Ottoman matchlock examples.

Pukka Bundook · 17th December 2015, 02:39 PM

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!

rickystl · 19th December 2015, 08:46 PM

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.

rickystl · 19th December 2015, 09:10 PM

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.

rickystl · 19th December 2015, 09:27 PM

I posted these guns earlier this year, but thought I would just add this to the "conversion" mentions here in this Thread.
First is a typical Ottoman rifle. What's interesting is the gun originally had a slightly larger miquelet lock. Possibly due to damage the lock was changed to a slightly smaller miquelet lock back in the period. And wood was added to fill the gaps, but was professionally done. You can hardly tell.

Second is an Afghan Jazail whose barrel started life as a matchlock. The matchlock pan was removed, and the gun re-stocked using a flintlock.

So many of these guns were likely in a constant state of repair and re-furbishing.

Rick.

Pukka Bundook · 21st December 2015, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickystl

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.

Rick,

I'm a bit confused by these re-enactors findings re. speed of ignition.
A normal matchlock with a scear -bar can be very fast indeed, certainly the speed of a flintlock.
Re the snapping matchlock;
Many if not most, of these are in fact earlier than the scear-type.
If you go to European forum here, you can see untold amounts of matchlocks, in threads started by Matchlock, (sadly with us no more) and others.
Snapping matchlocks were used for target shooting into the late 17th century, but these were for specific matches, and shot Very well indeed!
Often these took a live coal, rather than matchcord for ignition.

Best,
Richard.

eftihis · 21st December 2015, 11:09 AM

A very old example from the Greek museum of Jannina (north Greece)

rickystl · 24th December 2015, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

Rick,

I'm a bit confused by these re-enactors findings re. speed of ignition.
A normal matchlock with a scear -bar can be very fast indeed, certainly the speed of a flintlock.
Re the snapping matchlock;
Many if not most, of these are in fact earlier than the scear-type.
If you go to European forum here, you can see untold amounts of matchlocks, in threads started by Matchlock, (sadly with us no more) and others.
Snapping matchlocks were used for target shooting into the late 17th century, but these were for specific matches, and shot Very well indeed!
Often these took a live coal, rather than matchcord for ignition.

Best,
Richard.

Hi Richard!
Well, your thoughts were the same as mine when I first heard this mentioned. He did say the later sear-activated matchlocks do indeed have a faster ignition speed. But he preferred the earlier lever-activated style for two reasons that I recall: 1. After firing, release of the trigger on the lever style returns the serpantine/matchcord back to it's original positon, giving greater access for cleaning the pan and vent hole if necessary. 2. The matchcord on the sear operated requires more frequent length adjusting.
So, I think he was saying the lever style is more forgiving than the sear activated locks. Maybe this is what he meant by "control" ? But I would think that would be a small price to pay for faster ignition time. Maybe just a matter of what you get use to.

I just recalled the conversation while we were talking about mechanisms. It is curious that the Ottoman/Arab/Indian style matchlocks never adopted the latter sear activated mechanisms. At least I've never seen one.
The only sear activated locks I've personally fired is my own Japanese one. (Which has an additional learning curve LOL). So it will be interesting to try out a lever activated one once my Torador barrel is finished.
Rick.

Pukka Bundook · 26th December 2015, 04:00 PM

Rick,

The terms we use are at crossed purposes;

With a crossbow or a matchlock, the lever used to be called a scear. This may have been confusing, so I will use the term 'lever'.
The first guns with a lock of any description, was a match -holder attached to the side of the stock, and as you pulled the lower extension backwards, the match lowered forward into the priming.
After this, the Snapping matchlock came into fashion, and in this the serpentine, (match holder) also fell forward into the pan when the button, usually on the side of the stock, was pressed.
After this, the more usual matchlock with the 'lever' came into general use, and in these the serpentine is mounted the other way around, so it falls backwards to-wards the breech as the lever is pressed.
This last style was held in supply (military use) into the early 18th century, but for practical purposes was not used much by the last decade of the 17th C.
The One exception to this is that in Germany and related countries, the snapping matchlock or tinder-lock was retained for certain target matches well into the 18th C.
In the East, and Middle East, the matchlock that went along with the first explorers, appeared to be the earlier snap-lock, and this is what we often see copied by the Japanese & far East. The Indian and Persian locks appear an amalgamation, as the match falls forward as does the snap -lock, but has a trigger usually, rather than the scear bar/lever.
I am guilty in the above of generalizing for the sake of brevity.

All the best and a late happy Christmas!!
Richard.
PS,
I too really fancy making a snapping matchlock! I think one that fired and rebounded to the cocked or even a half -cock position would be interesting.
I did make a European /English one a long time ago, but it had the more usual -to-us trigger rather than the long scear bar.

rickystl · 29th December 2015, 05:39 PM

Hi Richard.

