Ottoman matchlock examples.

[Pukka Bundook]

Eric,

It could very well be that the above arms with miquelet type locks could have been converted from matchlock.
It would really take very little effort, and with a new panel of decoration where the serpentine came through the stock, would not really show at all.

Another thing I am thinking about, is the Omani matchlocks we see with very fine early barrels, (17th C and a bit later)
We know these were not made in Oman, so, were they re-purposed Ottoman or Persian barrels, salvaged and re-used in later years?
I believe these barrels were Persian, but if so, Did Ottoman recycled arms meet the same fate? (Of being stripped down & barrels sent to another country for re-use? (Could explain the lack of original Ottoman examples.....)

What thinkest thou?

Richard.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

Eric,

It could very well be that the above arms with miquelet type locks could have been converted from matchlock.
It would really take very little effort, and with a new panel of decoration where the serpentine came through the stock, would not really show at all.

Another thing I am thinking about, is the Omani matchlocks we see with very fine early barrels, (17th C and a bit later)
We know these were not made in Oman, so, were they re-purposed Ottoman or Persian barrels, salvaged and re-used in later years?
I believe these barrels were Persian, but if so, Did Ottoman recycled arms meet the same fate? (Of being stripped down & barrels sent to another country for re-use? (Could explain the lack of original Ottoman examples.....)

What thinkest thou?

Richard.

Richard, some very good questions, were the Ottomans so efficient in repurposing the matchlocks that we are left with a handful today. It was probably the barrel that was the hardest and most expensive part to produce, there was probably a value in them from other cultures even when they were outdated at home. I can not remember even seeing a Persian matchlock, the flintlocks are quite rare as well, there must have been many at one time, they seen to have disappeared to.

This image supposedly shows how those beautiful barrels were produced.

[Pukka Bundook]

Eric,

Yes, this is the later "Damascus" style twist.
The earlier types were a stub -iron twist, as shown below;

Richard.
Manouchehr M. has some wonderful photos of Persian arms in his book when published, and some very nice photos in his series on Persian arms in Classic Arms Magazine.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

Eric,

Yes, this is the later "Damascus" style twist.
The earlier types were a stub -iron twist, as shown below;

Richard.
Manouchehr M. has some wonderful photos of Persian arms in his book when published, and some very nice photos in his series on Persian arms in Classic Arms Magazine.

Richard, here or some detailed examples from the images I posted of Ottoman matchlocks that seem to be of this type or am I wrong.

[Pukka Bundook]

Not wrong Eric,
These are beautiful examples of what we in the west would call a stub twist.

(stub twist, as the preferred material was old iron horseshoe nail stubs)

I have a few old guns with "Twisted stubs" or "Stub twist" stamped on the under-side.

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

Eric,

It could very well be that the above arms with miquelet type locks could have been converted from matchlock.

Another thing I am thinking about, is the Omani matchlocks we see with very fine early barrels, (17th C and a bit later)
We know these were not made in Oman, so, were they re-purposed Ottoman or Persian barrels, salvaged and re-used in later years?

Richard.

I have the same feeling...
Kubur

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

Eric,

It could very well be that the above arms with miquelet type locks could have been converted from matchlock.
It would really take very little effort, and with a new panel of decoration where the serpentine came through the stock, would not really show at all.


Richard.

Here are two Ottoman matchlocks next to a miquelet for comparison, what do you think.

[Pukka Bundook]

I think the miquelet started out as a matchlock nearly for sure, with the very similar styling.
There is no reason for a miquelet stock to angle behind the breech as does this example, (and the others above) The only thing to cause this, is fashion of former arms, (matchlock) Or,....conversion from said matchlock.

Do nice old matchlock barrels turn up in other places besides Oman? (apart from a few in India that are not the usual Indian/Indo /Persian work)

Richard.
Edited to say these are probably the nicest Ottoman barrels I have ever seen. Thanks for posting them.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

I think the miquelet started out as a matchlock nearly for sure, with the very similar styling.
There is no reason for a miquelet stock to angle behind the breech as does this example, (and the others above) The only thing to cause this, is fashion of former arms, (matchlock) Or,....conversion from said matchlock.

Do nice old matchlock barrels turn up in other places besides Oman? (apart from a few in India that are not the usual Indian/Indo /Persian work)

Richard.
Edited to say these are probably the nicest Ottoman barrels I have ever seen. Thanks for posting them.

If anyone has an example of what they think may be an Ottoman barrel on a non Ottoman stock please post it.

Richard, I have to give the Museumslandschaft Hessen Kassel credit for posting these high resolution photographs from their collection. They have eleven Ottoman examples with three being matchlocks. Here are top views of all eleven for comparison. These guns never turned up in a goofle search due to being described as Luntenschlossgewehr and Schnapphahngewehr.

[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?

[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. :-)

[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.