Re: The oldest known handgun in existence, ca. 1400-10

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by fernando

Sorry for my ignorance but ... what am i missing here?
Don't i see that the Berne Harquebus has the hook peened through the stock ?
On the other hand, isn't the system of casting the hook to the barrel a 'third generation' development ?
If i well understand, in the first step the gun had a gunstock with a wooden shoulder on the underside, as shown in a specimen in the museum of Pilsen, which dates to around 1400.
But as this design involved severe stress to the wood, which did not withstand the strain for long, the next step was the development of an iron hook with bands or nails being fitted to the shaft, further improved by positioning the hook on the barrel with a band and securing it in the shaft with a cross pin.
It was only after this that, the hook was either forged directly on to the barrel or cast with it, when of bronze.
This is the way i understood an article written by Bernhard Rietsche, in his work Meine gotischen Handfeuerrohre (page 47), which was gently passed to me by a notable person in this Forum .
However i know i don't have the minimum preparation to discuss this subject, so i beg you to correct me if or where i am wrong .
Fernando

As there are lots of early guns in both Berne and Pilsen, please post pictures of the two pieces you quoted.
Michael

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

As there are lots of early guns in both Berne and Pilsen, please post pictures of the two pieces you quoted.
Michael

According to Bernhard Rietsche, the specimen in Pilsen is illustrated in ZHWK 1900-1912 p. 118); i wonder if you have such publication.
The Berne specimen seems to be quite popular, as largely divulged in the Internet. It is also, for example, in Clephan's work 'An outline of the History and Development of Hand Firearms' (page 47). I also happen to have a picture of it, myself.
But again, i may obviously be labouring in error, and confusing the whole thing.
Fernando

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by fernando

According to Bernhard Rietsche, the specimen in Pilsen is illustrated in ZHWK 1900-1912 p. 118); i wonder if you have such publication.
The Berne specimen seems to be quite popular, as largely divulged in the Internet. It is also, for example, in Clephan's work 'An outline of the History and Development of Hand Firearms' (page 47). I also happen to have a picture of it, myself.
But again, i may obviously be labouring in error, and confusing the whole thing.
Fernando

O.k.
Now this is Berne inv.# 2193. See Rudof Wegeli: Inventar der Waffensammlung des Bernischen Historischen Museums in Bern, vol.4, Feuerwaffen, 1948, p.153f.

As the text mentions, the hook is of iron and hammered through the stock as an addition in the gun's working time. As this must have proofed less stable, hooks were fire welded to the barrels from ca. 1440-50.

My library of more than 3,000 books and catalogs contains the complete original edition of the Zeitschrift fuer Historische Waffenkunde from its origins in 1897 until today. I have been a member of this society for more than 25 years.
Michael

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

O.k.
Now this is Berne inv.# 2193. See Rudof Wegeli: Inventar der Waffensammlung des Bernischen Historischen Museums in Bern, vol.4, Feuerwaffen, 1948, p.153f.

As the text mentions, the hook is of iron and hammered through the stock as an addition in the gun's working time. As this must have proofed less stable, hooks were fire welded to the barrels from ca. 1440-50.

My library of more than 3,000 books and catalogs contains the complete original edition of the Zeitschrift fuer Historische Waffenkunde from its origins in 1897 until today. I have been a member of this society for more than 25 years.
Michael

BTW, give my greetings to Bernahrd Rietsche. He came to see my collection only a few weeks ago.
Michael

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

I first met Rainer Daehnhardt in 1990 and know quite a bit about him and his pieces. Enough said

I thaught so ... i had the feeling that you knew him, since the moment you posted that coment on the Malabar gun.
I also know him since about that long; i buy weapons at his shops and frequently listen to what he has to say about questions i ask him on pieces i take to him for apreciation. I have also read a couple of his books. Our relation is only a little more than that between customer and supplier. However i never had the chance to visit his private mannor house and apreciate his collection. But up to this moment i don't have an actual reason to dislike him; given the discount that everyone has virtues and defaults. Our talks are about weapons and their history; nothing else.

Originally Posted by Matchlock

As the text mentions, the hook is of iron and hammered through the stock as an addition in the gun's working time.

I knew it was of iron; as you know, i quoted this specimen just because the hook is in the stock and not in the barrel; i confess i ignored it was applied later in time.

Originally Posted by Matchlock

As this must have proofed less stable, hooks were fire welded to the barrels from ca. 1440-50

So.

