Re: The oldest known handgun in existence, ca. 1400-10

Matchlock · 21st October 2008, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

This thread has gotten me to thinking.

I wonder how bad the recoil was for these little guns.

Lets think about it a bit together.

- The actual charge of black powder was limited. Filling a barrel all the way might not result in greater velocity/force for the projectile than filling it 1/8 of the way. This is directly related to recoil.

- there was not a fine ball to bore fit, couldn't be. This would result in lowered velocity and recoil.

- it isn't clear that using modern powders for testing is appropriate.

These are sorta random thoughts that bear on the basic question of the reality of using vey early handguns.

If there were a way to really duplicate the performance I could run some live tests out back.

Hi Ed,

The old black powder was, as I noted, quite poor in performance. Of course, there was one or more rolling balls used but then followed by a heavy wad, often a wooden plug; so the recoil must have been hard. Hadn't it been very hard there would have been no need for hooks.

In an earlier posting I mentioned the firing tests that the Landeszeughaus Graz carried thru with 400 year old guns, and gave the literature. An accompanying video shows the heavy recoil of the various pieces which sometimes made the testers step back or aside.

A friend of mine builds exact copies of earliest guns and fires them the old way, using 500 year old powder recipes. The recoil is very hard, comparable to a 12 or 10 gauge shotgun with "nomal" loads and going worse with heavy ones. The testers had black shoulders after each time they tried.

Michael

Ed · 22nd October 2008, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Hi Ed,

In an earlier posting I mentioned the firing tests that the Landeszeughaus Graz carried thru with 400 year old guns, and gave the literature. An accompanying video shows the heavy recoil of the various pieces which sometimes made the testers step back or aside.

Michael

Can you point me to that posting/video?

Matchlock · 22nd October 2008, 08:02 PM

Done, Ed.

Michael

fernando · 22nd October 2008, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Done, Ed.

Michael

Can i also be contemplated, please ?

Fernando

Matchlock · 23rd October 2008, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

Can i also be contemplated, please ?

Fernando

Sorry, Fernando, and all of you,

Here are the details of the catalog and video, and the contact.

Maybe the URL will not work; I do not know how to copy it.

Matchlock · 23rd October 2008, 08:18 PM

Fernando,

I hope to be able now and sort out the qestion if there were wooden hooks to guns. Let's stick closely to terms, meaning that a hook has to look like a hook and a lug is - well, a lug.

In his Park Land Arms Fair catalog article, Bernhard Rietsche refers to ZHWK, vol. 2, 1900-1902, pp. 119. This article by Paul Sixl is based on the Pilsen guns and solely refers to the piece that I posted twice above, and a third time below, with the large wooden base to its underside. In fact, Sixl does not call this a "hook" but attributes its function to absorbing the recoil. He writes that pressing the heavy piece down on its rest must have reduced the kick back.

He also mentions a historical drawing in Vienna codex ms. 53 (actually, in his first quote in ZHWK vol. I, 1897-1899, p. 182, he calls it codex ms 55) arguing that the stock of that drawing was absolutely identical ("in voller Übereinstimmung") to the one in Pilsen.

Let's check out the two pieces ourselves. Here is the Pilsen gun once more, contrasted to the gun from the Vienna codex.

Not only is there almost no similarity, let alone "identity" between their stocks, the Vienna gun has in fact no wooden lug or "hook" at all. So this argument is missing any base.

Things remain the same they used to be:
There is no original historical source evidence of the existence of "wooden hooks".
What makes the Pilsen gun special is the big wooden lug on its underside that was certainly used to rest the heavy handgun (Sixl gives its length with 130 cm and its weight with 10,37 kg) e.g. on a wall. This lug alone was doubtlessly apt to soften the recoil a bit, but, as I pointed out before, it does clearly have a rudimentary iron lug protruding from the underside which must have served as the real recoil stop. It may even be the rest of a regular hook.
The Pilsen gun is not really an example for a wooden hook.

Only iron hooks could stand the recoil and prevent the wood from being heavily damaged. It cannot be categorically excluded that heavy wooden lugs were the first stage in recoil prevention, but if so, they were certainly not "hooks", and it was not for long. The next stage were iron hooks nailed thru the stock (as is the case in the Berne gun) oder drawn over the barrel and rivited, as in my piece. From ca. 1440-50 we know both the earliest illustrated sources and various surviving haquebut barrels with integral fire welded wrought iron hooks. Bronze barrels had cast hooks, of course.

