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

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

As there are lots of early guns in both Berne and Pilsen, please post pictures of the two pieces you quoted.
Michael

According to Bernhard Rietsche, the specimen in Pilsen is illustrated in ZHWK 1900-1912 p. 118); i wonder if you have such publication.
The Berne specimen seems to be quite popular, as largely divulged in the Internet. It is also, for example, in Clephan's work 'An outline of the History and Development of Hand Firearms' (page 47). I also happen to have a picture of it, myself.
But again, i may obviously be labouring in error, and confusing the whole thing.
Fernando

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by fernando

According to Bernhard Rietsche, the specimen in Pilsen is illustrated in ZHWK 1900-1912 p. 118); i wonder if you have such publication.
The Berne specimen seems to be quite popular, as largely divulged in the Internet. It is also, for example, in Clephan's work 'An outline of the History and Development of Hand Firearms' (page 47). I also happen to have a picture of it, myself.
But again, i may obviously be labouring in error, and confusing the whole thing.
Fernando

O.k.
Now this is Berne inv.# 2193. See Rudof Wegeli: Inventar der Waffensammlung des Bernischen Historischen Museums in Bern, vol.4, Feuerwaffen, 1948, p.153f.

As the text mentions, the hook is of iron and hammered through the stock as an addition in the gun's working time. As this must have proofed less stable, hooks were fire welded to the barrels from ca. 1440-50.

My library of more than 3,000 books and catalogs contains the complete original edition of the Zeitschrift fuer Historische Waffenkunde from its origins in 1897 until today. I have been a member of this society for more than 25 years.
Michael

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

O.k.
Now this is Berne inv.# 2193. See Rudof Wegeli: Inventar der Waffensammlung des Bernischen Historischen Museums in Bern, vol.4, Feuerwaffen, 1948, p.153f.

As the text mentions, the hook is of iron and hammered through the stock as an addition in the gun's working time. As this must have proofed less stable, hooks were fire welded to the barrels from ca. 1440-50.

My library of more than 3,000 books and catalogs contains the complete original edition of the Zeitschrift fuer Historische Waffenkunde from its origins in 1897 until today. I have been a member of this society for more than 25 years.
Michael

BTW, give my greetings to Bernahrd Rietsche. He came to see my collection only a few weeks ago.
Michael

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

I first met Rainer Daehnhardt in 1990 and know quite a bit about him and his pieces. Enough said

I thaught so ... i had the feeling that you knew him, since the moment you posted that coment on the Malabar gun.
I also know him since about that long; i buy weapons at his shops and frequently listen to what he has to say about questions i ask him on pieces i take to him for apreciation. I have also read a couple of his books. Our relation is only a little more than that between customer and supplier. However i never had the chance to visit his private mannor house and apreciate his collection. But up to this moment i don't have an actual reason to dislike him; given the discount that everyone has virtues and defaults. Our talks are about weapons and their history; nothing else.

Originally Posted by Matchlock

As the text mentions, the hook is of iron and hammered through the stock as an addition in the gun's working time.

I knew it was of iron; as you know, i quoted this specimen just because the hook is in the stock and not in the barrel; i confess i ignored it was applied later in time.

Originally Posted by Matchlock

As this must have proofed less stable, hooks were fire welded to the barrels from ca. 1440-50

So.

Originally Posted by Matchlock

My library of more than 3,000 books and catalogs contains the complete original edition of the Zeitschrift fuer Historische Waffenkunde ...

Fascinating; so you are in a condition to tell if the 1900 catalogue contains the Pilsen gun with a hook in the stock, as Bernahrd Rietsche relates ?
I surely would like to hear your coments about this particular subject. Eventualy also Daehnhardt quotes that hooks were first made of wood; i still have to learn a huge lot about this fascinating area of early firearms.

Originally Posted by Matchlock

... give my greetings to Bernahrd Rietsche. He came to see my collection only a few weeks ago.

I don't have the honour to know the Gentleman; i incidently know his quoted article since a week ago. And i was far from realizing that such would be the origin of a misunderstanding.

My respects
Fernando

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by fernando

According to Bernhard Rietsche, the specimen in Pilsen is illustrated in ZHWK 1900-1912 p. 118); i wonder if you have such publication.
The Berne specimen seems to be quite popular, as largely divulged in the Internet. It is also, for example, in Clephan's work 'An outline of the History and Development of Hand Firearms' (page 47). I also happen to have a picture of it, myself.
But again, i may obviously be labouring in error, and confusing the whole thing.
Fernando

Now here is the Pilsen handgonne that you mean, Fernando.

I was in the Pilsen Armory in 2000, being kindly allowed by Dr. Hus to handle and photograph all the items I liked to.