Originally Posted by Matchlock

My library of more than 3,000 books and catalogs contains the complete original edition of the Zeitschrift fuer Historische Waffenkunde ...

Fascinating; so you are in a condition to tell if the 1900 catalogue contains the Pilsen gun with a hook in the stock, as Bernahrd Rietsche relates ?
I surely would like to hear your coments about this particular subject. Eventualy also Daehnhardt quotes that hooks were first made of wood; i still have to learn a huge lot about this fascinating area of early firearms.

Originally Posted by Matchlock

... give my greetings to Bernahrd Rietsche. He came to see my collection only a few weeks ago.

I don't have the honour to know the Gentleman; i incidently know his quoted article since a week ago. And i was far from realizing that such would be the origin of a misunderstanding.

My respects
Fernando

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by fernando

According to Bernhard Rietsche, the specimen in Pilsen is illustrated in ZHWK 1900-1912 p. 118); i wonder if you have such publication.
The Berne specimen seems to be quite popular, as largely divulged in the Internet. It is also, for example, in Clephan's work 'An outline of the History and Development of Hand Firearms' (page 47). I also happen to have a picture of it, myself.
But again, i may obviously be labouring in error, and confusing the whole thing.
Fernando

Now here is the Pilsen handgonne that you mean, Fernando.

I was in the Pilsen Armory in 2000, being kindly allowed by Dr. Hus to handle and photograph all the items I liked to.

The stock of this piece with the staged wall support may be original and may have worked against the recoil with this small and short barrel as the "hooked" stage is both very long and thick! It would never work with a long barrel and slender stock as in Daehnhardt's gun, though.

I enclose another early 15th century Pilsen handgonne with an iron hook drawn over the barrel (!) and put through the stock - the last stage before welding the hook directly to the barrel for optimum stability.

I have tried to do my best and sure hope to have made things as clear as possible. I spent 30 years of my life studying to be able and tell wrong from right.

Michael

[Matchlock]

As you can see in the first Pilsen gun, what actually works as the real wall support is a small rudimentary rectangular iron piece extending down through the stock, and being a vertical prolongation of the rear underside of the barrel! It may have been shortened later.

So there is a wooden stage, true, but this was not the wall support because it would have been too weak!

Allright?

Michael

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

... The stock of this piece with the staged wall support may be original and may have worked against the recoil with this small and short barrel as the "hooked" stage is both very long and thick! It would never work with a long barrel and slender stock as in Daehnhardt's gun, though. ... I spent 30 years of my life studying to be able and tell wrong from right. ...

I don't have the slightest doubt that you know more about this subject while you are asleep than most people awake, and i thank you a lot for your patience and teachings. Only there are positions to consider; for example Bernahrd Rietsche states without hesitation that the Pilsen specimen was a clear example of a wooden hook being a primary solution to recoil. I assume you have read his article ... have i made a wrong reading ? So i was misguided by such source. And as Daehnhardt has aproached the same problematic of the wooden hook fragility, i assumed it made sense.
The Daehnhardt's gun is an Indian item... not necessarily an example of European haquebus expertize. Allright, it has an atypical design and you say such stock could never work; noted.
But ironically, every wooden hook experiments, after time, ended up failing.
But i bother you no more. Now it's my turn to say: enough said

With respect.
Fernando

[Ed]

This thread has gotten me to thinking.

I wonder how bad the recoil was for these little guns.

Lets think about it a bit together.

- The actual charge of black powder was limited. Filling a barrel all the way might not result in greater velocity/force for the projectile than filling it 1/8 of the way. This is directly related to recoil.

- there was not a fine ball to bore fit, couldn't be. This would result in lowered velocity and recoil.

- it isn't clear that using modern powders for testing is appropriate.

These are sorta random thoughts that bear on the basic question of the reality of using vey early handguns.

If there were a way to really duplicate the performance I could run some live tests out back.

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by Ed

This thread has gotten me to thinking.

I wonder how bad the recoil was for these little guns.

Lets think about it a bit together.

- The actual charge of black powder was limited. Filling a barrel all the way might not result in greater velocity/force for the projectile than filling it 1/8 of the way. This is directly related to recoil.

- there was not a fine ball to bore fit, couldn't be. This would result in lowered velocity and recoil.

- it isn't clear that using modern powders for testing is appropriate.

These are sorta random thoughts that bear on the basic question of the reality of using vey early handguns.

If there were a way to really duplicate the performance I could run some live tests out back.

