What is the earliest contemporary description or illustration of a blunderbuss

dana_w · 26th September 2013, 03:33 PM

In a private message Miqueleter suggested that I check out Observations upon the History of Hand Firearms and their Appurtenances by Samuel Rush Meyrick Esq (1827). I've been able to locate a copy via Google Books.

The Dragon

The troops called Dragoons have been most absurdly said to have been so denominated from the Draconarii of the Romans They were raised about the year 1600 by the Mareschal de Brisac in order to be superior to the German Reiters who used the pistol to so much advantage On this account they had a more formidable weapon like a small blunderbus the muzzle of which being ornamented with the head of a dragon gave it its denomination and from this weapon those who used it were called dragoneers and dragoons Markham in his Souldier's Accidence printed in 1645 thus describes them The last sort of which our horse troops are composed are called Dragoons which are a kind of footmen on horsebacke and do now indeed succeed the light horsemen and are of singular use in all actions of warre their armes defensive are an open head piece with cheeks and a good buffe coat with deep skirts and for offensive amies they have a faire dragon fitted with an iron worke to be caryed in a belt of leather which is buckled over the right shoulder and under the left arme having a turnill of iron with a ring through which the piece runnes up and downe and these dragons are short pieces of sixteen inches in the barrel and full mus quet bore with fire locks by which he means wheel locks or snaphaunces also a belt with a flaske pryming box key and bullet bag and a good sword Grose who in his Military Antiquities has given a representation of a dragoon as he was equipped about ten years earlier erroneously infers that the weapon had its name from the troops Captain Cruso applies the designation dragoon to the lancier as well as the horseman who used a fire arm though this must have been an extension of the term confined to England In his Military Instructions for Cavalry published in 1632 he says There are two sorts of dragoons the pikeman and the musketeer The latter is to have a strap or bolt fastened to the stock of his musket almost from one end to the other by which being on horeback he hangeth it at his back his burning match and his bridle in his left hand The English appear from this in the first instance to have adopted the name and duty of the dragoon rather than his true equipments and compelled him to submit to the inconvenience of a match lock piece and the carrying of a burning match Sir James Turner seems to have formed his strange opinion from this fact his words being For what they got the denomination of dragoons is not so easy to be told but because in all languages they are called so we may suppose they may borrow their name from dragon because a musketeer on horseback with his burning match riding a gallop as many times he doth may something resemble that beast which naturalists call a fiery dragon This was the surmise of an English writer in the time of Charles the Second Pere Daniel who published his Mili9e Fran9aise in the time of Louis the Fifteenth imagines they were called dragons from the celerity of their motions and the rapidity with which they ravaged a country thereby resembling the fabulous monster of that denomination and a modern German writer gives this as the true origin of the name But a moment's reflection will show that it might equally as well have been applied to the mounted arque busiers and indeed a fortiori from their having been the first troops on horseback with fire arms A Manuscript in the Harleian library at the British Museum marked 6000 and entitled A brief Treatise of War &c by WT in the year of our redemption 1649 shows the equipments of dragoons at that period As for dragooniers they are to be as lightly armed as may be and therefore they are onlie to have as followeth calivers and powder flasks I would also have each dragoonier constantly to carrye at his girdle two swyn feathers or foot pallisades of four feet length and a half headed with sharp iron heads of six inches length and a sharp iron foot to stick into the ground for their defence whereas they may come to be forced to make resistance against horse This extract will account for the use of a larger species of fire arm than the dragon which had been their original weapon as it shows the necessity for it arose from the frequent use of dragoons when dismounted The dragon will be found among Skelton's engraved Illustrations.

dana_w · 26th September 2013, 09:58 PM

In 2011, the Colorado Gun Collectors Association published an article entitled Myths of the Blunderbuss, by Melvin Flanagan. The article was originally published in the American Society of Arms Collectors Bulletin #96 September 2007.

In the article Mr. Flanagan takes on the assertion by noted weapons historian and author Harold L. Peterson, that the Pilgrims did not have blunderbusses, and that the blunderbuss' flared muzzle had very little effect on the dispersion of shot.

