A fine Nuremberg matchlock Landsknecht harquebus, dated 1539

Matchlock · 27th March 2009, 05:27 PM

A 1530's matchlock harquebus with blued iron parts, brass tunnel back sight and heavily swamped muzzle section, the stock left 'in the white'!!!!

Detail of a painting of the Resurrection by Simon Franck, ca. 1540, in the basilica of Aschaffenburg/Northern Bavaria.

Michael

Jim McDougall · 29th March 2009, 02:44 PM

I have been meaning to focus on these wonderful threads by Michael one at a time and try to learn more on these medieval firearms, and today was one of those opportunities. I am such a neanderthal when it comes to the dynamics and complexities of firearms, that much of it is difficult for me to connect...however in reading the brilliant discourse between Michael and Richard it seems remarkably understandable.
Its like textbook medieval firearms with two brilliant professors presenting a completely captivating course, and with Michael's amazing photos, its as if I am looking upon and handling the actual weapons.

In reading this, my only observations and questions are admittedly elementary, but I will state anyway.
It does seem like the Thirty Years war did bring many innovations and changes in weapons production, along with obviously profound other effects and influences in many perspectives. I had never thought of exactly how long an element so simple as a buttplate had been around, and now I can better realize its purposes as well. I have always had an addiction to discovering such details and minutiae (thank you Michael for the note on that word !

and it seems that often such seemingly irrelevant things can offer important clues in investigating weapons and thier developmental forms.

Excellent observations ,Richard on the screws, as noted by Michael (I think we should have a thread, no pun intended

on screws as used in early weapons). I think we have discussed this briefly on screws used on sword hilts, but need to look more into the topic.

I cannot help but wonder on these larger wall gun versions, if there was any problem with recoil. Would these have been like cannon used in naval situations, using lower charges due to closer quarters as the targets were so close? I am under the impression that firing these early firearms that the detonation on relatively uncompressed powder would not have produced very much recoil...would that be somewhat correct?

Thank you so much guys for continually developing this fascinating field of study here!!!

All very best regards,
Jim

Matchlock · 29th March 2009, 06:06 PM

Hi Jim,

I cannot but thank you very very much for your kind lines.

Actually my passion feeds on such a brilliant counter part like Richard, whose demanding thoughts and questions really get me going.

I have been thinking abouth a thread on the 500 years in the development of screws in European fine mechanics and posted a few pictures some months ago. I need to take more and better pictures but it is not forgotten.

In discussing the bad recoil of wall guns one should bear in mind that the heavy weight of these pieces and the recoil hooks both acted as absorbers. On the other hand I can testify from my own experience that matchlock muskets kick quite hard too. I would compare their kick back to a 12 or 10 gauge shot gun.

With all my very best wishes,
Michael

Jim McDougall · 29th March 2009, 07:42 PM

Hi Michael,
I look forward to examining the detail on variations of screws used by armourers in those times. Its funny, it reminds me a lot of Sherlock Holmes describing his treatise on burned tobacco, which he seemed almost obsessed with. Watson then made his comment on minutiae!! which has been with me ever since

Good information on the recoil on these as well. I have not handled many firearms, so it is good to know that there was indeed recoil...ouch!
Thanks very much Michael.

All the best,
Jim

Matchlock · 30th March 2009, 12:21 AM

Ouch, Sherlock 'Jim' Watson

,

Over here in Germany, we got very rare chances to ever be allowed and actually fire a gun as guests in a shooters' club so that's about all I can attribute to the reality of things.

You seem to be so much luckier over there in the U.S.

All the best,
m

Jim McDougall · 30th March 2009, 01:46 AM

Well, first one I fired was cuz the sergeant told me I had too

the other time was out in the woods in Arkansas with an ex brother in law firing old flintlock muskets....pretty bizarre! But living in Texas....everybodys got a gun. Thats about it though.

