![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO area.
Posts: 1,633
|
![]()
WOW!! Great photos and Thread here. Thanks for Posting.
Estcrh: Some comments on the last two gun photos above. First Photo: Since this gun with both matchlock and flintlock can be dated to at least 1683, does seem to offer evidence of the Ottomans use/experimentation with the miquelet flintlock early on. Almost a transistional piece. It also makes complete sense from a shooters perspective. A warrior could enter a battle with the flintlock primed, at full cock, and ready to fire. But also, the match cord could be lit and ready should the flintlock fail to ignite the priming charge due to a dull flint. The match cord could immediatly be lowered to fire the gun with little extra movement. Also, the flintlock with priming in the pan only (no load in the barrel) would be a quick and efficient way to lite the match cord before loading the barrel. So either or both systems could be used depending on the circumstances. Actually, a very clever system for the period. Super cool gun from both a shooters and historical perspective. Also, I note the ramrod construction for this piece is very similar to early European style matchlocks. Second Photo: Another really interesting Ottoman gun. Similar to a pre-1650 style English fish tail butt stock. Also note the rear sight. Done in the European style, and positioned just ahead of the breech area like European matchlocks versus the "peep" style rear sight positioned at the rear of the breech as was common with most Ottoman guns. Rick. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,492
|
![]() Quote:
"Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire", Ga ́bor A ́goston, Bruce Alan Masters, 2009. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,492
|
![]()
Here are a couple of close up images from Eftihis, one shows what look like a small brass tube attached to the stock for a pricker to clean the primer pan hole. The others show the inlay and channels cut into the barrel and the stock inlay.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 803
|
![]()
These images were from an Italian auction house earlier this year;
Not a matchlock, but worth looking at! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,492
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,492
|
![]()
Topkapı Palace Museum.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 803
|
![]()
Eric,
It could very well be that the above arms with miquelet type locks could have been converted from matchlock. It would really take very little effort, and with a new panel of decoration where the serpentine came through the stock, would not really show at all. Another thing I am thinking about, is the Omani matchlocks we see with very fine early barrels, (17th C and a bit later) We know these were not made in Oman, so, were they re-purposed Ottoman or Persian barrels, salvaged and re-used in later years? I believe these barrels were Persian, but if so, Did Ottoman recycled arms meet the same fate? (Of being stripped down & barrels sent to another country for re-use? (Could explain the lack of original Ottoman examples.....) What thinkest thou? Richard. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|