• 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

Battle accounts of matchlocks vs. flintlocks?

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
There's a museum in Canada that has a matchlock musket that was issued to a a regiment (Carrignan? Deep memory retrieval.) in Quebec in 1660. I can imagine the plods guarding a fort or a town being given the dregs from the armory just so they have *something.* They weren't expected to be out in the field.

May have been the same reason why the troops in the Leeward Islands still had matchlocks in 1705. The British government was dumping old surplus on them just so they could have something to shoot with. I doubt the troops stationed in such small Caribbean islands were expected to take part in big field battles, they were probably more likely to be fighting pirate raiders or slave rebels.
 
I don't know quite what to make of all that ... as he advocates for muskets over calivers, but then says muskets only get 8 to 12 shots per pound of powdah ... which would be loads of 875 and 583.3 grains respectively. That's ridiculous!

When I see such blatant errors in documents, even in original manuscripts, it makes me question the validity for any of the other information or opinion presented in there too, but that's just me!
Perhaps the powder then was of a very poor sort compared to today . Rudyard
 
Do you know what their charge containers were made of?

I have seen passing mention of apostles being an explosive risk, but no actual accounts of it happening. Paper cartridges started to be used in Europe in the late 1500s and firelock armed troops were a first priority, due to their elite or specialist status. This could give an advantage to those troops in an otherwise even matchup with matchlock troops. By the end of the 30 years war, paper cartridges became common with matchlock troops too.
Those original examples that I've seen were some kind of hard wood, with the stoppers surrounded by a thin felt banding to act as a seal.
 
Those original examples that I've seen were some kind of hard wood, with the stoppers surrounded by a thin felt banding to act as a seal.

Think he was asking me about the Chinese ones I mentioned. I've never heard of those being made of anything other than bamboo, but if you know better I'd be very interested to learn more!
 
While people were smaller in Western Europe everything was done by hand. Pound for pound people tended to be stronger, as everything was hard work.
The voyager were expected to be short, for instance, but given at least one 90 lbs pack to move on a potage and paid a bonus if could carry more then one. It’s reported some carried three. Normal portage was six hundred feet and rest, but still little guys moving that much then repeating several times then hopping in the boat to paddle had to make for some short little Schwarzeneggers.

'Potage'? 'Soup? Surely, you mean 'portage', Sir!
 
Another Opium War example of matchlock vs. flintlock combat, although again I can't say how much these results were down to the weapons themselves compared to the quality of the soldiers:

"[the British] flintlocks were immeasurably superior to the ancient matchlocks which the Chinese were using. In the Chuenpi land engagement no British soldier was killed [...] though thirty-eight were injured".
That's from 'The Opium Wars in China' by Edgar Holt.

The battle being referred to above was the Second Battle of Chuenpi in 1841: Second Battle of Chuenpi - Wikipedia

I think one of the major things hindering the Chinese matchlocks compared to the British flintlocks in this war was the fact that Chinese muskets weren't usually made with proper shoulder stocks. Instead they had a sort of truncated grip a bit like a pistol grip, which I imagine didn't make for very accurate shooting. You can see this on the 19th-century photo of the Chinese matchlock musketeer that I've posted before (reposted below):

mid-19th-century-chinese-soldier-with-matchlock.jpg
 
Another Opium War example of matchlock vs. flintlock combat, although again I can't say how much these results were down to the weapons themselves compared to the quality of the soldiers:

"[the British] flintlocks were immeasurably superior to the ancient matchlocks which the Chinese were using. In the Chuenpi land engagement no British soldier was killed [...] though thirty-eight were injured".
That's from 'The Opium Wars in China' by Edgar Holt.

The battle being referred to above was the Second Battle of Chuenpi in 1841: Second Battle of Chuenpi - Wikipedia

I think one of the major things hindering the Chinese matchlocks compared to the British flintlocks in this war was the fact that Chinese muskets weren't usually made with proper shoulder stocks. Instead they had a sort of truncated grip a bit like a pistol grip, which I imagine didn't make for very accurate shooting. You can see this on the 19th-century photo of the Chinese matchlock musketeer that I've posted before (reposted below):

mid-19th-century-chinese-soldier-with-matchlock.jpg
An account like that is interesting. But I’m wonder how much organization, esprit de corps and leadership counts.
I’m reading a history of the Mexican war right now. There was very little difference between equipment used on both sides, but leadership and esprit de Corp gave one sided victories
I’m near Wilson creek. The feds had all the advantages especially in firepower, but blew it.
 
