![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 803
|
![]()
Thanks for your reply, Michael.
In the pictures above, I could not decide if the stock was being held against the shoulder or not. To me, it looked short, as though it was being held in the hands, and not against the shoulder. This may be just the artists impression, and makes it rather difficult to say for sure. If your gun is long enough in the stock to fit aginst the shoulder, then this is very good information to have! (even if the stock is rather short for a modern man,,,) A Q. re. the rests the guns are fired from in the above paintings; I see in each of the pictures, the plank of the rest is half-lapped in the centre, and bound with iron. Do you know if they were joined such as an aid in transporting them? I cannot think they each had a join like this simply because the planks were too short. Thank you again for your time! Richard. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking
Posts: 4,310
|
![]()
You are right, Richard,
Short harquebuses usually have very short buttstocks mostly meant be held in the firer's hands in front of his breast. My Straubing harquebus is an exception from that rule in having a rather long buttstock while its pal, still preserved at the Straubing museum, is proportioned perfectly. Maybe mine was stocked for a guy with longer arms. Like you, I have often wondered because of those Maximilian rests. I am not able to solve the problem, sorry. Your command of physics is much better than mine, no doubt about that. Michael |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 803
|
![]()
Michael,
Thank you for again answering my questions re. buttstock lengths. I know of no other source I could turn to for this information! Thank you for sharing details on early butt-plates, as I was in the dark about these as well! Maybe the Maximilian rests must remain a mystery....and a mystery it is, how each one is joined in exactly the same manner. All the best, R. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking
Posts: 4,310
|
![]()
Richard,
I am afraid that no one ever cared for such minuteae (in fact, Jim's gotta be credited my for teaching me that charmin' Latin word - hope I spelt it right; I used to be good at Latin at grammar school but forgot most of it by now ... ![]() We do, though ... ![]() m |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking
Posts: 4,310
|
![]()
... at the Brukental Museum, Sibiu/Romania.
The scans taken from very bad prints in a 1970's Romanian catalog. Michael |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 803
|
![]()
Michael,
These locks appear to be the most "rustic" I've seen whilst still having all the essentials of a matchlock mechanism! I think it is more the blacksmith construction than anything, as these snapping mechanisms appears of sound enough design. By the stocks, it looks like they have been badly neglected for a very long time! I see an exclamation mark after the calibre of the first one, (12mm) I sometimes think we might miss important details if we don't take note of your notes! This does appear a rather small bore. Is this very rare? The last lock appears of a rather advanced design, with it's trigger sear, yet the quality of work seems very provincial. In a way, One would think it was a lock similar to this that the Japanese copied forever.....except their springs were never up to much! You really do post some interesting stuff! Can you tell me Michael; The snap-lock with button on the side-plate, Is the button pressed with the thumb? I have never had hold of one, so must ask! Also, The Snap-locks often work the opposite way to a sear lock, the cock moving forward to the pan. Is this for ease in cocking?, or because the cock snapping down into the pan could send powder back over the fence into the firer's eyes, if made with the cock snapping backwards into the pan?........or some other reason? Thanks again, and please forgive my questions! R. Last edited by Pukka Bundook; 7th December 2008 at 03:12 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking
Posts: 4,310
|
![]()
Richard,
I knew that would get you started. ![]() As you remarked perfectly, the early harquebuses used to have rather small bores, ca. 12 mm. As there are so few around it is vey rare indeed to find one of such small caliber. I also fully agree with you in that the stocks do look rather provincial. I think maybe Romania had the barrels and locks delivered from Nuremberg and other manufacturing centers while the stocks were home made. As to pressing the lateral push button trigger, this was quite certainly done with the index finger, just as in later trigger development. Using the index finger allows one to keep quite a good grip of the stock with the thumb and the rest of the hand. I am afraid that my own pondering has not led to any different explanations of the snap lock cocks moving either backwards of forwards into the pan than those considered by you. I think the old gunmakers were just trying, offering both methods to be tested by the shooters. Thank you again for all these brilliant questions, Michael |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|