Ottoman matchlock examples.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Yep
Also during the 19th a lot of flintlocks have been turn into percussion.
We can assume also that a lot of matchlocks have been turn into flintlocks...

Kuber, the same could be said for Indian matchlocks as well but somehow many of those have survived, there has to be a better reason why so few Ottoman matchlocks are still around.

Here is some interesting information on the influence of the Ottomans on Indian firearms, it is surprising that the Indian matchlock does not look more like the Ottoman version. I do know of one matchlock that is supposed to be Indian but has an distinctly Ottoman look.

Indian matchlock gun, probably late 18 to early 19 C. 47 inch barrel forged from fine twisted steel (Damascus), with a makers mark and decorated with gold inlay work (worn). Wood stock mounted with steel plates, decorated with ivory inserts and ivory butt . Chiseled muzzle, barrel is reinforced to the stock with bands of leather strips (added later), length 62 inches. The barrel looks older than the stock, probably a secondary use for it, the stock is repaired at the tip.

Ottoman influence of Indian firearms. "The Heirs of Archimedes: Science and the Art of War Through the Age of Enlightenment", by Brett D. Steele, MIT Press, 2005.

[rickystl]

Hi Estcrh.
What an interesting question, and topic for discussion. I've never really thought of it till now. But you're right. I've seen only a handful or less of photos of matchlocks that can be identified as Ottoman. We know from historical records that the matcklocks were used by the Ottomans in large quantities. But as you ask: Where did they go? I don't know. A really good question. Yes, you would think more examples would still exist. I can't even come up with a good theory. LOL.
We know the Ottomans adopted the flintlock, in miquelet form very early after it's introduction. That could account for some of the lack of matchlock specimens today. And converting matchlocks to miquelet may account for some more. And most of the Ottoman Empire firearms I've seen in person or photos all seem to be from the 19th or late 18th Century. So that might also be taken into account. But all that doesn't really answer the question of why SO FEW Ottoman matchlock specimens remain today. You have my brain tied in knots trying to come up with a logical answer. Hmmmmm.
One thing interesting to note about these matchlocks: Wheather Ottoman, Arab, Indian, etc., the trigger/bar to serpentine mechanism are virtually identical on every specimen I've seen. I've never seen one of these guns with a late style European or Japanese style "snapping" matchlock mechanism. So that style must have been consider reliable enough to become standardized accross the Empire.
Rick.

[eftihis]

Nice subject! These 2 are from a German museum.

[eftihis]

And i also found these 2.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by eftihis

And i also found these 2.

Eftihis, the second one is questionable, I have seen it but??? Ottoman barrel remounted maybe?

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by eftihis

Nice subject! These 2 are from a German museum.

Eftihis, thanks for adding your images, the first three I showed are also from a German museum (Museumslandschaft Hessen Kassel). Its not like I have not looked hard and long for additional images, I have even used all manner of variations of words to search including Turkish. I have read that there are now more examples of Ottoman matchlocks preserved outside of Turkey than are left inside of Turkey due to being captured during various wars and being put into museums. If this is true there should be more to find.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by eftihis

Nice subject! These 2 are from a German museum.

Do you happen to have any more images, perhaps larger sizes, especially the full sized ones?

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by rickystl

One thing interesting to note about these matchlocks: Wheather Ottoman, Arab, Indian, etc., the trigger/bar to serpentine mechanism are virtually identical on every specimen I've seen. I've never seen one of these guns with a late style European or Japanese style "snapping" matchlock mechanism. So that style must have been consider reliable enough to become standardized accross the Empire.
Rick.

Rick your right, all of the south east asia matchlocks (Japan, Vietman, Malaysia) were based on the ones made in Goa India which used the short lived European (Bohemian) version of the snap matchlock but the Indians used the Ottoman style matchlock as did the Arabs.

When the Japanese first saw the matchlocks that the Portuguese brought with them to Japan in 1543 they had nothing else to base their own version on. There is some evidence that the Chinese prefered the Ottoman style matchlocks.

"Science among the Ottomans: The Cultural Creation and Exchange of Knowledge", Miri Shefer-Mossensohn, University of Texas Press, Oct 15, 2015.

[estcrh]

Here is another one that is in a German museum, I found it by using a German search term (luntenschlossgewehr Osmanisch), this is an unusual example as it is a combination matchlock and miquelet lock.

This Ottoman rifle is one of the few preserved in the Dresden armory from the relief of Vienna. It was captured at the battle of September 12, 1683 and a year later given as a gift to the Elector Johann Georg III. This weapon has a double lock system. It is equipped with both the ancient matchlock as well as an Ottoman snap lock, both have their own trigger, and can thus be operated separately. This peculiarity of the rifle can be regarded as evidence of a time of change within the Ottoman army, in which more and more innovations from Europe (now militarily superior) were adapted. Length 139 cm, Weight 5418 g.

[estcrh]

Another unusual example from the same German museum, the maker of this one seems to have attempted to add a European flair to the stock, usually it was the Europeans that tried to copy the Ottoman designs. Overall length 147.3 cm, Weight 3512 g.

[rickystl]

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.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by rickystl

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.

Rick, here is a reference that dates the use of flintlocks by the Ottomans to the "late 16th century", it also states that the matchlock was used "well into the 17th century". I have read that the Ottomans started using matchlocks from the late 15th century/very early 16th century. This would indicate around two hundred years of matchlock use. It looks like the matchlock and flintlock/miguelet co-existed for quite some time.

"Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire", Ga ́bor A ́goston, Bruce Alan Masters, 2009.