The match lock of Leonardo da Vinci

Dmitry · 27th July 2010, 10:54 PM

*

Spiridonov · 28th July 2010, 12:01 PM

sacrilege

Jim McDougall · 28th July 2010, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spiridonov

sacrilege

?

Matchlock · 28th July 2010, 07:55 PM

I think I can assist in helping understand my friend Alexander: I'm sure with sacrilege he meant that the original load of powder was fired. If that were so indeed I would fully support his meaning.

Well, the photo shows the author and collector Merrill Lindsay (One Hundred Great Guns), who died some 20 years ago. The photo is taken from his less known book The Lure of Guns (1976). Unfortunately his own collection which was auctioned at Christie's revealed lots of failures due his not really experienced collector's eye.

Unforunately, the text does not refer to this photo, as often in his books. Lindsay bought that wrought iron barrel he is shown firing as an excavated find and I am sure he cleaned it very thoroughly as was his usage. In doing so I am absoutely sure he took out the original powder load. I once did the same with of my fine Munich haquebut barrel dated 1481 and have kept the load as kind of sacred ever since. Nevertheless, I tried to lit a small portion of it. Well, nothing happened. It was meal powder, of course. Not only had it gone wet and dried again many times of its 500 year history, its main substances had also become unmixed. So all it did was sparkle and bizz a litlle bit, but far from going up whoosh like a rocket.

To cut a long story short, I am far from believing that Lindsay used the original load for one reason or another. If we start from that presumption I think we should not call it a sacrilege - unless Alexander meant the fact of firing a 500 year old barrel. In that case I would say it is up to him how he feels about it.

Best,
Michael

Jim McDougall · 28th July 2010, 08:13 PM

Thanks for explaining. Im sure this must have been quite apparant to those well versed in guns, but for novices like me we need more than a single word to get the meaning.

Dmitry · 28th July 2010, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Well, the photo shows the author and collector Merrill Lindsay (One Hundred Great Guns), who died some 20 years ago. The photo is taken from his less known book The Lure of Guns (1976).

Indeed.
I applaud your knowledge, sir!

Spiridonov · 28th July 2010, 10:12 PM

Michael, I see that some of the barrels of 15 th century were found charged. So I want to ask you. What is the mass of powder was charged? What type of wad was used? What was the diameter of the bullet? Was the double wad (Before the bullet and behind the bullet) ore single wad? On example of your barrel or Merrills barrel if you know it.
Best wishes, Alexander.

Matchlock · 29th July 2010, 06:41 PM

Oh Alexander,

It is true that 30 years of close studying have greatly added to my special knowledge; still I am afraid I'm not onmiscient.

1. There was certainly no 'average' powder measure for each charge. In older sources we read that that the earliest 14th century barrels were loaded almost up to the muzzle so that the ball could literally be seen. Some of the Steinbüchsen of ca. 1400 which I recently posted, with their short actual barrels (Flug) and rather long powder breeches, seem to suggest a barrel length of ca. 2-3 balls imagined to be placed one above the other. No sure aiming ...

2. We know very little, if any, about wadding. Presumably in the 14th and 15th centuries, there was little or no wadding at all and most probably consisted of wooden or hemp plugs. There are illustrative sources of ca. 1400 showing a small stone gun (Steinbüchse) standing upright while being loaded by two men, with the ball seen at the muzzle and plugged by wooden wedges hammered in. This would mean that early plugging of loads actually meant plugging or wadding the ball rather than the powder load.

3. Concluding from the calibers of the earliest preserved barrels (Loshult and Berne guns and others but NOT Tannenberg!) we may assume that in those days, the average caliber of a small handgun was about 3 to 4.5 cm - cf. my earliest small stone ball I posted a few weeks ago. In the course of the 15th century, it narrowed down to ca. 1.5 to 2.0 cm.

4. Following what I said in paragraph 2, I believe that both waddings of the powder measure and double waddings were not common to the 14th and 15th centuries. No felt or hemp waddings are known before the early 16th century; I do have some felt plugs in my collection but cannot date them any closer than '16th to 18th century'. I have never had the chance to extract a wadded loading of an original barrel earlier than the beginning of the 17th century, and that was felt plugging the powder measure and separating it from the lead ball which again was wadded by a bunch of hemp and in some times, printed paper. With the arrival of paper cartridges in the first half of the 16th century it became wide use to rip off the ball with the teeth, pour the measure of powder down the barrel, 'spit' the rolling ball right after it, crumble the paper and put it in the muzzle as a wadding and then just ram the whole load down with two or three stomps of the ramrod.

5. The actual load of powder I extracted from my 1481 haquebut barrel was not very much indeed, maybe 50 grams. I guess it was just the remnants of a bigger original load which, together with the missing ball, had fallen out long time ago. It would therefore be mere conjecture to make a section drawing.
You will see it all within a few weeks anyway, you lucky devil!

