Battle accounts of matchlocks vs. flintlocks?

[user 56333]

While mining existed in the colonies before 1700, true local manufacturing of weapons was not really a thing. I also think gunpowder production was severely limited, but I cannot find my source on that... Either way, most weapons would have been thought in the context of having to import everything.

I was thinking more about slow match production, rather than actual gun production. They certainly had hemp farms in Virginia by the 1600s. Not as sure when the first cotton plantations started. In any case, either can be used to make slow match for matchlocks.

While trying to find a source, I came across these statistics which are much earlier and more lopsided towards firelocks than I had originally thought:
View attachment 198542
History of Armour and Weapons Relevant to Jamestown - Historic Jamestowne Part of Colonial National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service)

I coincidentally answered it for Virginia, but here is a source for new England:
Arms and Armor of the Pilgrims 1620-1692, by Harold L. Peterson—A Project Gutenberg eBook

Thanks, that's interesting indeed. Funny to think that regions which were considered remote and underdeveloped were using more "modern" firearms than the great population centers of Europe...

 

[TobJohn]

I was thinking more about slow match production, rather than actual gun production. They certainly had hemp farms in Virginia by the 1600s. Not as sure when the first cotton plantations started. In any case, either can be used to make slow match for matchlocks.





Thanks, that's interesting indeed. Funny to think that regions which were considered remote and underdeveloped were using more "modern" firearms than the great population centers of Europe...

For the first part, that is very true but I had meant that if you already had to bring every part of your shooting system across the ocean, having to bring flint too wouldn’t have made much of a difference.

The New England article is pretty good at describing why. Irregular forrest and wilderness warfare is terrible for a matchlock. While there was a huge variety in how Europeans procured equipment in the 16th-17th centuries, it still made the most sense for them to buy a cheap and proven systems to outfit most of an army, particularly because the differences mattered less in the system of firing before true linear tactics. Ironically, most Western/central European combat in this period was also actually skirmishes and raids (and sieges, but that isn’t comparable) where a fire lock probably would have been much more useful.

 

[user 56333]

The New England article is pretty good at describing why. Irregular forrest and wilderness warfare is terrible for a matchlock.

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.

 

[TobJohn]

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.

True, but it also directly evolved from Germans that had a rifle tradition (both for hunting and warfare) in Europe and then moved to the middle and southern colonies.

 

[user 56333]

True, but it also directly evolved from Germans that had a rifle tradition (both for hunting and warfare) in Europe and then moved to the middle and southern colonies.

I was doing a bit more digging on the matchlock/firelock comparison in the colonies, and found an interesting list of weapons from New Hampshire militia in the 1630s. As far as firearms, there were "22 arquebuses, 4 muskets, 46 fowling pieces, 67 carbines, [and] 6 pairs of pistols." That's from the second book in a three-part series by Osprey Publishing called "Colonial American Troops 1610-1774".

Unfortunately it doesn't specify what lock types these firearms all were, but it was interesting to see that lighter firearms like carbines and arquebuses (I'd assume the latter were matchlocks, as I've never heard of any flint-ignition arquebuses) greatly outnumbered muskets. I'd imagine this preference for lighter firearms was due to the same reason we discussed earlier regarding firelocks being more common than matchlocks: irregular warfare in rough terrain.

 

[TobJohn]

I was doing a bit more digging on the matchlock/firelock comparison in the colonies, and found an interesting list of weapons from New Hampshire militia in the 1630s. As far as firearms, there were "22 arquebuses, 4 muskets, 46 fowling pieces, 67 carbines, [and] 6 pairs of pistols." That's from the second book in a three-part series by Osprey Publishing called "Colonial American Troops 1610-1774".

Unfortunately it doesn't specify what lock types these firearms all were, but it was interesting to see that lighter firearms like carbines and arquebuses (I'd assume the latter were matchlocks, as I've never heard of any flint-ignition arquebuses) greatly outnumbered muskets. I'd imagine this preference for lighter firearms was due to the same reason we discussed earlier regarding firelocks being more common than matchlocks: irregular warfare in rough terrain.

JYF has a good explanation on that too.