The stock of this piece with the staged wall support may be original and may have worked against the recoil with this small and short barrel as the "hooked" stage is both very long and thick! It would never work with a long barrel and slender stock as in Daehnhardt's gun, though.

I enclose another early 15th century Pilsen handgonne with an iron hook drawn over the barrel (!) and put through the stock - the last stage before welding the hook directly to the barrel for optimum stability.

I have tried to do my best and sure hope to have made things as clear as possible. I spent 30 years of my life studying to be able and tell wrong from right.

Michael

[Matchlock]

As you can see in the first Pilsen gun, what actually works as the real wall support is a small rudimentary rectangular iron piece extending down through the stock, and being a vertical prolongation of the rear underside of the barrel! It may have been shortened later.

So there is a wooden stage, true, but this was not the wall support because it would have been too weak!

Allright?

Michael

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

... The stock of this piece with the staged wall support may be original and may have worked against the recoil with this small and short barrel as the "hooked" stage is both very long and thick! It would never work with a long barrel and slender stock as in Daehnhardt's gun, though. ... I spent 30 years of my life studying to be able and tell wrong from right. ...

I don't have the slightest doubt that you know more about this subject while you are asleep than most people awake, and i thank you a lot for your patience and teachings. Only there are positions to consider; for example Bernahrd Rietsche states without hesitation that the Pilsen specimen was a clear example of a wooden hook being a primary solution to recoil. I assume you have read his article ... have i made a wrong reading ? So i was misguided by such source. And as Daehnhardt has aproached the same problematic of the wooden hook fragility, i assumed it made sense.
The Daehnhardt's gun is an Indian item... not necessarily an example of European haquebus expertize. Allright, it has an atypical design and you say such stock could never work; noted.
But ironically, every wooden hook experiments, after time, ended up failing.
But i bother you no more. Now it's my turn to say: enough said

With respect.
Fernando

[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.

[Matchlock]

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]

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]

Done, Ed.

Michael

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by fernando

I don't have the slightest doubt that you know more about this subject while you are asleep than most people awake, and i thank you a lot for your patience and teachings. Only there are positions to consider; for example Bernahrd Rietsche states without hesitation that the Pilsen specimen was a clear example of a wooden hook being a primary solution to recoil. I assume you have read his article ... have i made a wrong reading ? So i was misguided by such source. And as Daehnhardt has aproached the same problematic of the wooden hook fragility, i assumed it made sense.
The Daehnhardt's gun is an Indian item... not necessarily an example of European haquebus expertize. Allright, it has an atypical design and you say such stock could never work; noted.
But ironically, every wooden hook experiments, after time, ended up failing.
But i bother you no more. Now it's my turn to say: enough said

With respect.
Fernando

Fernando, have you seen the pictures of the Pilsen gun mentioned by Bernhard Rietsche that I posted? It was the short rectangular iron lug protruding from the underside that would soften the recoil, not the lug of wood; the last was only for support to rest the gun comfortably.
It looks as if the short iron lug was originally a hook and broken off or shortened later.
In any case it had the function of a wall hook.

I am afraid that Herr Riestche had overlooked that detail.

With my respect and best wishes,
Michael

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Fernando, have you seen the pictures of the Pilsen gun mentioned by Bernhard Rietsche that I posted? It was the short rectangular iron lug protruding from the underside that would soften the recoil, not the lug of wood; the last was only for support to rest the gun comfortably.
It looks as if the short iron lug was originally a hook and broken off or shortened later.
In any case it had the function of a wall hook.

I am afraid that Herr Riestche had overlooked that detail.

With my respect and best wishes,
Michael

Duly noted Michael,
I must say that the part of this topic that has mainly raised my curiosity was whether indeed the first generation of harquebus recoil hooks was made of wood ... even soon to be assumed they were doomed to failure.
Fernando

[Matchlock]

Fernando,

Unfortunately I have no knowledge of

- any original illustration from the Gothic period

- any photo of a doubtlessly original piece

- any existing piece that is undoubtedly original comprising barrel and stock

with a "wooden hook".


I will, however, ask Herr Rietsche about his reference and report to you.

Best,
Michael

[Andi]

Some objects of the Deutsches Historisches Museum Berlin, Germany.


Handgonne inventory No. V 87/15 dated ca 1450
Calibre 2,7, weight 2.320 g, Length 48 cm
http://www.dhm.de/datenbank/dhm.php?...fld_0=MI011708

Reconstruction of the Tannenberg handgonne which looks slightly different from the original one
http://www.dhm.de/datenbank/dhm.php?...fld_0=MI011706

A Reconstruction of Tannenberg handgonne - but with HOOK ??
http://www.dhm.de/datenbank/dhm.php?...fld_0=MI011707

[Matchlock]

Of course this is a long gun (German: Gewehr, Arkebuse or Langwaffe or arquebus, as, in English, handgun means a pistol or revolver (German: Faustfeuerwaffe).