Best
Jim

cannonmn · 25th December 2011, 09:54 PM

Jim, I'm not trying to pose as an expert in any sense, but looking at your question regarding recoil, I'd say the relative compaction of the powder isn't a major parameter in the recoil calculation, but certainly contributes to it in the form of whatever muzzle velocity the projectile obtains. If we are to believe the tests which have been done in recent years by very knowlegeable museum staff and others, there wasn't much difference in the muzzle velocities achieved by 16th. C. handgonnes and say smoothbore muskets of the 18th C., something like 450-550 m/s if memory serves.

Recoil is the result of the mass of the projectile and the velocity it obtains in the gun (m x v = momentum,) and is equal to the momentum of the projectile because that action has an equal and opposite reaction. The gonne is propelled rearward initially by the same momentum as the moving projectile has at the muzzle, but reduced by the mass of the whole gonne, which in those days was considerable (many were easily 50 pounds.) This resulted, I'm guessing, in a modest recoil since the relatively very heavy gonne starts rearward at a very low velocity compared to that of the projectile. The common belief is that the hook on the front of an arquebus or hackbut is necessary to convey the severe recoil to a solid wall or tripod, but I've always wondered about that. Perhaps if a gonner had to shoot the piece all day long in a siege situation, even a modest recoil would beat him up too much, thus the hook requirement.

Some of the early hand-cannons that had relatively large bores, and short, light barrels, with only an iron tiller to hold it may have been very hard on the shooter. If we assume that muzzle velocity didn't vary too greatly, then the ratio of projectile weight to total gonne weight would give a good indication of relative recoil.

Matchlock · 26th December 2011, 04:48 PM

John, I think it could not be said any better - thank you!

Best,
Michael

Matchlock · 24th March 2012, 03:59 PM

A piece of period artwork, by Reinhard Solms, ca. 1540, from his Kriegsbüchlein (war booklet).

Note both the characteristic tubular back sight - which on most original guns of that period is missing nowadays - and the shape of the butt stock.

m

Matchlock · 29th August 2014, 09:51 AM

For more information, and for important and finely preserved arms in
The Michael Trömner Collection

please cf. my threads:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showt...ght=pikes+swiss

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showt...highlight=pikes

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=18083

Best,
Michael Trömner

27th March 2009, 05:27 PM	#1
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	See what that sleeping Landsknecht guy has rested on his knees! A 1530's matchlock harquebus with blued iron parts, brass tunnel back sight and heavily swamped muzzle section, the stock left 'in the white'!!!! Detail of a painting of the Resurrection by Simon Franck, ca. 1540, in the basilica of Aschaffenburg/Northern Bavaria. Michael Attached Images

24th March 2012, 03:59 PM	#9
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	A piece of period artwork, by Reinhard Solms, ca. 1540, from his Kriegsbüchlein (war booklet). Note both the characteristic tubular back sight - which on most original guns of that period is missing nowadays - and the shape of the butt stock. m Attached Images Last edited by Matchlock; 24th March 2012 at 06:03 PM.

29th August 2014, 09:51 AM	#10
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	For more information, and for important and finely preserved arms in The Michael Trömner Collection please cf. my threads: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showt...ght=pikes+swiss http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showt...highlight=pikes http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=18083 Best, Michael Trömner Last edited by Matchlock; 29th August 2014 at 10:11 AM.

29th March 2009, 02:44 PM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	I have been meaning to focus on these wonderful threads by Michael one at a time and try to learn more on these medieval firearms, and today was one of those opportunities. I am such a neanderthal when it comes to the dynamics and complexities of firearms, that much of it is difficult for me to connect...however in reading the brilliant discourse between Michael and Richard it seems remarkably understandable. Its like textbook medieval firearms with two brilliant professors presenting a completely captivating course, and with Michael's amazing photos, its as if I am looking upon and handling the actual weapons. In reading this, my only observations and questions are admittedly elementary, but I will state anyway. It does seem like the Thirty Years war did bring many innovations and changes in weapons production, along with obviously profound other effects and influences in many perspectives. I had never thought of exactly how long an element so simple as a buttplate had been around, and now I can better realize its purposes as well. I have always had an addiction to discovering such details and minutiae (thank you Michael for the note on that word ! and it seems that often such seemingly irrelevant things can offer important clues in investigating weapons and thier developmental forms. Excellent observations ,Richard on the screws, as noted by Michael (I think we should have a thread, no pun intended on screws as used in early weapons). I think we have discussed this briefly on screws used on sword hilts, but need to look more into the topic. I cannot help but wonder on these larger wall gun versions, if there was any problem with recoil. Would these have been like cannon used in naval situations, using lower charges due to closer quarters as the targets were so close? I am under the impression that firing these early firearms that the detonation on relatively uncompressed powder would not have produced very much recoil...would that be somewhat correct? Thank you so much guys for continually developing this fascinating field of study here!!! All very best regards, Jim