In my newbie experience, I have seen everything from handgonnes with proper buttstocks but no lock to wheellock carbines described as arquebuses, which is super annoying when trying to look something up. I think in general though, they are (or at least should be) matchlocks.

 

[user 56333]

While some of the Thirteen Colonies were outlawing matchlocks in the 1600s, it seems they persisted in use among certain Caribbean colonies in to the early 18th century. The Osprey Publishing book "The Flintlock Musket" has an interesting passage about the British colonial governor of the Leeward Islands requesting flintlocks in 1705 to replace the matchlocks that his troops were using at the time.

I wonder why matchlocks persisted longer in the Caribbean. Perhaps the militias there were expecting to fight more "conventional" battles against rival colonial powers than the irregular woodland skirmishes in the Thirteen Colonies?

 

[Billy-by-gosh]

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!

I read that too - set me to wondering if he was actually referring to the LEAD for the musket balls...8 to 12 per pound would seem to correspond to musket gauge sizes.

 

[Cvkotvkse]

I'm curious if there are many historical records, anecdotes, etc. that give an account of a battle where matchlock and flintlock firearms saw combat against each other. It would be interesting to get an idea of just how much of a disadvantage a matchlock would really be against a flintlock, assuming other factors like the soldiers training, the length of the gun, etc. were more or less equal.































































































































Within the "flintlock" category here I'm willing to include earlier flint-ignition precursors like doglocks, snaphances, etc.































































































































The only examples I can think of where matchlocks and flintlocks were pitted against each other happened during the First Opium War, and in these cases it's hard to say how much the weapon itself made a difference, considering the notable gap in quality between the British and Chinese armies of the time (the matchlock-using Chinese soldiers were, on average, less well trained and organized than their flintlock-using British adversaries).































I'm curious if there are many historical records, anecdotes, etc. that give an account of a battle where matchlock and flintlock firearms saw combat against each other. It would be interesting to get an idea of just how much of a disadvantage a matchlock would really be against a flintlock, assuming other factors like the soldiers training, the length of the gun, etc. were more or less equal.































Within the "flintlock" category here I'm willing to include earlier flint-ignition precursors like doglocks, snaphances, etc.































The only examples I can think of where matchlocks and flintlocks were pitted against each other happened during the First Opium War, and in these cases it's hard to say how much the weMaapon itself made a difference, considering the notable gap in quality between the British and Chinese armies of the time (the matchlock-using Chinese soldiers were, on averaOn ge, less well trained and organized than their flintlock-using British adversaries).



I'm curious if there are many historical records, anecdotes, etc. that give an account of a battle where matchlock and flintlock firearms saw combat against each other. It would be interesting to get an idea of just how much of a disadvantage a matchlock would really be against a flintlock, assuming other factors like the soldiers training, the length of the gun, etc. were more or less equal.



Within the "flintlock" category here I'm willing to include earlier flint-ignition precursors like doglocks, snaphances, etc.



The only examples I can think of where matchlocks and flintlocks were pitted against each other happened during the First Opium War, and in these cases it's hard to say how much the weapon itself made a difference, considering the notable gap in quality between the British and Chinese armies of the time (the matchlock-using Chinese soldiers were, on average, less well trained and organized than their flintlock-using British adversaries).

 

[RAEDWALD]

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!

It may be that he is using a smaller ‘pound’ than the modern Imperial one. There were many types of ‘pounds’ and would differ by locality. Hence one sometimes saw it qualified, such as ‘apothecary’s‘ or ‘Nuremberg’.

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

I read that too - set me to wondering if he was actually referring to the LEAD for the musket balls...8 to 12 per pound would seem to correspond to musket gauge sizes.

That's it! Yes, oh well ... so much for my reading comprehension ...

 

[Pierre009]

View attachment 198441View attachment 198442

Interesting read...thanks

 

[Barud]

I'm curious if there are many historical records, anecdotes, etc. that give an account of a battle where matchlock and flintlock firearms saw combat against each other. It would be interesting to get an idea of just how much of a disadvantage a matchlock would really be against a flintlock, assuming other factors like the soldiers training, the length of the gun, etc. were more or less equal.