An account like that is interesting. But I’m wonder how much organization, esprit de corps and leadership counts.
I’m reading a history of the Mexican war right now. There was very little difference between equipment used on both sides, but leadership and esprit de Corp gave one sided victories
I’m near Wilson creek. The feds had all the advantages especially in firepower, but blew it.

Apparently the British later remarked on their Chinese adversaries at Chuenpi fighting "with great devotion", so it seems morale/espirit de corps was there on the Chinese side in this particular case. The wikipedia article I linked above mentions that this may have been due to a misconception on the Chinese side that the British would give them no quarter, and thus they had to fight to the death. Frankly I'm inclined to believe that claim, as I've come across similar cases of Chinese troops during the Opium Wars and even right up to the Boxer Rebellion fighting with a sort of fanatical "to the death" spirit because they didn't wish to fall in to British/European captivity. Chinese treatment of prisoners during this era was quite poor, so I imagine some of them didn't expect to receive much better at the hands of their enemies.

Of course, there were also plenty of Chinese units during the Opium Wars that were severely under-trained and under-motivated, and thus performed quite poorly. But it seems, at Chuenpi at least, the will to fight was there, even if their firearms were outmatched.
 
Another Opium War example of matchlock vs. flintlock combat, although again I can't say how much these results were down to the weapons themselves compared to the quality of the soldiers:

"[the British] flintlocks were immeasurably superior to the ancient matchlocks which the Chinese were using. In the Chuenpi land engagement no British soldier was killed [...] though thirty-eight were injured".
That's from 'The Opium Wars in China' by Edgar Holt.

The battle being referred to above was the Second Battle of Chuenpi in 1841: Second Battle of Chuenpi - Wikipedia

I think one of the major things hindering the Chinese matchlocks compared to the British flintlocks in this war was the fact that Chinese muskets weren't usually made with proper shoulder stocks. Instead they had a sort of truncated grip a bit like a pistol grip, which I imagine didn't make for very accurate shooting. You can see this on the 19th-century photo of the Chinese matchlock musketeer that I've posted before (reposted below):

mid-19th-century-chinese-soldier-with-matchlock.jpg
Another Opium War example of matchlock vs. flintlock combat, although again I can't say how much these results were down to the weapons themselves compared to the quality of the soldiers:

"[the British] flintlocks were immeasurably superior to the ancient matchlocks which the Chinese were using. In the Chuenpi land engagement no British soldier was killed [...] though thirty-eight were injured".
That's from 'The Opium Wars in China' by Edgar Holt.

The battle being referred to above was the Second Battle of Chuenpi in 1841: Second Battle of Chuenpi - Wikipedia

I think one of the major things hindering the Chinese matchlocks compared to the British flintlocks in this war was the fact that Chinese muskets weren't usually made with proper shoulder stocks. Instead they had a sort of truncated grip a bit like a pistol grip, which I imagine didn't make for very accurate shooting. You can see this on the 19th-century photo of the Chinese matchlock musketeer that I've posted before (reposted below):

mid-19th-century-chinese-soldier-with-matchlock.jpg
A conflict like this, between the Victorian English and the Chinese I would take any personal account with a grain of salt. The English would probably exaggerate their success and the Chinese government is not particularly open to research in this period of their history.

For the guns, it is interesting that the Japanese had similar ergonomics on their guns and it was common for European arms in the 1500s. Obviously by the 1800s, ergonomics were greatly improved. I looked up some Chinese matchlocks in The Royal Armories collection and they look particularly poorly suited to keeping out rain, which you had mentioned earlier.
 
For the guns, it is interesting that the Japanese had similar ergonomics on their guns and it was common for European arms in the 1500s. Obviously by the 1800s, ergonomics were greatly improved. I looked up some Chinese matchlocks in The Royal Armories collection and they look particularly poorly suited to keeping out rain, which you had mentioned earlier.

True, I've seen Chinese matchlocks of this period that seem to have lacked a proper pan cover, thus making them far more susceptible to the elements. The pistol-grip type stock was, as you say, also present in Japan. I think this may have been due to a doctrine present in early-modern East Asia where firearms were intended to be shot more from the center of the chest rather than off one shoulder ... but I'd need to double-check my sources to confirm that. In any case, yes I'd agree that the ergonimics of indigenous East-Asian firearms during the Opium War period was inferior to that of European firearms, regardless of the lock type.
 
Since we're talking about East Asia, I should perhaps also mention that Japan was one of the (seemingly) few nations that produced matchlock pistols! I have no idea how these fared in combat compared to a "firelock" pistol, though it would be interesting to know, if anyone here knows anything about them?