Best wishes,
Michael

27th July 2010, 10:54 PM	#1
Dmitry Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 607	* Attached Images

28th July 2010, 07:55 PM	#4
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Sacrilege I think I can assist in helping understand my friend Alexander: I'm sure with sacrilege he meant that the original load of powder was fired. If that were so indeed I would fully support his meaning. Well, the photo shows the author and collector Merrill Lindsay (One Hundred Great Guns), who died some 20 years ago. The photo is taken from his less known book The Lure of Guns (1976). Unfortunately his own collection which was auctioned at Christie's revealed lots of failures due his not really experienced collector's eye. Unforunately, the text does not refer to this photo, as often in his books. Lindsay bought that wrought iron barrel he is shown firing as an excavated find and I am sure he cleaned it very thoroughly as was his usage. In doing so I am absoutely sure he took out the original powder load. I once did the same with of my fine Munich haquebut barrel dated 1481 and have kept the load as kind of sacred ever since. Nevertheless, I tried to lit a small portion of it. Well, nothing happened. It was meal powder, of course. Not only had it gone wet and dried again many times of its 500 year history, its main substances had also become unmixed. So all it did was sparkle and bizz a litlle bit, but far from going up whoosh like a rocket. To cut a long story short, I am far from believing that Lindsay used the original load for one reason or another. If we start from that presumption I think we should not call it a sacrilege - unless Alexander meant the fact of firing a 500 year old barrel. In that case I would say it is up to him how he feels about it. Best, Michael Last edited by Matchlock; 28th July 2010 at 09:27 PM.

28th July 2010, 12:01 PM	#2
Spiridonov Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Russia, Leningrad Posts: 355	sacrilege

28th July 2010, 08:13 PM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,190	Thanks for explaining. Im sure this must have been quite apparant to those well versed in guns, but for novices like me we need more than a single word to get the meaning.

28th July 2010, 10:12 PM	#7
Spiridonov Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Russia, Leningrad Posts: 355	Michael, I see that some of the barrels of 15 th century were found charged. So I want to ask you. What is the mass of powder was charged? What type of wad was used? What was the diameter of the bullet? Was the double wad (Before the bullet and behind the bullet) ore single wad? On example of your barrel or Merrills barrel if you know it. Best wishes, Alexander.

29th July 2010, 06:41 PM	#8
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Oh Alexander, It is true that 30 years of close studying have greatly added to my special knowledge; still I am afraid I'm not onmiscient. 1. There was certainly no 'average' powder measure for each charge. In older sources we read that that the earliest 14th century barrels were loaded almost up to the muzzle so that the ball could literally be seen. Some of the Steinbüchsen of ca. 1400 which I recently posted, with their short actual barrels (Flug) and rather long powder breeches, seem to suggest a barrel length of ca. 2-3 balls imagined to be placed one above the other. No sure aiming ... 2. We know very little, if any, about wadding. Presumably in the 14th and 15th centuries, there was little or no wadding at all and most probably consisted of wooden or hemp plugs. There are illustrative sources of ca. 1400 showing a small stone gun (Steinbüchse) standing upright while being loaded by two men, with the ball seen at the muzzle and plugged by wooden wedges hammered in. This would mean that early plugging of loads actually meant plugging or wadding the ball rather than the powder load. 3. Concluding from the calibers of the earliest preserved barrels (Loshult and Berne guns and others but NOT Tannenberg!) we may assume that in those days, the average caliber of a small handgun was about 3 to 4.5 cm - cf. my earliest small stone ball I posted a few weeks ago. In the course of the 15th century, it narrowed down to ca. 1.5 to 2.0 cm. 4. Following what I said in paragraph 2, I believe that both waddings of the powder measure and double waddings were not common to the 14th and 15th centuries. No felt or hemp waddings are known before the early 16th century; I do have some felt plugs in my collection but cannot date them any closer than '16th to 18th century'. I have never had the chance to extract a wadded loading of an original barrel earlier than the beginning of the 17th century, and that was felt plugging the powder measure and separating it from the lead ball which again was wadded by a bunch of hemp and in some times, printed paper. With the arrival of paper cartridges in the first half of the 16th century it became wide use to rip off the ball with the teeth, pour the measure of powder down the barrel, 'spit' the rolling ball right after it, crumble the paper and put it in the muzzle as a wadding and then just ram the whole load down with two or three stomps of the ramrod. 5. The actual load of powder I extracted from my 1481 haquebut barrel was not very much indeed, maybe 50 grams. I guess it was just the remnants of a bigger original load which, together with the missing ball, had fallen out long time ago. It would therefore be mere conjecture to make a section drawing. You will see it all within a few weeks anyway, you lucky devil! Best wishes, Michael