Matchlock Arquebus

[fernando]

Originally Posted by fernando

Please send me those pictures Simon; just to see what we can do with them !
fernando@vikingsword.com

Pictures resized to uploadable parameters:

.

[gbxfb]

Many thanks to Fernando for posting my pictures, and to Michael for his
reply to my last post.

When I bought this piece I realized that I was probably buying an old barrel,
which I hoped was significantly older than the Mid 17th Century it was
described as. The stock was probably made in the last 20 or 30 years and the work is quite rough and basic and would fool know one. I had hoped that the lock was 17th Century. I realize as I said in my 1st post that it could not have been the original as it has an integral pan and cover and the barrel
shows signs of the removal of what would have been the correct period
barrel mounted pan and cover. Michael makes it clear in his last post that
this lock is a fake made in the last 100 years or so, even down to forging the
lock parts from wrought iron, which shows the trouble these fakers will go to.

I intend to re-stock this piece, now it is clear to me how far out the previous
effort is! and I shall look to Michael, if I may for advise on stock profiles and lock types/patterns. Was the original gun fitted with a snapping or sear lock?

Michael, as the battle of Pavia falls into the date range you ascribe to the barrel, and the Landsknechts were present on both sides, I suppose it's
reasonable to assume that it might have been there?

Thanks again, and best regards,

Simon.

[Matchlock]

Simon,

Before going into the required details, I would have to see the following close-ups:


- the muzzle slightly slanted, and the present caliber measured in mm

- the area where the original rear sight was fixed to the top base of the barrel

- Are there traces of a former foresight - I strongly expect them to be there!


Based on this information, I could tell you a lot more, especially as the originally dove-tailed pan and cover were obviously removed as well, so the barrel itself is just a fragment compared to what is was like almost 500 years ago, and I am afraid it will never look the same again. Anything you might probably add, in my opinion, would not by far come in the slightest near the original impression.

Best,
Michael

[gbxfb]

Hi Michael,

I hope these photographs provide the detail that you need. The bore
diameter is 16.5mm.

I was rather surprised that you consider my proposed restoration would not
be successful. I suggest that provided the work is carried out to the correct
pattern and style, from the right materials and to a high standard, I cannot
imagine why the overall effect should not be an accurate rendition of the
original piece. This form of reconstruction is carried out routinely in museum
collections worldwide, and I have seen examples at the Royal Armouries in
Leeds. The protocol being not to age the renewed parts so that they may be readily discerned. In this instance the missing tang and priming pan could be
'hung' in the stock which would spare the barrel any further injury, and
would be in line with modern sympathetic conservation practice.

I realize that much of this piece would now be new, however the barrel is
always the core of any long gun, and in this instance a substantial one as it
weighs in at 10lbs.

Best regards,
Simon.

[Matchlock]

Hi Simon,

Alright then! The bore seems to be the original which is very good as most early barrels were drilled out in secondary use.
I'd suggest you choose a stock and lock shape from the threads I mentioned above.

Have fun,
Michael