ALGERIAN KABYLE MUSKET for Comment

[Philip]

Originally Posted by rickystl

Hi Philip.

Change came very slowly in this part of the World.

.

Rick

So true. Consider the use of the Indo-Portuguese snap matchlock in China and Japan as one example. Introduced in the first half of the 16th cent, still being made as late as the 1870s. A colleague who is an expert on historical archery (both research and shooting) pointed out that those Oriental cultures with highly developed composite-recurved bows in their shooting culture were understandably slow in making a total commitment to firearms because their bows could outshoot just about any smoothbore musket in terms of:
1. rate of fire
2. effective range (a strong Turkish bow can cast an arrow in excess of 800 yd)
3. projectile speed (arrows shot from Korean flight bows have been clocked at around 1000 fps)
4. projectile energy (an arrow weighing about 800 g shot from a Manchu bow of about 100# pull weight (medium for one of these) or more could penetrate most chain mail.
5. field accuracy -- LtGen Wm Warre, observing Portuguese and French cavalry skirmishing during the Peninsular War, wrote: "...Our people and theirs were constantly within 30 yd of one another firing with no effect, ...neither party had any idea of fear." The weapons of course were flintlock carbines and pistols. Officer candidates in the Chinese military exams were expected to hit targets at a gallop within that range with their bows. Up to 20-25 yards, it apparently made little difference in accuracy if you were using a smoothbore, or a strong bow if you're shooting from a moving horse.

The big strikes against archery were
1. Bows of this performance level, and arrows of sufficient quality, were expensive to produce and not amenable to mechanized production.
2. An inordinate amount of training was needed for proficiency -- in these cultures, archers learned in childhood and practiced through their teens in order to be ready for military service in the mounted units. Recruits in basic training can be taught to use a smoothbore flintlock to the limits of its performance capability in a week or so.

As breechloading rifles and revolvers spread via trade and colonization in the 19th cent., and new national armies built of conscription became more important than a hereditary military caste (or slave-soldiers as in the case of the Mamluks and Janissaries), only then did the armies of the East fall into line with Western equipment and training standards.

[estcrh]

Here is one that has not been seen before as far as I know.

[corrado26]

what a wonderful piece

[rickystl]

Originally Posted by corrado26

what a wonderful piece

I second that comment!! Wonderful piece. I especially like the decorated IRON ramrod. Obviously made with the gun. Usually the ramrods are wood. Often with the fron third wrapped in brass.
A couple other interesting items on these Algerian long guns. The stocks are made only 2/3rds length, and the lock plates are only about half way inlet into the stocks. And every one I've seen are built this way.

Rick

[Philip]

Originally Posted by rickystl

I second that comment!! Wonderful piece. I especially like the decorated IRON ramrod. Obviously made with the gun. Usually the ramrods are wood. Often with the fron third wrapped in brass.
A couple other interesting items on these Algerian long guns. The stocks are made only 2/3rds length, and the lock plates are only about half way inlet into the stocks. And every one I've seen are built this way.

Rick

Rick, on a lot of these better-grade Algerian guns, the front of the ramrod is sheathed in silver as well, worked in the same designs.

I've also wondered about the 2/3 length stock on these. Actually it's a very practical design. Notice that the wood is more substantial in front than, say, the forestocks on Moroccan and Indian guns so less prone to cracking and splintering. Better insulation for your hand, too, if you're shooting repeated volleys and the barrel starts heating up in the desert sun! And a shorter forestock means slightly less weight up front so the gun has a nicer balance.

As re the lock plates (and notice that these are very thick to handle the forces generated by the massive spring), I'm looking at James D Lavin's "Spanish Agujeta-lock Firearms" and the 17th cent. Catalán predecessors to these Algerian locks all have similar thick beveled-edge plates, and on the guns they definitely sit proud of the surrounding wood. More interestingly, this element seems to be directly carried over from the earlier wheellocks made in the same area of Spain.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by rickystl

I second that comment!! Wonderful piece. I especially like the decorated IRON ramrod. Obviously made with the gun. Usually the ramrods are wood. Often with the fron third wrapped in brass. Rick

Originally Posted by Philip

Rick, on a lot of these better-grade Algerian guns, the front of the ramrod is sheathed in silver as well, worked in the same designs.

Rick, Philip, a quick check revealed that the ramrod is a silver sheathed wood rod. So who exactly owned these more elaborate guns, they must have been fairly well off.

[rickystl]

Originally Posted by Philip

So true. Consider the use of the Indo-Portuguese snap matchlock in China and Japan as one example. Introduced in the first half of the 16th cent, still being made as late as the 1870s. A colleague who is an expert on historical archery (both research and shooting) pointed out that those Oriental cultures with highly developed composite-recurved bows in their shooting culture were understandably slow in making a total commitment to firearms because their bows could outshoot just about any smoothbore musket in terms of:
1. rate of fire
2. effective range (a strong Turkish bow can cast an arrow in excess of 800 yd)
3. projectile speed (arrows shot from Korean flight bows have been clocked at around 1000 fps)
4. projectile energy (an arrow weighing about 800 g shot from a Manchu bow of about 100# pull weight (medium for one of these) or more could penetrate most chain mail.
5. field accuracy -- LtGen Wm Warre, observing Portuguese and French cavalry skirmishing during the Peninsular War, wrote: "...Our people and theirs were constantly within 30 yd of one another firing with no effect, ...neither party had any idea of fear." The weapons of course were flintlock carbines and pistols. Officer candidates in the Chinese military exams were expected to hit targets at a gallop within that range with their bows. Up to 20-25 yards, it apparently made little difference in accuracy if you were using a smoothbore, or a strong bow if you're shooting from a moving horse.

The big strikes against archery were
1. Bows of this performance level, and arrows of sufficient quality, were expensive to produce and not amenable to mechanized production.
2. An inordinate amount of training was needed for proficiency -- in these cultures, archers learned in childhood and practiced through their teens in order to be ready for military service in the mounted units. Recruits in basic training can be taught to use a smoothbore flintlock to the limits of its performance capability in a week or so.

As breechloading rifles and revolvers spread via trade and colonization in the 19th cent., and new national armies built of conscription became more important than a hereditary military caste (or slave-soldiers as in the case of the Mamluks and Janissaries), only then did the armies of the East fall into line with Western equipment and training standards.

Hi Philip.

Now that's an interesting bit of history. Thanks for posting. I'll save that.

Rick