And a belated Merry Christmas to you too !!!

That's a very good explanation of the matchlock developement. I'm often guilty of using over-generalized/wrong terms when discussing these guns.

Sort of like talking to myself. LOL
Basically, what I was refering to is the earlier style of lowering the serpantine/matchcord to the pan by moving the lever/button, either slow or fast depending on hand speed verus the latter by just squeezing the trigger, as normally associated with most firearms. Sort of tough to explain. But you probably know what I mean (although others might not ? LOL ).

Shooting the Japanese matchlock has a special learning curve besides firing from the cheek vs the shoulder. Even at full-cock position, the serpantine and thus the match sits VERY close to the pan. It's easy for a hot coal from the match to drop in the pan and the gun go off unexpectingly! (Don't ask how I know this LOL ). Anyway, I degress. I'm getting too far away from the subject of this Thread - which has been great fun !!! Thanks to all who participated.
Rick.

p.s. There is another curiosity with these Ottoman style rifles that is still a mystery to me. But I'll start a new Thread this week after taking a couple photos.

19th December 2015, 09:27 PM	#4
rickystl Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: St. Louis, MO area. Posts: 1,630	I posted these guns earlier this year, but thought I would just add this to the "conversion" mentions here in this Thread. First is a typical Ottoman rifle. What's interesting is the gun originally had a slightly larger miquelet lock. Possibly due to damage the lock was changed to a slightly smaller miquelet lock back in the period. And wood was added to fill the gaps, but was professionally done. You can hardly tell. Second is an Afghan Jazail whose barrel started life as a matchlock. The matchlock pan was removed, and the gun re-stocked using a flintlock. So many of these guns were likely in a constant state of repair and re-furbishing. Rick. Attached Images

21st December 2015, 11:09 AM	#6
eftihis Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Chania Crete Greece Posts: 511	A very old example from the Greek museum of Jannina (north Greece) Attached Images

26th December 2015, 04:00 PM	#8
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Rick, The terms we use are at crossed purposes; With a crossbow or a matchlock, the lever used to be called a scear. This may have been confusing, so I will use the term 'lever'. The first guns with a lock of any description, was a match -holder attached to the side of the stock, and as you pulled the lower extension backwards, the match lowered forward into the priming. After this, the Snapping matchlock came into fashion, and in this the serpentine, (match holder) also fell forward into the pan when the button, usually on the side of the stock, was pressed. After this, the more usual matchlock with the 'lever' came into general use, and in these the serpentine is mounted the other way around, so it falls backwards to-wards the breech as the lever is pressed. This last style was held in supply (military use) into the early 18th century, but for practical purposes was not used much by the last decade of the 17th C. The One exception to this is that in Germany and related countries, the snapping matchlock or tinder-lock was retained for certain target matches well into the 18th C. In the East, and Middle East, the matchlock that went along with the first explorers, appeared to be the earlier snap-lock, and this is what we often see copied by the Japanese & far East. The Indian and Persian locks appear an amalgamation, as the match falls forward as does the snap -lock, but has a trigger usually, rather than the scear bar/lever. I am guilty in the above of generalizing for the sake of brevity. All the best and a late happy Christmas!! Richard. PS, I too really fancy making a snapping matchlock! I think one that fired and rebounded to the cocked or even a half -cock position would be interesting. I did make a European /English one a long time ago, but it had the more usual -to-us trigger rather than the long scear bar. Attached Images

17th December 2015, 02:39 PM	#1
Pukka Bundook 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!

19th December 2015, 08:46 PM	#2
rickystl Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: St. Louis, MO area. Posts: 1,630	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.

19th December 2015, 09:10 PM	#3
rickystl Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: St. Louis, MO area. Posts: 1,630	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.

29th December 2015, 05:39 PM	#9
rickystl Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: St. Louis, MO area. Posts: 1,630	Hi Richard. And a belated Merry Christmas to you too !!! That's a very good explanation of the matchlock developement. I'm often guilty of using over-generalized/wrong terms when discussing these guns. Sort of like talking to myself. LOL Basically, what I was refering to is the earlier style of lowering the serpantine/matchcord to the pan by moving the lever/button, either slow or fast depending on hand speed verus the latter by just squeezing the trigger, as normally associated with most firearms. Sort of tough to explain. But you probably know what I mean (although others might not ? LOL ). Shooting the Japanese matchlock has a special learning curve besides firing from the cheek vs the shoulder. Even at full-cock position, the serpantine and thus the match sits VERY close to the pan. It's easy for a hot coal from the match to drop in the pan and the gun go off unexpectingly! (Don't ask how I know this LOL ). Anyway, I degress. I'm getting too far away from the subject of this Thread - which has been great fun !!! Thanks to all who participated. Rick. p.s. There is another curiosity with these Ottoman style rifles that is still a mystery to me. But I'll start a new Thread this week after taking a couple photos.