A rather rustic blunderbuss

fernando · 20th July 2012, 04:44 PM

One more

.

gbxfb · 20th July 2012, 09:12 PM

That's an interesting piece you have there Fernando. I was wondering if the lock might be by Richard Edge (senior and junior) who were working as Board of Ordnance contractors 1757 -1774. Reference:- De Witt Bailey.

I've seen quite a few touch holes that appear to have been reamed out rather than gas cut. As a general rule antique arms with a common breach even when in a good state of preservation tend to have touch holes rather larger than modern reproductions especially military pieces. This was possibly to improve ignition reliability at the expense of a reduction in breach pressure.

It's possible that a previous owner didn't trust the hoop construction barrel and was trying to reduce breach pressure, although 8mm is excessive by any standard and would reduce the effectiveness of the arm. With this enlarged touch hole the lock will self prime with almost any grade of powder if the frizzen is closed on loading. As a final observation the touch hole is not centered in the pan and its excessive size may just be a crude attempt to reach the ideal sunrise position!

I hope this has been of some help.

Best regards,
Simon.

fernando · 21st July 2012, 10:35 PM

Thanks a lot for your knowledgeable input, Simon.
Yes, i have found the information on the lock in an index made by J.E. & S.J. Gooding, published by Arms Collecting.com. I later double checked it in some other source out there. The precise contract period seems to have been 1760-1775, which in any case makes no difference in placing this lock under the Ordnance contract production. It is only possible that it was originally mounted in one of several thousand (Brown Bess) muskets which entered Portugal during the Peninsular War … and not only.
I have just checked a couple EDGE locks dated 1762. Comparing them with the present example, it appears that some components were replaced, namely the pan, the frizzen and its spring. Looking well to the present pan, i would say its configuration is somehow distinct; the original pan has both a different positioning and bowl shape, which could explain the touch hole off center situation.
Go figure whether the enlarged touch hole was an attempt to reach a better matching with the pan; in fact its widening is elliptical, giving it some ‘logic’. Or, as you suggest, to reduce the breach pressure; the barrel is indeed extremely irregular.
I wouldn’t go for the hoop construction fears; this barrel is so thick that it would relax any user, i would say.
But of course these are guessings from a non connoisseur

Thanks again for your precious technical enlightening.
P.S.
Would you say that this barrel could be any earlier than the lock ... so rustic it is?

.

Matchlock · 22nd July 2012, 01:38 PM

Hi 'Nando,

If the barrel is older than the rest of the gun the barrel tang must have been replaced as it is of characteristic 18th c. form, with the screw entering from the top.
I would also say that the buttplate shows the same rural rustic style as the barrel.

Conically widenened touch holes are known from Prussian flintlock muskets of the 1730's-80's; their purpose was to not have to apply priming powder to the pan: with the barrel loaded, and the frizzen closed, the musket was just put down on the ground a few times with the buttplate which caused a sufficient amount of powder to exit the touch hole and fill the pan.

Best,
Michl

fernando · 22nd July 2012, 05:52 PM

Thank you Michl,
Brilliant explanation for the touch hole; and a brilliant solution for the priming, too

.
... and a defined date for the barrel, assuming the tang is a contemporaneous setup, which i would admit so.
Danksche

.

20th July 2012, 04:44 PM	#1
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	One more . Attached Images

21st July 2012, 10:35 PM	#3
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Thanks a lot for your knowledgeable input, Simon. Yes, i have found the information on the lock in an index made by J.E. & S.J. Gooding, published by Arms Collecting.com. I later double checked it in some other source out there. The precise contract period seems to have been 1760-1775, which in any case makes no difference in placing this lock under the Ordnance contract production. It is only possible that it was originally mounted in one of several thousand (Brown Bess) muskets which entered Portugal during the Peninsular War … and not only. I have just checked a couple EDGE locks dated 1762. Comparing them with the present example, it appears that some components were replaced, namely the pan, the frizzen and its spring. Looking well to the present pan, i would say its configuration is somehow distinct; the original pan has both a different positioning and bowl shape, which could explain the touch hole off center situation. Go figure whether the enlarged touch hole was an attempt to reach a better matching with the pan; in fact its widening is elliptical, giving it some ‘logic’. Or, as you suggest, to reduce the breach pressure; the barrel is indeed extremely irregular. I wouldn’t go for the hoop construction fears; this barrel is so thick that it would relax any user, i would say. But of course these are guessings from a non connoisseur Thanks again for your precious technical enlightening. P.S. Would you say that this barrel could be any earlier than the lock ... so rustic it is? . Attached Images

20th July 2012, 09:12 PM	#2
gbxfb Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 11	That's an interesting piece you have there Fernando. I was wondering if the lock might be by Richard Edge (senior and junior) who were working as Board of Ordnance contractors 1757 -1774. Reference:- De Witt Bailey. I've seen quite a few touch holes that appear to have been reamed out rather than gas cut. As a general rule antique arms with a common breach even when in a good state of preservation tend to have touch holes rather larger than modern reproductions especially military pieces. This was possibly to improve ignition reliability at the expense of a reduction in breach pressure. It's possible that a previous owner didn't trust the hoop construction barrel and was trying to reduce breach pressure, although 8mm is excessive by any standard and would reduce the effectiveness of the arm. With this enlarged touch hole the lock will self prime with almost any grade of powder if the frizzen is closed on loading. As a final observation the touch hole is not centered in the pan and its excessive size may just be a crude attempt to reach the ideal sunrise position! I hope this has been of some help. Best regards, Simon.

22nd July 2012, 01:38 PM	#4
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Hi 'Nando, If the barrel is older than the rest of the gun the barrel tang must have been replaced as it is of characteristic 18th c. form, with the screw entering from the top. I would also say that the buttplate shows the same rural rustic style as the barrel. Conically widenened touch holes are known from Prussian flintlock muskets of the 1730's-80's; their purpose was to not have to apply priming powder to the pan: with the barrel loaded, and the frizzen closed, the musket was just put down on the ground a few times with the buttplate which caused a sufficient amount of powder to exit the touch hole and fill the pan. Best, Michl

22nd July 2012, 05:52 PM	#5
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Thank you Michl, Brilliant explanation for the touch hole; and a brilliant solution for the priming, too . ... and a defined date for the barrel, assuming the tang is a contemporaneous setup, which i would admit so. Danksche .