Small handgonne

Philip · 30th June 2021, 02:40 AM

Yes! The same gun I was talking about. Good that you found a much better image than the one in Blackmore's book.

These early guns were not very powerful for a number of reasons. Primarily, during that period, gunpowder had the consistency of flour, it wasn't "corned" or milled in grains. Thus, its burning rate was slower so the explosion was weaker. Also, if tamped too tightly, it created variable pressures in the barrel which led to inconsistent velocity. During transport, or handling in the depot, this early "meal" powder also tended to separate into its constituent ingredients, further limiting its efficiency.

But you are correct, the noise, sulphur smell, and all the smoke and flame created a powerful impression in the minds of people at that time, who had seen nothing like it before and lived in a superstitious age in which the imagery of hell was strong thanks to sermons delivered in church.

It also didn't take much training to teach a soldier to handle these weapons, not nearly so much skill and strength as being an archer. So if you had enough men firing these in a volley as the foe got very close, enough of the enemy could be hit, or else frightened enough to disorient and confuse them (not to mention horses getting panicked and further spoiling the fun). So they weren't entirely useless.

Marcus den toom · 30th June 2021, 02:43 PM

Sorry to burst the bubble but its an Indian tillered hand cannon. I owned this very piece just a few years ago when i sold it to a Dutch Gentlement.

cel7 · 30th June 2021, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus den toom

Sorry to burst the bubble but its an Indian tillered hand cannon. I owned this very piece just a few years ago when i sold it to a Dutch Gentlement.

Thank you Marcus! So not European after all. What period do you think it's from?

Philip · 30th June 2021, 06:34 PM

Thanks, Marcus. Even if it is Indian and not European, it could still be significant. A chronological benchmark would be useful. Surviving examples of handgonnes from the Subcontinent are quite an unusual thing, far fewer of them seem to be extant than thei counterparts in the West. And the literature on Indian arms is largely silent on these. So it may represent a step forward in our understanding of the development of firearms in India. Lots of questions to sift through, given the fact that so few Indian guns predating the 18th-19th cent. are in collections.

Raf · 1st July 2021, 06:27 PM

Looks like it started life as an Indian combined matchlock and axe. The Royal armouries example dates it vaguely 1700 to 1800. Worth looking to see if their is any sign the remains of a rivit to the tiller that could have supported the serpentine.

cel7 · 1st July 2021, 10:55 PM

Thank you for your comment Raf. There is now sign of a rivet to the tiller. The tiller doesn't look strong enough to support an ax either.

Raf · 2nd July 2021, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cel7

Thank you for your comment Raf. There is now sign of a rivet to the tiller. The tiller doesn't look strong enough to support an ax either.

I agree. Maybe you could post a picture of the end of the tiller.

1st July 2021, 06:27 PM	#5
Raf Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 252	Looks like it started life as an Indian combined matchlock and axe. The Royal armouries example dates it vaguely 1700 to 1800. Worth looking to see if their is any sign the remains of a rivit to the tiller that could have supported the serpentine. Attached Images

30th June 2021, 02:40 AM	#1
Philip Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: California Posts: 1,036	Yes! The same gun I was talking about. Good that you found a much better image than the one in Blackmore's book. These early guns were not very powerful for a number of reasons. Primarily, during that period, gunpowder had the consistency of flour, it wasn't "corned" or milled in grains. Thus, its burning rate was slower so the explosion was weaker. Also, if tamped too tightly, it created variable pressures in the barrel which led to inconsistent velocity. During transport, or handling in the depot, this early "meal" powder also tended to separate into its constituent ingredients, further limiting its efficiency. But you are correct, the noise, sulphur smell, and all the smoke and flame created a powerful impression in the minds of people at that time, who had seen nothing like it before and lived in a superstitious age in which the imagery of hell was strong thanks to sermons delivered in church. It also didn't take much training to teach a soldier to handle these weapons, not nearly so much skill and strength as being an archer. So if you had enough men firing these in a volley as the foe got very close, enough of the enemy could be hit, or else frightened enough to disorient and confuse them (not to mention horses getting panicked and further spoiling the fun). So they weren't entirely useless.

30th June 2021, 02:43 PM	#2
Marcus den toom Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Netherlands Posts: 535	Sorry to burst the bubble but its an Indian tillered hand cannon. I owned this very piece just a few years ago when i sold it to a Dutch Gentlement.

30th June 2021, 06:34 PM	#4
Philip Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: California Posts: 1,036	Thanks, Marcus. Even if it is Indian and not European, it could still be significant. A chronological benchmark would be useful. Surviving examples of handgonnes from the Subcontinent are quite an unusual thing, far fewer of them seem to be extant than thei counterparts in the West. And the literature on Indian arms is largely silent on these. So it may represent a step forward in our understanding of the development of firearms in India. Lots of questions to sift through, given the fact that so few Indian guns predating the 18th-19th cent. are in collections.

1st July 2021, 10:55 PM	#6
cel7 Member Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 157	Thank you for your comment Raf. There is now sign of a rivet to the tiller. The tiller doesn't look strong enough to support an ax either.