Arquebuses

[jbjonesid]

I was just watching the history channel. They were talking about the Spanish driving out the moors in 1486. The were using arquebuses. I'm guessing a matchlock. But then they said that they were as loud as a jet taking off. My question is, is there any reason why these guns would be louder than a percussion or Flintlock?

 

[wulf]

Only that they were a 75 or more caliber...and
strange to the times...not being used to gun
shots would make a person think it was extra loud.
Wulf

 

[Matt85]

first, the history channel is a joke.

second, i suppose some guns could be as loud as some jets taking off... but its still a stupid comparison.

as to your question, no a matchlock would not be any louder then a flintlock or a percussion gun. the amount of noise a gun makes is based on bore diameter, bore shape, and powder charge. think blunderbuss or thunder gun. but the ignition system doesnt make a big difference on how loud a gun is.

-matt

 

[Alden]

Weren't there first-person interviews recorded by The History Channel with Moors who explained the guns were louder than jets?

We went on a History Channel tour of NYC. A woman with a Spanish accent got on the bus wearing a polyester skirt w/a coin-belt, said she was a Gypsy named Esmarelda, and pointed to some of the landmarks but all of those after we'd passed them...

 

[robinghewitt]

I think they would be quieter, William Eldred gives us a clue in 1646...

There was in ancient time a kind of Powder called Serpentine Powder; why it was so called I need not here declare; this powder being the first, was made in a small kind of dust like meal, and was but of a weak receipt in comparison of that we now use, and neither was it corned as our powder that we use in these days, for which cause, though it were then but weak, and now the strength in a manner doubled; one pound of powder which is now in use is as strong as two pounds of the old serpentine powder.

 

[MJuingong]

"Louder than a jet" is not a 15th century phrase; they hadn't jets then.

Perhaps the re-enactors thought the arquebuses sounded louder than a jet. They must be some distance from
Remember, in re-enactments most of the guknpowder used is modern black powder, not the old-time formula of the contemporary firearm.

 

[robinghewitt]

There was a movie of some re-enactors firing a cannon using serpentine powder. There was a lot of flame shooting out of the touch hole before the pressure built up enough to cast the ball.

A bombard used wooden wedges to hold the ball down while pressure built up enough to throw it a worthwhile distance.

But did they have improved powder for the arquebus? Did they have sporting powders with greater receipt? (I think receipt refers to the purity and percentage of the nitre).

The arquebus was almost certainly a snapping matchlock and sporting folk would have paid good money for improved powder.

Sport included warfare, it was a chance to show off, pick up some booty, maybe a ransom if you got lucky. T H White explains perfectly that the 15th century gentleman took the same sporting risk riding into battle as the 19th century gentleman took when he went fox hunting.

It was the proof armour that did it. They just recovered Richard III's body, it seems that killing him in full armour was a difficult and rather protracted process.

 

[gunmaker43]

If the Moors had "jets" how come they didn't win ???

 

[wulf]

If the Moors had "jets" how come they didn't win ???

Because the match lock machine guns on the wings
couldn't keep the flame lit.

 

[Alden]

Their's was a religion of peace?