Ottoman matchlock examples.

[David R]

Regarding India continuing with the Matchlock as late as it did, 'till the late 19th or even early 20th century, I understood it to be because of a lack of native deposits of flint.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by eftihis

The first one looks a bit ottoman in design, what do you think? (the one with the goat hairy skin). The other looks like re-stocked ottoman barel?

Eftihis, the first one does have an Ottoman shape to it. The barrel you posted looks Ottoman to me, it seems to have all of the inlay removed.

[Pukka Bundook]

David R,

I have heard exactly the same reason for the long usage of the matchlock in India.

Eric,
The photos you posted of the breeches at the bottom of page 1, show new 'tin' attached on some of the miquelet examples. This Must be to cover up the slot for the former matchlock serpentine. The new tin-work is not up to the standard of the rest of the gun, so must be there for this reason.
If I had one of these conversions, I'd be prying said tin up a bit and having a look!
Eftihis,
You barrel does look like a re-used Ottoman barrel, tired but still Ottoman. :-)

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

The photos you posted of the breeches at the bottom of page 1, show new 'tin' attached on some of the miquelet examples. This Must be to cover up the slot for the former matchlock serpentine. The new tin-work is not up to the standard of the rest of the gun, so must be there for this reason.
If I had one of these conversions, I'd be prying said tin up a bit and having a look!

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.

[estcrh]

A few more examples.

[Pukka Bundook]

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.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

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.

I agree, there would have to be a metal cover plate or inlay etc to cover up the slot left in a matchlock conversion. You can barely see some inlay on the miquelet you thought may be a conversion so it could have been a matchlock at one time, unfortunately there are no direct images of this area. At least we know that if someone does have an Ottoman miquelet that is solid wood underneath were the trigger is located that is was not a conversion.

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.

[Pukka Bundook]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[rickystl]

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]

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]

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.

[Pukka Bundook]

I look forward to your new thread & questions Rick, as I have a few of my own!

[archaeologist]

Does anyone have info or comment on the butt form - rounded cross section vs octagonal? When/where do we get that transition? Am I right in thinking the octagonal butts are typical of slightly later Turkish flintlocks?

[Pukka Bundook]

Good morning Archaeologist,

I believe you are right, in that the faceted butt appears to be a Turkish design. As for dates, it appears we can find Turkish stocks of this style going back a very long way, into the 17th century at any rate, and up to the 19th C.

I think the round or oval stocks are more Persian, and these too were made over a very long period, and up into the 19th C.
My understanding (very imperfect!) is that the two stock types co-existed over the same time period, in different areas.

Then of course we get into the "Spheres of influence" and as these spheres came and went, fashion in arms would change as well, and not at all helpful to us!
I stand ready to be corrected in the above, but at present that is as it appears to me. :-)

Best,
Richard.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by archaeologist

Does anyone have info or comment on the butt form - rounded cross section vs octagonal? When/where do we get that transition? Am I right in thinking the octagonal butts are typical of slightly later Turkish flintlocks?

Unfortunately images of early Ottoman guns are rare, in fact this is as far as I know the largest collection of such images ever discussed. From what I can see, the early Ottoman matchlock/flintlock butt was not nearly as flaired out as the later ones, that is just a personal thought based on the images I have seen.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

Good morning Archaeologist,

I believe you are right, in that the faceted butt appears to be a Turkish design. As for dates, it appears we can find Turkish stocks of this style going back a very long way, into the 17th century at any rate, and up to the 19th C.

I think the round or oval stocks are more Persian, and these too were made over a very long period, and up into the 19th C.
My understanding (very imperfect!) is that the two stock types co-existed over the same time period, in different areas.

Then of course we get into the "Spheres of influence" and as these spheres came and went, fashion in arms would change as well, and not at all helpful to us!
I stand ready to be corrected in the above, but at present that is as it appears to me. :-)

Best,
Richard.

Richard, when looking for Ottoman matchlock images I found that Persian examples were even more rare, I do not remember seeing a Persian matchlock and only a few Persian flintlocks. I believe this image shows an Ottoman gun next to a Persian one.

[Pukka Bundook]

Eric,

I believe you are right in your assessment of the last photo, one Persian, and one Ottoman.
I believe that Manouchehr has photos of Persian matchlocks in his series on Persian arms, in "Classic Arms" magazine.
These pictures will undoubtedly be published again in his book, which will be appearing very soon now.

As you say, Persian matchlocks are Very thin on the ground. We keep bringing this up, in the hopes that someone can shed light on why this is the case, but we keep drawing blanks!
All I can come up with, is that they were traded off, or at least the barrels were, going into India, Afghanistan, and over in Oman when the Persian armed forces were modernised on the Western pattern.
This may be all horsefeathers, but it's all I can think of at present!

Best,
Richard.

[galvano]

link galvano

http://vikingsword.com/vb/showthread...oman+matchlock

[cyten]

Just adding to the reference

[bobi13]

here is also from my archive.

[bobi13]

Here is also from my archive.

[cyten]

One with provenance: A 16th century example that belonged to Bogdan Yakoblevich Belsky