Hi Ed,

The old black powder was, as I noted, quite poor in performance. Of course, there was one or more rolling balls used but then followed by a heavy wad, often a wooden plug; so the recoil must have been hard. Hadn't it been very hard there would have been no need for hooks.

In an earlier posting I mentioned the firing tests that the Landeszeughaus Graz carried thru with 400 year old guns, and gave the literature. An accompanying video shows the heavy recoil of the various pieces which sometimes made the testers step back or aside.

A friend of mine builds exact copies of earliest guns and fires them the old way, using 500 year old powder recipes. The recoil is very hard, comparable to a 12 or 10 gauge shotgun with "nomal" loads and going worse with heavy ones. The testers had black shoulders after each time they tried.

Michael

[Ed]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Hi Ed,


In an earlier posting I mentioned the firing tests that the Landeszeughaus Graz carried thru with 400 year old guns, and gave the literature. An accompanying video shows the heavy recoil of the various pieces which sometimes made the testers step back or aside.



Michael

Can you point me to that posting/video?

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by fernando

I don't have the slightest doubt that you know more about this subject while you are asleep than most people awake, and i thank you a lot for your patience and teachings. Only there are positions to consider; for example Bernahrd Rietsche states without hesitation that the Pilsen specimen was a clear example of a wooden hook being a primary solution to recoil. I assume you have read his article ... have i made a wrong reading ? So i was misguided by such source. And as Daehnhardt has aproached the same problematic of the wooden hook fragility, i assumed it made sense.
The Daehnhardt's gun is an Indian item... not necessarily an example of European haquebus expertize. Allright, it has an atypical design and you say such stock could never work; noted.
But ironically, every wooden hook experiments, after time, ended up failing.
But i bother you no more. Now it's my turn to say: enough said

With respect.
Fernando

Fernando, have you seen the pictures of the Pilsen gun mentioned by Bernhard Rietsche that I posted? It was the short rectangular iron lug protruding from the underside that would soften the recoil, not the lug of wood; the last was only for support to rest the gun comfortably.
It looks as if the short iron lug was originally a hook and broken off or shortened later.
In any case it had the function of a wall hook.

I am afraid that Herr Riestche had overlooked that detail.

With my respect and best wishes,
Michael

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Fernando, have you seen the pictures of the Pilsen gun mentioned by Bernhard Rietsche that I posted? It was the short rectangular iron lug protruding from the underside that would soften the recoil, not the lug of wood; the last was only for support to rest the gun comfortably.
It looks as if the short iron lug was originally a hook and broken off or shortened later.
In any case it had the function of a wall hook.

I am afraid that Herr Riestche had overlooked that detail.

With my respect and best wishes,
Michael

Duly noted Michael,
I must say that the part of this topic that has mainly raised my curiosity was whether indeed the first generation of harquebus recoil hooks was made of wood ... even soon to be assumed they were doomed to failure.
Fernando

[Matchlock]

Fernando,

Unfortunately I have no knowledge of

- any original illustration from the Gothic period

- any photo of a doubtlessly original piece

- any existing piece that is undoubtedly original comprising barrel and stock

with a "wooden hook".


I will, however, ask Herr Rietsche about his reference and report to you.

Best,
Michael

[Matchlock]

Of course this is a long gun (German: Gewehr, Arkebuse or Langwaffe or arquebus, as, in English, handgun means a pistol or revolver (German: Faustfeuerwaffe).

Michael

[Matchlock]

The Word's Oldest Known surviving gun, ca. 1390-1410,
fitted with the earliest tinderlock mechanism,

and preserved in

The Michael Trömner Collection

Reattached here find an important contemporary and dated illustration.
The manuscript containing it is dated 1410, and the gun is almost identical to the author's sample, showing excaclty the same proportions, the very same sleeve of thin iron uniting the oaken tiller stock with the short octagonal barrel; even the slanted rear end of the stock is the same on both the drawing and the author's gun.
The illustration does not yet depict a lock mechanism, or a barrel hook.
Both were obviously not known by 1410, and are, as stated, working time technical amendments on the existing gun as well.

As stated formerly, hooks do not show up in contemporary illustrations before ca. 1430-40:

...


Michael Trömner
Rebenstr. 9
93326 Abensberg
Germany

All photos copyrighted by the author.

[Helleri]

Wondering about the use of the term "hand gun" in this context. Were they generally refereed to as such at the time these were made? Are these the direct ancestors of modern handguns? Is it just that it's the best generalized term we can apply to them modernly?