29th March 2009, 06:06 PM	#3
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Hi Jim, I cannot but thank you very very much for your kind lines. Actually my passion feeds on such a brilliant counter part like Richard, whose demanding thoughts and questions really get me going. I have been thinking abouth a thread on the 500 years in the development of screws in European fine mechanics and posted a few pictures some months ago. I need to take more and better pictures but it is not forgotten. In discussing the bad recoil of wall guns one should bear in mind that the heavy weight of these pieces and the recoil hooks both acted as absorbers. On the other hand I can testify from my own experience that matchlock muskets kick quite hard too. I would compare their kick back to a 12 or 10 gauge shot gun. With all my very best wishes, Michael

29th March 2009, 07:42 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	Hi Michael, I look forward to examining the detail on variations of screws used by armourers in those times. Its funny, it reminds me a lot of Sherlock Holmes describing his treatise on burned tobacco, which he seemed almost obsessed with. Watson then made his comment on minutiae!! which has been with me ever since Good information on the recoil on these as well. I have not handled many firearms, so it is good to know that there was indeed recoil...ouch! Thanks very much Michael. All the best, Jim

30th March 2009, 12:21 AM	#5
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Ouch, Sherlock 'Jim' Watson , Over here in Germany, we got very rare chances to ever be allowed and actually fire a gun as guests in a shooters' club so that's about all I can attribute to the reality of things. You seem to be so much luckier over there in the U.S. All the best, m

30th March 2009, 01:46 AM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	Well, first one I fired was cuz the sergeant told me I had too the other time was out in the woods in Arkansas with an ex brother in law firing old flintlock muskets....pretty bizarre! But living in Texas....everybodys got a gun. Thats about it though. Best Jim

25th December 2011, 09:54 PM	#7
cannonmn Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 161	Jim, I'm not trying to pose as an expert in any sense, but looking at your question regarding recoil, I'd say the relative compaction of the powder isn't a major parameter in the recoil calculation, but certainly contributes to it in the form of whatever muzzle velocity the projectile obtains. If we are to believe the tests which have been done in recent years by very knowlegeable museum staff and others, there wasn't much difference in the muzzle velocities achieved by 16th. C. handgonnes and say smoothbore muskets of the 18th C., something like 450-550 m/s if memory serves. Recoil is the result of the mass of the projectile and the velocity it obtains in the gun (m x v = momentum,) and is equal to the momentum of the projectile because that action has an equal and opposite reaction. The gonne is propelled rearward initially by the same momentum as the moving projectile has at the muzzle, but reduced by the mass of the whole gonne, which in those days was considerable (many were easily 50 pounds.) This resulted, I'm guessing, in a modest recoil since the relatively very heavy gonne starts rearward at a very low velocity compared to that of the projectile. The common belief is that the hook on the front of an arquebus or hackbut is necessary to convey the severe recoil to a solid wall or tripod, but I've always wondered about that. Perhaps if a gonner had to shoot the piece all day long in a siege situation, even a modest recoil would beat him up too much, thus the hook requirement. Some of the early hand-cannons that had relatively large bores, and short, light barrels, with only an iron tiller to hold it may have been very hard on the shooter. If we assume that muzzle velocity didn't vary too greatly, then the ratio of projectile weight to total gonne weight would give a good indication of relative recoil.

26th December 2011, 04:48 PM	#8
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	John, I think it could not be said any better - thank you! Best, Michael