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

[fernando]

Hi Michael,

Originally Posted by Matchlock

... which actually defines a haquebut (German: Hakenbüchse) was an invention of the first half of the 15th century ...

I wonder about paralel situations, like the picture i am posting here, of a large Malabar 'Esmerilhão' (Merlin); considered an early stage exemplar ( XV-XVI century transition), due to still being equiped with a wooden hook. Having been found that this type of hooks broke easily with the kick of the gun against bulwarks and battlements, they started making them in iron, still in the beginning of the XVI century.
Text and gun from the great collection of Rainer Daehnhardt, as illustrated in his work 'Homens Espadas e Tomates' (1997).

Fernando

.

[fernando]

Also amazing is that this Malabar example doesn't have a firing mechanism, having to be ignited manualy.
What can you tell us about this, Michael ?
Any correction to its dating ?
Fernando

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by fernando

Hi Michael,



I wonder about paralel situations, like the picture i am posting here, of a large Malabar 'Esmerilhão' (Merlin); considered an early stage exemplar ( XV-XVI century transition), due to still being equiped with a wooden hook. Having been found that this type of hooks broke easily with the kick of the gun against bulwarks and battlements, they started making them in iron, still in the beginning of the XVI century.
Text and gun from the great collection of Rainer Daehnhardt, as illustrated in his work 'Homens Espadas e Tomates' (1997).

Fernando

.

Hi Fernando,

Sorry to have to destroy a possible myth but Rainer Daehnhardt's gun is far from being European and/or early 16th century.

The barrel is clearly Indian, 18th/19th centuries, the stock is a crude modern reproduction missing only the tiniest touch of original German style...

Mind: hooks were never parts of the stocks but only of the iron barrels! Otherwise they would have made no sense at all.

Michael

[fernando]

Hi Michael, thanks a lot for your coments.

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Sorry to have to destroy a possible myth but Rainer Daehnhardt's gun is far from being European and/or early 16th century.

As you will notice, i have quoted that the gun is from the Malabar (Southwest India) and not from Europe.

Originally Posted by Matchlock

The barrel is clearly Indian, 18th/19th centuries, the stock is a crude modern reproduction missing only the tiniest touch of original German style...

If you say so i will have no doubt ... but i don't think he ever said it is of German style either.

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Mind: hooks were never parts of the stocks but only of the iron barrels!

So i must assume this stock shape never existed ?

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Otherwise they would have made no sense at all.

Sorry for my ignorance, but i don't understand; what is the difference between the hook being placed in the stock or in the barrel ? doesn't it prevent the firing impact (kick back) in both cases ?




Sorry Michael, but these are all doubts from a layman like me. I am not worried about this specimen being a mith, nor about Daehnhardt's sincerity; i don't like helping to build gurus. But i need to be sure to myself that this thing is a fake ... to the extent that i can tell it in his face when i see him.

Thanks again
Fernando

[Ed]

I think that the shearing force of the recoil would break off the hook unless it was heavily reinforced. Of course, a metal hook is simly a reinforced wooden one without the wood.

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by Ed

I think that the shearing force of the recoil would break off the hook unless it was heavily reinforced. Of course, a metal hook is simly a reinforced wooden one without the wood.

You are doubtlessly right, Ed: a wooden hook set against a castle wall with the muzzle sticking out the fire slit would not have stood the immense recoil. Mind that the barrels at those times were filled up with (poor) black powder by two thirds of their length!

Michael

[Matchlock]

Hi Fernando,

Let's cut a long story short:

You are right in assuming that this type of hooked stock originally never existed - neither in India nor in Europe.

The one that you illustrated must be modern, for what purpose ever.

As Ed supposed, a wooden hook would never have stood the recoil - please see my reply of today to his posting. This is due to the graining of the wood.

Calling this crude phantasy stock a fake would imply a bad intention on the maker's side. I do not mean to put a suspicion on anyone. This is not what this forum is for, I believe.

Just do not take this gun for an original, enough said.

Michael

[fernando]

Hi Michael

Originally Posted by Matchlock

... Calling this crude phantasy stock a fake would imply a bad intention on the maker's side. I do not mean to put a suspicion on anyone. This is not what this forum is for, I believe.

I am sorry for my lack of diplomacy ... or education, if you prefer.
But good faith fits in this Forum as it fits anywhere. If a person quotes an item as an early specimen, implicitely omitting it is a replica or a modern reproduction, such person is lacking transparency ... here or anywhere in the world. I know this author for some ten years; i don't think he has a necessity to 'sell cat for hare'. I can allways find a way, with the best of my diplomacy (?), to ask him why the specimen support text drives us to beleive the gun is an original, when it is not.

My respects
Fernando

[Ed]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Mind that the barrels at those times were filled up with (poor) black powder by two thirds of their length!

Michael

Yes but it would never have combusted.

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by Ed

Yes but it would never have combusted.

???!!!
Please help my aged mind along, Ed!
Michael

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Ed

I think that the shearing force of the recoil would break off the hook unless it was heavily reinforced. Of course, a metal hook is simly a reinforced wooden one without the wood.

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

[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