Within the "flintlock" category here I'm willing to include earlier flint-ignition precursors like doglocks, snaphances, etc.

The only examples I can think of where matchlocks and flintlocks were pitted against each other happened during the First Opium War, and in these cases it's hard to say how much the weapon itself made a difference, considering the notable gap in quality between the British and Chinese armies of the time (the matchlock-using Chinese soldiers were, on average, less well trained and organized than their flintlock-using British adversaries).

I remember reading in an Osprey book that during the English Civil War, soldiers who where to guard over the supply train (or, in particular, powder storages) were specifically given firelocks as to reduce the risk of an accident.

 

[user 56333]

I remember reading in an Osprey book that during the English Civil War, soldiers who where to guard over the supply train (or, in particular, powder storages) were specifically given firelocks as to reduce the risk of an accident.

Makes sense. Do you recall which book it was? I've been reading Ospreys for years, they shouldn't be taken as gospel of course but they're a good starting point imo.

 

[user 56333]

Is anyone here familiar at all with the history of the Great Northern War (1700-1721)? I ask because I think I recall reading a claim that matchlocks were still being used by some of the second-line Swedish and Russian forces during this conflict, so I thought perhaps that might be one war where we could find accounts of matchlocks and flintlocks facing each other in a fight?

 

[TobJohn]

Is anyone here familiar at all with the history of the Great Northern War (1700-1721)? I ask because I think I recall reading a claim that matchlocks were still being used by some of the second-line Swedish and Russian forces during this conflict, so I thought perhaps that might be one war where we could find accounts of matchlocks and flintlocks facing each other in a fight?

I tried a while ago and didn't find anything good.

Another good place to look: Franco Dutch War
The French started to issue flintlocks (actual flintlocks too) in the decade before and the Musketeers of the Guard that inspired The Three Musketeers fought in the conflict, which could mean that there are more sources.

I am not really sure when the ottomans started to use Miquelets, but the Austrians were still armed with matchlocks during the Great Turkish War which happened at the end of the 17th century.

 

[Barud]

I tried a while ago and didn't find anything good.

Another good place to look: Franco Dutch War
The French started to issue flintlocks (actual flintlocks too) in the decade before and the Musketeers of the Guard that inspired The Three Musketeers fought in the conflict, which could mean that there are more sources.

I am not really sure when the ottomans started to use Miquelets, but the Austrians were still armed with matchlocks during the Great Turkish War which happened at the end of the 17th century.

The Ottomans likely began using miquelets at a very early date; the Ottoman miquelet has the reinforcing bridge between the **** and frizzen screws, which, if my memory does not fail me, was a feature of very early Western miquelets. They never got rid of that feature, unlike the rest of the Mediterranean. Also, to my understanding, the Ottoman military was much more lax in terms of equipment. By the late 16th century, Janissaries literally selling off state-issued equipment to buy themselves private arms was a complaint common enough to be documented, so there wasn't really an enforcement of equipment standardization like in an European army. So, my assumption is that the Austrians were facing miquelets likely as early as the Long War in Hungary, but never in a mass capacity.

 

[Barud]

Makes sense. Do you recall which book it was? I've been reading Ospreys for years, they shouldn't be taken as gospel of course but they're a good starting point imo.

I think it was "Armies of the Civil War: Infantry" or such. It even had an illustration (by Angus McBride) of a matchlock-armed soldier trying to keep his match lit while a firelock-armed soldier looked at him with a smug look on his face.

 

[user 56333]

I think it was "Armies of the Civil War: Infantry" or such. It even had an illustration (by Angus McBride) of a matchlock-armed soldier trying to keep his match lit while a firelock-armed soldier looked at him with a smug look on his face.

I've personally not been a huge fan of the McBride illustrations in Osprey Books, despite all the praise he gets from other readers. They always looked a bit... "off" or "cartoonish" to me in their proportions, hard to explain...

But still, the guy sometimes had a sense of humor like that which could be fun. I recall an illustration in the Osprey Book "Privateers and Pirates" where he inserted the author (Angus Konstam) into his illustration as a naval officer.

 

[Canute Rex]

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.