![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,492
|
![]() Quote:
When you compare the matchlocks to the miquelets there is a big difference in the locations of the triggers. The matchlock triggers are way farther back, if one of the miquelets were a converted matchlock there would have to be an empty slot were the matchlock trigger was previously located. The old matchlock trigger slot would have to be filled in or covered with a plate, seeing something like this would indicate a matchlock conversion I would think. Last edited by estcrh; 15th December 2015 at 01:20 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,492
|
![]()
A few more examples.
Last edited by estcrh; 15th December 2015 at 01:09 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 803
|
![]()
Eric,
Yes, the scear is further back on matchlocks, but took it for granted that many of these arms have inlays on the lower buttstock as well, and such could easily cover up the changed trigger position. Richard. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,492
|
![]() Quote:
Here is an image of the one with the tin plate that you thought may be a matchlock conversion. I also checked the Ottoman miquelet that I own, it is not a conversion as it is solid wood underneath. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 803
|
![]()
Eric,
Even on these that are Not conversions, the barrel could well be older, and re-stocked. So difficult to pin down, and no good for me to generalise! The one you show above with the tin plate; It (the tin) certainly isn't original, but that's all I can say! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO area.
Posts: 1,629
|
![]()
Hi Everyone. Been away from the Forum for a while. Busy time of the year. Whew!
What an interesting Thread this has been. Thank you Estcrh for starting same. It would be a relatively simple matter to convert the Ottoman matchlock to use a flintlock - espectially in miquelet form. It would require removal of the matchlock pan - which would likely leave evidence of the removal. Since there was no original wood removal from the Right panel of the matchlock, the miquelet lock could be inlet to the stock from scratch allowing perfect match-up with the original vent hole of the barrel. And since the trigger/bar of the matchlock was originally set further to the rear of the stock, a new slot could be cut just below the lock and a new trigger added to fire the miquelet. The mainspring of the miquelet lock being on the outside (vs inside like the traditional French style flintlock) requires Less wood removal. That's why the one gun posted above with both matchlock and miquelet locks would not be difficult to make. But you would think that any conversions would leave at least some kind of evidence of the change over?? Still, it doesn't explain the lack of Ottoman matchlock examples. I've now seen more Ottoman matchlock samples on this Thread than I've ever seen. LOL I do think that "part" of the reason is the Ottomans use of the miquelet very early on. But we also know the matchlock also continued in use. So to me, it's still a mystery why so few examples remain. ![]() Rick. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO area.
Posts: 1,629
|
![]()
A couple of interesting side notes from this Thread.
Flints: There are not only less flint mines in these areas, but the flint is of lesser quality than the English Black or French Amber flints. This may be one of the reasons why the flintlocks - in any form - either locally made or imported to the Region seem to have stronger mainsprings than their European counterparts. Matchlock Mechanisms: I had an interesting conversation with a re-enactor a few years ago. He said that while their group shoot both the lever/bar (earlier) and snapping (later) style matchlocks, most of the guys prefer the earlier lever style. He says that while the earlier style adds 2-3 seconds to ignition time, they have better control of the match and aiming the barrel. Interesting. That may be more recent evidence why the Ottoman/Arab/Indian style of matchlock mechanism persisted for so long. Rick. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|