Michael

[Andi]

I am wondering about the fact that DHM described its handgonne reconstruction with hook aquisition no W 86/1 as "Tannenberg-Büchse Nachbildung" (Tannenberg-Handgonne Reconstruction) while the original is without a hook. Even the second fragment of a bronze handgonne found in Tannenberg will not allow the reconstruction with a hook as this part was not preserved.
In my opinion DHM's description should have been expressed somewhat more generally without "Tannenberg".

[Matchlock]

The Word's Oldest Known surviving gun, ca. 1390-1410,
fitted with the earliest tinderlock mechanism,

and preserved in

The Michael Trömner Collection

Reattached here find an important contemporary and dated illustration.
The manuscript containing it is dated 1410, and the gun is almost identical to the author's sample, showing excaclty the same proportions, the very same sleeve of thin iron uniting the oaken tiller stock with the short octagonal barrel; even the slanted rear end of the stock is the same on both the drawing and the author's gun.
The illustration does not yet depict a lock mechanism, or a barrel hook.
Both were obviously not known by 1410, and are, as stated, working time technical amendments on the existing gun as well.

As stated formerly, hooks do not show up in contemporary illustrations before ca. 1430-40:

...


Michael Trömner
Rebenstr. 9
93326 Abensberg
Germany

All photos copyrighted by the author.

[Matchlock]

The watercolor attached below is from Cod. vind. 3069, dated 1411, ÖNB Wien (Austrian National Library, Vienna), fol. ....

Depicted are two men firing a handgun very similar to the one in
The Michael Trömner Collection

equipped with a mechanical lock action, and working on the Superimposed Load System:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ed+load+system
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...erimposed+load
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...erimposed+load
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...erimposed+load
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...erimposed+load
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...erimposed+load
http://www.vikingsword.com
esp. post #13;
/vb/showthread.php?t=10126&highlight=superimposed+load


The whole length of the barrel in the watercolor of 1411 gets filled up with a series of loads, consisting of dust- or meal-like blackpowder and a piece of lead clod shot, pierced with a small central vertical hole to allow the fine powder to run down through, and connect the firing process to the same loads below, back until to the rearward load at the breech. In this case, the gun is not fired from the actual touch hole, but from the amount of powder filling up the central hole of the clod shot placed at the muzzle.
Right there at the muzzle, when touched with the red-hot tip of an igniting iron, or a glowing piece of tinder or a length or matchcord, the fire of the explosion of the top load will immediately set off the load behind it, and so on.
Once on, the action cannot be interrupted, or stopped; the gun must be held pointing in the direction of the enemies for a few seconds, or it will cause 'friendly fire'. And you will be well advised to wait for a few seconds more beore pointing it off - just in case of an ignition failure, while sparks my be lingering in the barrel before setting off the last load.
Using superimposed loads must have proved very dangerous - to the shooter himself. It is the author's thesis that for that reason, very few such earliest high-tech guns were ever built to work on that principle, and there are very few surviving guns.
The earliest of them all is a sixteen-shot single-barrel combined wheellock and snap-tinderlock musket, the barrel and lock bearing Nuremberg marks, and the barrel dated 1595, was in the William Goodwin Renwick Collection (Sotheby's, London, .. 197 .. , lot ... ), and was sold at auction last Butterfields, San Francisco, ...., lot ... .

The gun in discussion here is 200 years older.
This six hundred year-old handgonne preserved in
The Michael Trömner Collection

definitely represents the earliest document ever of a high-tech gun, for
- featuring a mechanical lock action
- and being constructed for automated firing additionally.

With a length of only 31.8 cm, and a bore of ca. 20 mm, this barrel
may not have taken more than three to five superimposed loads, depending on the amount of the primitive mixtures of blackpowder * needed 600 years ago - the first automatic gun of the world had been invented.
*Please cf.:
http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=h...ed=0CCUQrQMwAQ

"Gunpowder
In medieval Sweden gunpowder was called just “pulver”, wich translates into “powder”. There are quite a few old powder recipes still around, and the ones that suits our selected historical period
are referred to as, for example, Rouen, Lille, Rothenburg and Marcus Graecus. They all use the same ingredients, but the amounts differ. In the table below, they are compared to a modern “perfect”
gunpowder.