Mr. Flanagan also mentions a “matchlock blunderbuss, traditionally thought to have been used in battle on the Zuiderzee in 1573, probably dates c.1600 and is in the Westfries Museum at Hoorn, no. K 31. A patent was granted to a Fenrick Theilmans of Echten on October 26, 1598 for a type of gun called a "Donderbus" that could be used on both land and sea and could shoot a pound of shot approximately 500 paces.”

The Colorado Gun Collectors Association host copies of the article here:

Part1: http://www.cgca.com/Documents/2011May.pdf
Part2: http://www.cgca.com/Documents/2011June.pdf

dana_w · 26th September 2013, 10:27 PM

I have been looking for examples of carbine like weapons with dragon-head shaped muzzles (Dragons?). This is the first that I have found.

It was exhibited at the Utah Gun Collectors Association October 2001 Gun Show, and labeled "Matchlock Carbine circa 1490".

http://www.ugca.org/ugca1001/ugca1001main.htm

Miqueleter · 27th September 2013, 04:10 AM

Dana

Don't know much about muzzle dragons, but early English blunderbusses, maybe. This early blunderbuss is all I have been able to find so far. Earlier than this, one needs to look toward the Netherlands and Germany, I think.

The image is poor quality because the image in the book is poor quality. It is from the "The Blunderbuss 1500-1900" by James D. Forman

[IMG]

[/IMG]

dana_w · 27th September 2013, 03:45 PM

Thanks Miqueleter! That may well turn out to be the “earliest contemporary description or illustration of a blunderbuss like weapon in England”. Is there any more information in the book about who made the blunderbuss, who owns it, or which museum it is in?

From the photo it looks like the blunderbuss has a doglock, so I did a few searches using the terms “blunderbuss”, “doglock” and “1650”. Here is what I found at Andrew Bottomley’s website. It was listed as sold.

A Very Rare early Flintlock Dog-Lock Blunderbuss with a brass barrel, manufactured by "TAYLOR" (probably Godfrey Taylor of London). Brass butt-plate, steel trigger guard, side nails and steel saddle bar. Godfrey Taylor worked in London Circa 1678-1701. Overall length 33 inches. The lock plate engraved with floral motifs and the name "Taylor". The heavy brass barrel struck at the breech with 3 proof marks, the first one is clearly "GT". Very good and completely "Untouched" condition. This is the first time that this item has been offered for sale since 1951. Ref 6901.

Miqueleter · 27th September 2013, 11:11 PM

Sorry, Dana, what you see image and caption-wise is all the info there is on the gun. No credits, citations, or end notes in the booklet. The lock does indeed have the back catch on the hammer "ala dog lock". However, there appears to be no steel (frizzen)spring-either missing or designed to be internal. Hard to tell. Where is Brian Godwin when you need him!

dana_w · 27th September 2013, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miqueleter

Sorry, Dana, what you see image and caption-wise is all the info there is on the gun. No credits, citations, or end notes in the booklet. The lock does indeed have the back catch on the hammer "ala dog lock". However, there appears to be no steel (frizzen)spring-either missing or designed to be internal. Hard to tell. Where is Brian Godwin when you need him!

Sad, sad, but maybe someone here will recognize it.... someday.

Miqueleter · 27th September 2013, 11:26 PM

Dana et al

A quick look in my Dutch firearms books revealed a musket of circa 1640 having a flintlock with the frizzen spring located on the interior of the lock. So perhaps that is the case with this blunderbuss lock. Just sayin'

Matchlock · 20th November 2013, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dana_w

Thanks Miqueleter! That may well turn out to be the “earliest contemporary description or illustration of a blunderbuss like weapon in England”. Is there any more information in the book about who made the blunderbuss, who owns it, or which museum it is in?

From the photo it looks like the blunderbuss has a doglock, so I did a few searches using the terms “blunderbuss”, “doglock” and “1650”. Here is what I found at Andrew Bottomley’s website. It was listed as sold.

