Is there an issues with resting a flintlock pistol across the forearm as a support when firing ? My concern would be powder burns on the hand from the pan but seems likely a non issue. I seem to remember seeing this stance used in various movies and tv shows based in the 18th century , but that's not real life either. Was this even a common practice of the day ? -Thanks
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Flintlock pistol rested across arm safe ?
- Thread starter kyron4
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2019
- Messages
- 947
- Reaction score
- 1,336
As long as the pan itself is well forward of your forearm you should be ok. In other words, rest your wrist holding the grip on your forearm, NOT the forearm of the pistol. Hope this makes sense. Keep that pan well forward of any body part.
stubshaft
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 676
- Reaction score
- 217
I can't see that position as being historically accurate unless you were shooting a heavy horse pistol. Generally, the gases from a touchhole are directed out and up. I've shot offhand with my rifles with my left hand close to the underside of the pan and have never felt a hint of the escaping gasses.
Ditto, that's correct, as those large wheellock pistols were shot with the upper forend supported on the middle of the foream or back of the wrist, of the off-shooting arm.
But NOTE, those wheelies were up to 2X as long as the typical flintlock pistol, so there actually is quite a bit of space between that 'square' formed between the pistol pointing forward itself, the chest to shoulder of the shooter, and then the offhand arm bent at a ~90-degree angle.
That placed the pan and wheel smack dab in the center of that open 'square' ... just wear long sleeves, LOL!
Most any odd ball thing you see in a movie most likely was never done in reality. It would put the pistol awful close to the eye, and not be as accurate as a two hand hold.
Just curious, was a two hand hold , like how we hold modern pistols, a common practice in the 18th or was the one had hold fully extended the norm ?
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2019
- Messages
- 947
- Reaction score
- 1,336
I am far from an expert, but I think it’s safe to say a 2-handed hold was not the norm, and indeed quite the exception. My reasoning: look at training up through the 1940’s and a bit later and one handed was still the norm for police and military.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2019
- Messages
- 8,383
- Reaction score
- 9,771
Yeah, you can see the guys in the illustrations, upright straight, stiff arm out, very rigid. I like the modern more relaxed two handed modern pistol hold when using un-mentionables. Slight crouching, etc.
wear a welding jacket 
get yourself a welders sleeve
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2019
- Messages
- 8,383
- Reaction score
- 9,771
It's not that hazardous. Just wear eye protection, use common sense! Use normal loads, not super-overcharges.
Just wear a long-sleeved shirt. You'll be OK. Maybe not so much the shirt. 
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2023
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 33
I made a very accurate flintlock that became a bit heavy after my 75th year; when i shoot it now I use a two handed hold, on the grip. I don't rest it in the crook of the arm, as I've seen in some movies, that would be asking for burns. Seen sand bags get burned with flintlocks resting on them.
Similar threads
