![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,492
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 803
|
![]()
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,492
|
![]() Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chania Crete Greece
Posts: 511
|
![]()
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?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,120
|
![]()
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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,492
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 803
|
![]()
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. :-) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,492
|
![]() Quote:
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. Last edited by estcrh; 15th December 2015 at 01:20 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3
|
![]()
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?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 803
|
![]()
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,492
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,492
|
![]() Quote:
Last edited by estcrh; 8th February 2016 at 10:38 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|