM

Hi Richard.
Been traveling the last couple weeks.
Before I forget, I want to congratulate you on this barrel still having it's original pan cover.

They are usually missing. Assuming the pans that were made with a cover. As we know, some were not.
Date: Well, my guess would not be any better than your's. LOL. These guns are so difficult to try and date. The "general" overall design of the stocks and barrels seem to remain the same for some 300+ years. The gun could have been made in 1700 or 1800 LOL.

I don't even know which style/changes, etc. would be considered early versus later.
As you mention, a book could probably be written about the history/design, etc.about these guns. But the book would be seriously expensive since you and I might be the only customers. LOL

In the book Indian and Oriental Armour there is a few pages that do give some interesting details of how the barrels were made. I had to re-read it 3-4 times to get an understanding. LOL. But no discussion of interior bore/breech design. And, as you mentioned, without a removeable breech plug, it makes study of the breech design that much more difficult.
I have noticed only two variations of breech plug design. One, as used on my barrel, is an iron plug, smaller diameter than the breech, forge welded in place, with the rear sight mounted directly on top of the breech. The other style, utilizes a flat plate, slightly larger diameter than the breech, with the rear sight cut into the top of the plate. And I assume also forge welded in place.

Sometime in June, my barrelsmith will be working on my barrel. In the process, he will be drilling out the hole I already made larger till it meets the barrel walls. Hopefully, this will allow for some better photos of the breech end, and maybe the restrcted area, before installing a new threaded breech plug (and liner if necessary). So maybe we will get some more information on breech design.

Again, thanks for your discussion on this subject.
Rick

Pukka Bundook · 29th May 2016, 04:32 AM

And, Thank You rick for your thoughts and comments on both these threads.
We appear in a minority when it comes to interest in the Torador.

I have this barrel pretty well smoothed out now, and it Just takes a .530" ball without a patch.
Trouble is, that breech still want to hold about 200 grains of powder, so would need to use loose wadding that could ram into the narrower chamber to take up some of the space!

Dating is difficult. (Dating Toradors I mean!)
The Mughal art-work depicting Dara Shikoh, , Shah Jajan & even Akbar all show matchlocks very similar to what we see today.
A book Does need to be written, but who knows the answers to write the book?

I do look forward to hearing of progress with your barrel!
Keep me posted won't you?!

Richard.

17th May 2016, 02:37 PM	#3
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Rick, I think the matchlock continued in use so long in India because it suited irregular troops well. Easy to find /make ammo for including clay balls at times. no flint to find for the lock, no brass cases needed, and as long as the use was limited to irregular skirmish and not pitched battle, it worked very well. It seems a good few flintlocks were converted to matchlock for use by Arab mercenaries, as that bis what they were used to and preferred. The picture you post I shard to figure out what it is of, apart from a matchlock, as it doesn't really look like anything I have seen before. :-) I believe the chambered breech is a copy of the European idea, but with the difference that in most European chambered barrels, the chamber is smaller than the bore proper, and as we have seen, chambers on Indian arms can vary. The important part of the chamber merely being to prevent the ball or other projectiles from over -compressing the powder. I have been fine-boring this barrel, and that isn't as easy without a removable breech plug!........the reason being that the bore is a bit rough & pitted, so just smoothing it up a bit to see if it could be once again brought into use. These are the seller's pictures below; My camera still hiding. The stock is So slim that it's just about not there at all!! Richard. Attached Images

16th May 2016, 03:30 PM	#1
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Rick, My camera has 'turned up missing' at present, but when it comes out of hiding I will attach a few pics. I think the only important criteria with the chamber, was that a ball had a seat which prevented it over-compressing the powder. This May just be a carry-over from the European design as shown in your picture above, as with serperntine mealed powder, over -compressed powder will not ignite. With corned powder, (as we all know) there is no such need for a chamber. Did India in general continue with mealed powder longer?.........or was the old chamber design merely copied without much thought? I do know from contemporary sources, that the matchlock was known (in general) to be more accurate and outrange the British musket. Did the huge powder capacity of the chamber help? I'd think so, at least in range! Richard.

17th May 2016, 03:12 AM	#2
rickystl Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: St. Louis, MO area. Posts: 1,630	Hi Richard. Well, we know change came very slowly in this part of the world during the 19th Century. So the meal powder and breech design theory, at least early on makes sense. And if they thought the matchlocks proved accurate for it's day, there was probably no reason to change the design, even at the introduction of corn powder. Of course, I'm just speculating here. But the fact that they continued to manufacture and use these matchlocks all the way up to the 1880's is a real mystery to me. That's well into the black powder cartridge period. It seems that their thinking was after ignition, that building up initial pressure in the breech area, combined with the long barrel, offered better velocity and thus accuracy versus "building" velocity as it travels down the barrel. Just a thought. In any case, the restriction in the bore seems to be designed to keep the ball from compressing against the powder. By the way, do you think the picture posted here, showing the inside of the bore originated from a European matchlock design ? If you've seen the YouTube video "Mughal Matchlock", they cut the breech of a Torador breech lengthwise. But the only show it for about 3 seconds. But it does show the design similar to the above photo. Which seems to duplicate my barrel. Rick.