A Very Rare early Flintlock Dog-Lock Blunderbuss with a brass barrel, manufactured by "TAYLOR" (probably Godfrey Taylor of London). Brass butt-plate, steel trigger guard, side nails and steel saddle bar. Godfrey Taylor worked in London Circa 1678-1701. Overall length 33 inches. The lock plate engraved with floral motifs and the name "Taylor". The heavy brass barrel struck at the breech with 3 proof marks, the first one is clearly "GT". Very good and completely "Untouched" condition. This is the first time that this item has been offered for sale since 1951. Ref 6901.

Hi Dana,

I have been aware of a British tendency to date their weapons way too early, including the people of the Royal Armouries Leeds. They often graciously overlook a later restocking!

Whilst the lock and barrel of this blunderbuss can safely be dated to the 1660's, the straight underline of the buttstock, with no trace of the former belly butt left (cf. the 1650's sample from your post #14 ), strongly indicates a timeline of of restocking of ca. 1680-90.
So this actually is a 1680's blunderbuss reusing an older barrel and lock!

Best,
Michael

26th September 2013, 10:27 PM	#3
dana_w Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Southeast Florida, USA Posts: 437	I have been looking for examples of carbine like weapons with dragon-head shaped muzzles (Dragons?). This is the first that I have found. It was exhibited at the Utah Gun Collectors Association October 2001 Gun Show, and labeled "Matchlock Carbine circa 1490". http://www.ugca.org/ugca1001/ugca1001main.htm Attached Images

27th September 2013, 04:10 AM	#4
Miqueleter Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Southern California Posts: 39	Dana Don't know much about muzzle dragons, but early English blunderbusses, maybe. This early blunderbuss is all I have been able to find so far. Earlier than this, one needs to look toward the Netherlands and Germany, I think. The image is poor quality because the image in the book is poor quality. It is from the "The Blunderbuss 1500-1900" by James D. Forman [IMG][/IMG]

27th September 2013, 03:45 PM	#5
dana_w Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Southeast Florida, USA Posts: 437	Thanks Miqueleter! That may well turn out to be the “earliest contemporary description or illustration of a blunderbuss like weapon in England”. Is there any more information in the book about who made the blunderbuss, who owns it, or which museum it is in? From the photo it looks like the blunderbuss has a doglock, so I did a few searches using the terms “blunderbuss”, “doglock” and “1650”. Here is what I found at Andrew Bottomley’s website. It was listed as sold. A Very Rare early Flintlock Dog-Lock Blunderbuss with a brass barrel, manufactured by "TAYLOR" (probably Godfrey Taylor of London). Brass butt-plate, steel trigger guard, side nails and steel saddle bar. Godfrey Taylor worked in London Circa 1678-1701. Overall length 33 inches. The lock plate engraved with floral motifs and the name "Taylor". The heavy brass barrel struck at the breech with 3 proof marks, the first one is clearly "GT". Very good and completely "Untouched" condition. This is the first time that this item has been offered for sale since 1951. Ref 6901. Attached Images Last edited by dana_w; 27th September 2013 at 11:26 PM.

