A fine Nuremberg matchlock Landsknecht harquebus, dated 1539

[Pukka Bundook]

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.

[Matchlock]

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

[Matchlock]

I attach images of my earliest snap tinder lock with a lateral push button release, ca. 1510-15.

It was in heavily rusty excavated condition when I got it, with the cock frozen in the cocked position (!) - and still the one armed spring had retained much of its original tension ...

A close before/after comparison should illustrate that the long time and careful restoration work has really saved the extremely rare piece.

Michael

[Matchlock]

The barrel struck with the maker's mark of Peter Hofkircher, Styria.

The lock with part plate of brass, only for the serpentine cock. The blackened full stock of limewood, with the muzzle section of the barrel left unstocked. The ramrod channel drilled a bit out of the middle to avoid contact with the recoil hook.

The whole piece photograped standing upright against a row of matchlock wall pieces of mid 16th to early 16t centruy dates.

Michael

[Pukka Bundook]

Good morning Michael.

Your excavated lock looks wonderful now. the 'before' pic. looks like it was about ready for the junk pile!
Brilliant job in saving the 'life' of such an early and rare lock!

The wall gun by Peter Hofkircher has some very interesting details.
Can you tell me why the short lock-plate, with spring nailed to the stock,...when locks were being made with all parts mounted on the plate before this date? Economy measure?

What calibre would such a wall-gun be?
The off-set ramrod hole makes sense, but is it not rare for a wall-gun to be fitted with a ramrod?
I thought I knew a little bit about matchlocks, but the more I learn, the less I know!

I also note the use of limewood, It appears to have been rather common for stocks at this time.
What characteristics does limewood posess, to make it desirable for gunstocks?
Is it very resistant to splitting like beech, or some other property?

I find it fascinating that limewood will still give off its aroma after 450 years!

looking at the row of wall-guns, the butt-stocks look as varied as can be! it would appear that the artist was coming out in the men who did the stocking.
Those with a very narrow butt-stock would be I think, rather painful to fire,...except for the wall hook.

You do give me much to ponder!...

R.

[Matchlock]

Hi Richard,

I am afraid there is no certain reason for employing so-called part lock mechanisms at a time period when complete lock mechanisms were known long since. It may have been a regional thing, like an old arsenal armorer who may have preferred to cling to a form that he had become familiar with.
Generally, during the first half of the 16th century, both 'obsolete' and 'modern' forms are found side by side.

The overall length of the Hofkircher wall gun is 179 cm, the relatively small bore is 15,7 mm, the weight 6,7 kg, so there is really no need for a hook and the piece is quite light for a wall gun.

It is very unsual for an early 16th century wall gun to be fiited with an ramrod, indeed, while there are many heavy pieces known from the mid-17th century to have their ramrods mounted to the left side of the stock, held by small iron pipes.

As to the use of limewood, it is said to be easy to work on and quite tough at the same time. And - exactly, it does retain its beautiful aroma!

A great variety of butt-stocks is found at the mid 16th century.

Michael

[Matchlock]

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