Michael

fernando · 24th October 2008, 02:05 AM

Hi Michael,
Thanks a lot for investigation and consequent revelations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matchlock

... Let's stick closely to terms, meaning that a hook has to look like a hook and a lug is - well, a lug ...
... He writes that pressing the heavy piece down on its rest must have reduced the kick back ...
... There is no original historical source evidence of the existence of "wooden hooks".

Allright, no wooden hooks

.
Now, if you allow me the impertinence ...
What if we don't (strictly) stick to terms ?
Like if we are flexible to the extent that when we mention hook, this may as well be a figure of speech; after all, hooks have so many shapes ... i mean, what instead of mentioning hook, we just call it a 'device', comprehending hooks, lugs, stumps, when they all serve the same purpose?!
If you allow me the correlation, i was reading about the appearance of the stock in portable firearms; the author reminds us that, after all, the stock is ( or also is) an implement to absorb the recoil.
Is this 'reasoning' any 'reasonable' ?
I know, in this case the human shoulder, or chest, plays the role of the wall.
This is what happens when you pay attention to laymen

.
If you don't have any more patience, just send me to that part

.
Fernando

Matchlock · 27th October 2008, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Sorry, Fernando, and all of you,

Here are the details of the catalog and video, and the contact.

Maybe the URL will not work; I do not know how to copy it.

I have been informed that the video is sold out.

Those who are interested in the catalog (in German but the measurement results like muzzle velocity, impact etc. are perfectly understood and there are lots of b/w photos) please email:

infopoint@museum-joanneum.at

The link should work this time.

Michael

Spiridonov · 16th November 2008, 08:34 PM

what is the calibre of handgonne with matchlock? what is the barrel length?
Barreel is 6 or 8 meshes?

22nd October 2008, 08:02 PM	#3
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Graz catalog and VHS video Done, Ed. Michael

23rd October 2008, 08:18 PM	#6
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Were recoil support hooks on guns made of wood? Fernando, I hope to be able now and sort out the qestion if there were wooden hooks to guns. Let's stick closely to terms, meaning that a hook has to look like a hook and a lug is - well, a lug. In his Park Land Arms Fair catalog article, Bernhard Rietsche refers to ZHWK, vol. 2, 1900-1902, pp. 119. This article by Paul Sixl is based on the Pilsen guns and solely refers to the piece that I posted twice above, and a third time below, with the large wooden base to its underside. In fact, Sixl does not call this a "hook" but attributes its function to absorbing the recoil. He writes that pressing the heavy piece down on its rest must have reduced the kick back. He also mentions a historical drawing in Vienna codex ms. 53 (actually, in his first quote in ZHWK vol. I, 1897-1899, p. 182, he calls it codex ms 55) arguing that the stock of that drawing was absolutely identical ("in voller Übereinstimmung") to the one in Pilsen. Let's check out the two pieces ourselves. Here is the Pilsen gun once more, contrasted to the gun from the Vienna codex. Not only is there almost no similarity, let alone "identity" between their stocks, the Vienna gun has in fact no wooden lug or "hook" at all. So this argument is missing any base. Things remain the same they used to be: There is no original historical source evidence of the existence of "wooden hooks". What makes the Pilsen gun special is the big wooden lug on its underside that was certainly used to rest the heavy handgun (Sixl gives its length with 130 cm and its weight with 10,37 kg) e.g. on a wall. This lug alone was doubtlessly apt to soften the recoil a bit, but, as I pointed out before, it does clearly have a rudimentary iron lug protruding from the underside which must have served as the real recoil stop. It may even be the rest of a regular hook. The Pilsen gun is not really an example for a wooden hook. Only iron hooks could stand the recoil and prevent the wood from being heavily damaged. It cannot be categorically excluded that heavy wooden lugs were the first stage in recoil prevention, but if so, they were certainly not "hooks", and it was not for long. The next stage were iron hooks nailed thru the stock (as is the case in the Berne gun) oder drawn over the barrel and rivited, as in my piece. From ca. 1440-50 we know both the earliest illustrated sources and various surviving haquebut barrels with integral fire welded wrought iron hooks. Bronze barrels had cast hooks, of course. Michael Attached Images

16th November 2008, 08:34 PM	#9
Spiridonov Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Russia, Leningrad Posts: 355	what is the calibre of handgonne with matchlock? what is the barrel length? Barreel is 6 or 8 meshes?