26th September 2013, 03:33 PM	#1
dana_w Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Southeast Florida, USA Posts: 437	In a private message Miqueleter suggested that I check out *Observations upon the History of Hand Firearms and their Appurtenances by Samuel Rush Meyrick Esq (1827).* I've been able to locate a copy via Google Books. The Dragon The troops called Dragoons have been most absurdly said to have been so denominated from the Draconarii of the Romans They were raised about the year 1600 by the Mareschal de Brisac in order to be superior to the German Reiters who used the pistol to so much advantage On this account they had a more formidable weapon like a small blunderbus the muzzle of which being ornamented with the head of a dragon gave it its denomination and from this weapon those who used it were called dragoneers and dragoons Markham in his Souldier's Accidence printed in 1645 thus describes them The last sort of which our horse troops are composed are called Dragoons which are a kind of footmen on horsebacke and do now indeed succeed the light horsemen and are of singular use in all actions of warre their armes defensive are an open head piece with cheeks and a good buffe coat with deep skirts and for offensive amies they have a faire dragon fitted with an iron worke to be caryed in a belt of leather which is buckled over the right shoulder and under the left arme having a turnill of iron with a ring through which the piece runnes up and downe and these dragons are short pieces of sixteen inches in the barrel and full mus quet bore with fire locks by which he means wheel locks or snaphaunces also a belt with a flaske pryming box key and bullet bag and a good sword Grose who in his Military Antiquities has given a representation of a dragoon as he was equipped about ten years earlier erroneously infers that the weapon had its name from the troops Captain Cruso applies the designation dragoon to the lancier as well as the horseman who used a fire arm though this must have been an extension of the term confined to England In his Military Instructions for Cavalry published in 1632 he says There are two sorts of dragoons the pikeman and the musketeer The latter is to have a strap or bolt fastened to the stock of his musket almost from one end to the other by which being on horeback he hangeth it at his back his burning match and his bridle in his left hand The English appear from this in the first instance to have adopted the name and duty of the dragoon rather than his true equipments and compelled him to submit to the inconvenience of a match lock piece and the carrying of a burning match Sir James Turner seems to have formed his strange opinion from this fact his words being For what they got the denomination of dragoons is not so easy to be told but because in all languages they are called so we may suppose they may borrow their name from dragon because a musketeer on horseback with his burning match riding a gallop as many times he doth may something resemble that beast which naturalists call a fiery dragon This was the surmise of an English writer in the time of Charles the Second Pere Daniel who published his Mili9e Fran9aise in the time of Louis the Fifteenth imagines they were called dragons from the celerity of their motions and the rapidity with which they ravaged a country thereby resembling the fabulous monster of that denomination and a modern German writer gives this as the true origin of the name But a moment's reflection will show that it might equally as well have been applied to the mounted arque busiers and indeed a fortiori from their having been the first troops on horseback with fire arms A Manuscript in the Harleian library at the British Museum marked 6000 and entitled A brief Treatise of War &c by WT in the year of our redemption 1649 shows the equipments of dragoons at that period As for dragooniers they are to be as lightly armed as may be and therefore they are onlie to have as followeth calivers and powder flasks I would also have each dragoonier constantly to carrye at his girdle two swyn feathers or foot pallisades of four feet length and a half headed with sharp iron heads of six inches length and a sharp iron foot to stick into the ground for their defence whereas they may come to be forced to make resistance against horse This extract will account for the use of a larger species of fire arm than the dragon which had been their original weapon as it shows the necessity for it arose from the frequent use of dragoons when dismounted The dragon will be found among Skelton's engraved Illustrations. Attached Images

26th September 2013, 09:58 PM	#2
dana_w Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Southeast Florida, USA Posts: 437	In 2011, the Colorado Gun Collectors Association published an article entitled Myths of the Blunderbuss, by Melvin Flanagan. The article was originally published in the American Society of Arms Collectors Bulletin #96 September 2007. In the article Mr. Flanagan takes on the assertion by noted weapons historian and author Harold L. Peterson, that the Pilgrims did not have blunderbusses, and that the blunderbuss' flared muzzle had very little effect on the dispersion of shot. Mr. Flanagan also mentions a “matchlock blunderbuss, traditionally thought to have been used in battle on the Zuiderzee in 1573, probably dates c.1600 and is in the Westfries Museum at Hoorn, no. K 31. A patent was granted to a Fenrick Theilmans of Echten on October 26, 1598 for a type of gun called a "Donderbus" that could be used on both land and sea and could shoot a pound of shot approximately 500 paces.” The Colorado Gun Collectors Association host copies of the article here: Part1: http://www.cgca.com/Documents/2011May.pdf Part2: http://www.cgca.com/Documents/2011June.pdf

27th September 2013, 11:11 PM	#6
Miqueleter Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Southern California Posts: 39	Sorry, Dana, what you see image and caption-wise is all the info there is on the gun. No credits, citations, or end notes in the booklet. The lock does indeed have the back catch on the hammer "ala dog lock". However, there appears to be no steel (frizzen)spring-either missing or designed to be internal. Hard to tell. Where is Brian Godwin when you need him!

27th September 2013, 11:26 PM	#8
Miqueleter Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Southern California Posts: 39	Dana et al A quick look in my Dutch firearms books revealed a musket of circa 1640 having a flintlock with the frizzen spring located on the interior of the lock. So perhaps that is the case with this blunderbuss lock. Just sayin'