Tests made at the Middelaldercenter in Nyköbing, Denmark show a correlation between higher muzzle velocity and higher amount of salpetre. The ingredients were ground up and mixed, resulting in a so called dry mixed powder. This can be used as it is, but it will be more effective if mixed with alcohol, shaped into bars or pellets and then ground again, producing wet mixed powder or meal powder. The alcohol dissolves the salpetre, and lets the tiny sulphur crystals divide and evenly on the grains of charcoal, making the powder burn more even. It is important to note that there has
been some debate about the use of alcohol in medieval gunpowder, as distilled beverages is barely known at the time. However, sources speak of a “Henricus Brännewattnmakare” (Henricus, maker of burnt (distilled) water, meaning a producer of alcohol) in the city of Lund in the 1350′s, wich means that alcohol was in use at the time. If it was used to make gunpowder we do not know. Sulphur could be collected in volcanic areas in Iceland or Italy, while salpetre was produced by collecting dung and urine from livestock, and processing it, to extract the salpetre. Charcoal was abundant in medieval society."


Obviously, the need of a fire power higher than the usual single shot, with intervals of loading procedure, must have made the gunmen long for a multishot technique, to get a better chance to survive; so the human mind started thinking of a solution.

On the other hand, the fact that the superimposed load technique required two men acting together, with utmost concentration and painstaking care for several minutes, cannot possibly have been carried out with war raging all around those two persons trying to keep cool and reload - amidst all the battle turmoil and melee.

The author's thesis is that for these facts, only very few guns built on that principle are known to still exist; almost none from the period before ca. 1660 is any private collection still. Almost all of the earliest samples are preserved in important museums, the latest being the multibarreled wheellock carbines once in the Henk L. Visser Collection. All of them are in the collections of the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, The Netherlands, today.

The fact is that the only 600 year-old single-barrel superimposed-load gun, which is moreover the earliest recorded and perfectly documented high-tech gun in the world - for retaining the oldest mechanic lock action and recoil-preventing hook- , is,
among other singularly important items,
preserved in
The Michael Trömner Collection.

The author's conclusion is that
- all those earliest high-tech guns must have got loaded before the action started,
- must have taken special training, and
- a number of multishot guns must have been kept ready, loaded and primed, for use by a small group of specialist gunmen.

When regarding those contemporary illustrations which are invaluable sources of documentation for dating, and evaluating the actually surviving gun preserved in heavily patinated, virtually 'untocuched' original condition for more than half a millennium, we notice that, in the respective picture, the relations of the actual sizes of persons and items are not congruent.
All technical objects, the gun, as well as the accouterments like igniting irons, the lower half of the earliest bipartite "bullet" mold for casting several shots of lead simultaneously - and probably consisting of sloapstone;
cf.:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...erimposed+load
post #1;
http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=h...ed=0CCUQrQMwAQ



or the pierced pieces of clod shot, are drawn out of size.

In the Middle Ages, and especially before, by the end of the 15th century, painters like Albrecht Dürer entered the art scene taking the Renaissance influence from Italy to Germany, all objects that represented inventions of technique or other amendments, and important for the artist to point out to his fellowmen, were pictured oversized so they would not be overlooked.

Consequently, less important people like the rural population and working men, the 'little ones', were shown much smaller in size than, e.g., the king who was generally portrayed talking to the lesser in full splendor, and wearing the golden crown.


Michael Trömner
Rebenstr. 9
D-93326 Abensberg
Lower Bavaria, Germany

• Self-established Academic Medievalist
  
• Graduated from Regensburg University in 1982
• Stipendiary recipient and member of the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes, Bonn
  
• Author of BEHÄLTNISSE FÜR KOSTBARES 1500-1700, 2005
• M. of the Arms & Armour Society, London since 1991
• M. of the Gesellschaft für Historische Waffen- und Kostümkunde e.V., Berlin since 1987
• Expertises in European weapons, ironworks, and furniture of the 14th through 17th centuries
• Preservation and academic documentation of museum collections

[Helleri]

Wondering about the use of the term "hand gun" in this context. Were they generally refereed to as such at the time these were made? Are these the direct ancestors of modern handguns? Is it just that it's the best generalized term we can apply to them modernly?

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Helleri

Wondering about the use of the term "hand gun" in this context. Were they generally refereed to as such at the time these were made? Are these the direct ancestors of modern handguns? Is it just that it's the best generalized term we can apply to them modernly?

Trying to jump off the name game; i guess that, at a certain stage in this thread it was pointed out that hand gun term would (only) be of German attribution. Although (also) in this thread we can see various early fire arms types, namely haquebuts and hand cannons, i think the issue as you put it is about the late. The name, you chose it, from 手銃, to hand cannons, gonnes or handgonnes. And yes, they were the first true firearms, those ancestors of modern portable firearms.
Whether there is unequivocal evidence of their genesis, based on few (several...) existing specimens, the names how they were called by then would be a different deal, i guess; depending on how people of the various languages an in different contexts baptized the numerous variations that kept appearing.
I guess i am not talking nonsense; may always be corrected by better knowledged ones, though .

.