21st May 2016, 09:29 PM	#4
rickystl Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: St. Louis, MO area. Posts: 1,630	Hi Richard. I agree with all your assessments and comments above. As you mention, the restriction in the bore was meant to keep the ball from compressing against the powder. While the breech designs do seem to vary, they all seem designed to handle heavy charges of black powder. The barrel walls at the breech are very thick. Thanks for posting pics of your Matchlock. Yes, that would be a tough job with the bore not having a removeable breech plug. But the gun definately looks restorable. There appears to be a missing piece of wood behind the breech area of the stock. From the photos, it doesn't look broke. Just missing. Originally, maybe a different colored piece of wood, maybe with a horn cap ? Or maybe one piece of elaphant ivory somebody removed But I don't notice any holes in the bottom section where nails or pins might have been (?). Anyway, be careful with that forearm. Sounds like it might be delicate. Rick.

22nd May 2016, 03:39 PM	#5
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Rick, Thank you for your reply. Yes, the fore-end is like paper it's so thin! I too wondered about the missing block behind the breech, as there are no holes where pins or nails held it in place, and no signs of glue either! Looking at the sideplate, I can't see where a match -holder was located, so think it may have had a hole in the rear end of the missing block. Any ideas of age on this? Also usage? I Think possibly made for sporting use, as it is a bit thin and delicate for warfare. (Think!) I do wish these were easier to date, but looking at it overall, and the shape of the (very thin) sideplates, I Think late 18th C. Again just think and would appreciate your thoughts. It seems a book could be written about these. A book with actual facts that is, And dates for specific changes over the centuries. Yes, I know it may never happen, and one has to look at lots of photos to try and figure out the finer details which often vary over the sub-continent. I have another 2 recent purchases, and these are both still in the UK. Will attach photos in separate threads. Best, Richard.

28th May 2016, 04:36 PM	#6
rickystl Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: St. Louis, MO area. Posts: 1,630	Hi Richard. Been traveling the last couple weeks. Before I forget, I want to congratulate you on this barrel still having it's original pan cover. They are usually missing. Assuming the pans that were made with a cover. As we know, some were not. Date: Well, my guess would not be any better than your's. LOL. These guns are so difficult to try and date. The "general" overall design of the stocks and barrels seem to remain the same for some 300+ years. The gun could have been made in 1700 or 1800 LOL. I don't even know which style/changes, etc. would be considered early versus later. As you mention, a book could probably be written about the history/design, etc.about these guns. But the book would be seriously expensive since you and I might be the only customers. LOL In the book Indian and Oriental Armour there is a few pages that do give some interesting details of how the barrels were made. I had to re-read it 3-4 times to get an understanding. LOL. But no discussion of interior bore/breech design. And, as you mentioned, without a removeable breech plug, it makes study of the breech design that much more difficult. I have noticed only two variations of breech plug design. One, as used on my barrel, is an iron plug, smaller diameter than the breech, forge welded in place, with the rear sight mounted directly on top of the breech. The other style, utilizes a flat plate, slightly larger diameter than the breech, with the rear sight cut into the top of the plate. And I assume also forge welded in place. Sometime in June, my barrelsmith will be working on my barrel. In the process, he will be drilling out the hole I already made larger till it meets the barrel walls. Hopefully, this will allow for some better photos of the breech end, and maybe the restrcted area, before installing a new threaded breech plug (and liner if necessary). So maybe we will get some more information on breech design. Again, thanks for your discussion on this subject. Rick

29th May 2016, 04:32 AM	#7
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	And, Thank You rick for your thoughts and comments on both these threads. We appear in a minority when it comes to interest in the Torador. I have this barrel pretty well smoothed out now, and it Just takes a .530" ball without a patch. Trouble is, that breech still want to hold about 200 grains of powder, so would need to use loose wadding that could ram into the narrower chamber to take up some of the space! Dating is difficult. (Dating Toradors I mean!) The Mughal art-work depicting Dara Shikoh, , Shah Jajan & even Akbar all show matchlocks very similar to what we see today. A book Does need to be written, but who knows the answers to write the book? I do look forward to hearing of progress with your barrel! Keep me posted won't you?! Richard.