I suspect though that many of these Japanese pistols were intended more as a status symbol for the samurai elite, rather than an actual combat weapon. One thing I've noticed about them is that, similar to the East Asian muskets, they seem to have fairly short grips. Not sure how ergonomic they'd be. To my knowledge these were all smoothbore, I haven't yet encountered any examples with rifled barrels, although I admit I'm no expert.

During the 1850s-60s some of these matchlock pistols were converted to percussion, and may have seen service in the Boshin War, although I'm not nearly as familiar with that conflict as I am with the Opium Wars, so I don't know offhand any accounts of their use. However they still retained the awkward ergonomics that they'd had when they were matchlocks (namely the tiny grip).

Here's an example of a Japanese matchlock pistol, and also one that was converted to percussion in the 19th century:

image

lf
 
Since we're talking about East Asia, I should perhaps also mention that Japan was one of the (seemingly) few nations that produced matchlock pistols! I have no idea how these fared in combat compared to a "firelock" pistol, though it would be interesting to know, if anyone here knows anything about them?

I suspect though that many of these Japanese pistols were intended more as a status symbol for the samurai elite, rather than an actual combat weapon. One thing I've noticed about them is that, similar to the East Asian muskets, they seem to have fairly short grips. Not sure how ergonomic they'd be. To my knowledge these were all smoothbore, I haven't yet encountered any examples with rifled barrels, although I admit I'm no expert.

During the 1850s-60s some of these matchlock pistols were converted to percussion, and may have seen service in the Boshin War, although I'm not nearly as familiar with that conflict as I am with the Opium Wars, so I don't know offhand any accounts of their use. However they still retained the awkward ergonomics that they'd had when they were matchlocks (namely the tiny grip).

Here's an example of a Japanese matchlock pistol, and also one that was converted to percussion in the 19th century:

image

lf
Not to sound like a huge nerd, but if you play video games, Total War Shogun 2 and it’s expansion Fall of the Samurai, let’s you have big set piece battles between Tanegashima infantry and cap lock/needle file troops. It’s very fun for this type of thing.
 
Not to sound like a huge nerd, but if you play video games, Total War Shogun 2 and it’s expansion Fall of the Samurai, let’s you have big set piece battles between Tanegashima infantry and cap lock/needle file troops. It’s very fun for this type of thing.
I own it ;)
I'm absolutely awful at strategy games though, so my troops tend to get their butts kicked no matter if they're using matchlocks, caplocks, or gatling guns 😅
 
I own it ;)
I'm absolutely awful at strategy games though, so my troops tend to get their butts kicked no matter if they're using matchlocks, caplocks, or gatling guns 😅
That why you gotta have crazy uneven custom matches. It’s hard to lose when you have chassepot armed French marines against Yari Ashigaru
 
That why you gotta have crazy uneven custom matches. It’s hard to lose when you have chassepot armed French marines against Yari Ashigaru
Custom battles with an AI ally are usually the way I role. Get the AI friend to manage the big part of the army while I just control one company of grunts to "help" :p
 
Probably the same reason why rifled firearms became preferred in America later on in history, when smoothbores were still more common in Europe. Different types of warfare between the two regions.

I have to wonder what they did with the old matchlocks in the colonies after they were outlawed for militia use. Scrap them? Convert them to firelock? Sell them to Indians? It would be interesting to know.
Restock the barrel be my guess Rudyard
True, I've seen Chinese matchlocks of this period that seem to have lacked a proper pan cover, thus making them far more susceptible to the elements. The pistol-grip type stock was, as you say, also present in Japan. I think this may have been due to a doctrine present in early-modern East Asia where firearms were intended to be shot more from the center of the chest rather than off one shoulder ... but I'd need to double-check my sources to confirm that. In any case, yes I'd agree that the ergonimics of indigenous East-Asian firearms during the Opium War period was inferior to that of European firearms, regardless of the lock type.
Dear Crableg.You have introduced a refreshing facet of the study of arms , good on you nice change from the usual .& the dedicated TobJohn has found us great research as has the priceless Cyten .

De Witt Bailey is an acknowledged expert in his field but his letter heads had ' Student of arms ' No one of that calibre would except the term' expert' since the more we study the more we know and the more we realize we can't know the half of it . but its fun trying. I salute you all.
Regards Rudyard
 
Siege of Vienna 1683. Austri-Hungarians with majority Matchlocks against the Ottomans with majority Miquelets

I admit I'm not every familiar with this campaign, beyond just hearing the general overview and its impact on Europe at the time. Could you share any particular accounts from this battle of matchlock vs. miquelet combat? Casualty rates from a particular engagement, reports on how the weapons functioned (or cases where they failed to) etc?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top