Doc Help: Landsknecht Matchlock Pistol?

[john wilson]

:hmm: More rumination after the last comment,.. Looking again at the inletting I realised that if the spring is a replacement then it must be a duplicate of the original because the way the inletting is cut,the wood forms a wedge to support the spring otherwise it might pivot on the retaining screw under load.Doesn't prove anything one way or the other but it does indicate a level of understanding and skill which is 'above the norm'. Thinking out loud here it seems,if anyone has anything to add feel free to jump in.

 

[ChrisPer]

If as you say the inletting supports the spring against its working load that brings two things to mind. First, the French had different ideas to the English and Germans on that kind of thing; for instance wasn't there a French wheel-lock style that mounted the inner pivot of the wheel and the mainspring into the stockwood?

And second, the un-conventional inletting (with a 1/2" Forstner bit might suggest a non-gunsmith of more modern times, than 1680 or so when the corresponding doglock might have been made.

 

[john wilson]

Yes, the illustration above is French so there could be a possibility there. Don't see any evidence of modern tooling use though? It all appears to be hand cut to me. Spindle tools tend to leave tell tales like 'centres' and spirals,I can't see anything remotely like that, what is it you can see that I can't? Thanks, John.

 

[robinghewitt]

it does indicate a level of understanding and skill which is 'above the norm'.

Here's the French norm c1690, a 20 gauge over under with back action locks by Francoise Gruche :thumbsup:

One of my favourites this, it is so slim and elegant.

 

[john wilson]

Yes that's beautiful, a real work of art, it almost looks like it's got back action locks,tang shape is interesting too. I remember looking at a suite of Napoleans arms in the Wallace collection,think they were by Boutet or Le Page (long time ago) absolutely stunning!Memory lingers on,they made a real impression. When I said 'above the norm' though I wasn't inferring craftsmanship of this sort of quality,merely a good understanding of how things go together 'firearms-wise', not excluding a talented amateur but definitely not your average Joe.

 

[john wilson]

Just looked at that post again, it has got back action locks!?? I thought the lock plates were just bent to a greater degree to get the flow! Awesome :hatsoff:

 

[john wilson]

[/URL][/img]
Talking about elegant high quality stuff I keep looking at these. You know what they were saying about people blowing their pensions on Lamborghini's? Well I 'come of age' next year, keep wondering what these might look like in the cabinet. Better than lookin at bits of paper with numbers on that is a fact. :thumbsup:

 

[ChrisPer]

Yes, the illustration above is French so there could be a possibility there. Don't see any evidence of modern tooling use though? It all appears to be hand cut to me. Spindle tools tend to leave tell tales like 'centres' and spirals,I can't see anything remotely like that, what is it you can see that I can't? Thanks, John.

Sorry, my mistake I didn't go back to the picture and remembered a different inlet I had seen. Looks hand done as you say.

 

[john wilson]

No prob Chris, appreciate any input it helps me to view things from a different perspective. If people can see things that I've missed or misinterpreted and point me at it I can try to reason it out. The lock isn't such a problem now but there's nothing like the stock on record anywhere (that hasn't got a wheel or a flint in it). Most people just explain it away as a Victorian fantasy and that just doesn't stack up. The Victorians were great at making reproduction suits of armour,swords,wheel locks, stands of arms etc. There was a huge demand towards the middle and end of the 19th cent. but not for something like this, not pretty enough. I'll doubt I'll ever be able to prove it's 17th century because nothing like it exists, but if I can disprove it being Victorian that's a step in the right direction. If the stock is contemporary with the lock then it must be pre 1850 ish because of the side nails. The only other alternative would be possibly 20th century so looking for a civil war enthusiast, but civil war re-enactment societies are a relatively recent phenomena,last 50 or so years, it's older than that. Plus then you have the problem of where do you find one of these locks and why would you stock it in something that throws doubt on its authenticity. Certainly a puzzle. I keep going over the same old ground but it keeps leading me back in the same direction.

 

[Zonie]

Someone once said,
"“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”. :hmm:

 

[john wilson]

Absolutely! this thing has been driving me nuts,but I have to play the Devils' advocate with myself in order to understand . . Think this thing is coming to an end now thankfully and I'll be able to put it to bed once and for all.It's still been an enlightening journey,I've learned much more than I ever thought I'd need to about matchlock weapons and I hope others have also found it interesting or entertaining. The proof may lie in the barrel and the lack of reinforcing at the breech,which I did have some reservations about, also the way the retaining loops are fitted, but to remove the barrel risks damage to the stock and until I knew (or had a better idea) of what I had I didn't want to risk doing anything stupid, bit of a Catch 22 situation. Anyway, I got in touch with Michael Troemner,he gave his opinion and told me what to look for to prove or disprove its authenticity and I see perfect sense in what he says. There are still quite a few puzzling aspects as to why this thing exists, so it's still a bit of an enigma and an interesting thing in its own rite, but I didn't want to be the guy to dismiss it out of hand, there's still a slight possibility something amazing might pop up when the barrel is removed but I somehow doubt it now. If it does you guys will be the first to know (or maybe second).

 

[Karl Helweg]

http://www.osvaldogatto.com.ar/index.php?view=product&pid=57

 

[robinghewitt]

http://www.osvaldogatto.com.ar/index.php?view=product&pid=57

Holy batcrap, their PM001 looks like a replica of JCW's piece :shocked2:

 

[john wilson]

That's interesting, wonder what he bases his research on? Can't be mine I've only had it a few months and as far as I know its been in hiding anyway for the last god knows how long. He sounds quite firm in his belief though,wonder what he thinks he knows that no-one else seems to? Might be worth getting in touch,probably another dead end but worth a shot. Thanks fellas. :hatsoff:

 

[Karl Helweg]

 

[Alden]

Prof. Gatto should be contacted. He cast my mortar...

 

[john wilson]

One of the few no one can argue with. All marked up,well documented and of such quality you'd need a time machine to find a guy skilled enough to recreate it. Mine lacks all of that but it's a different thing altogether apart from being a matchlock pistol of course. Michael Troemner said that a continuous tube with no reinforcing at the breech was unheard of,which is true of matchlocks but not necessarily doglocks I think. Having said that he did focus on the area that concerned me most,namely the construction of the barrel,it does seem quite lightweight, but it is 'seam' welded which I believe is right ,I think twist came along slightly later . The bore would be about right if it were a military piece and it does make me wonder why someone would go to all the trouble of making such an accurate fake/ fantasy/copy/homage...whatever you want to call it... and then fit an unsuitable barrel when there are plenty of suitable age, marked musket barrels available. Just doesn't make any sense. Removing the barrel from the stock is the thing to do but those pins have been in there forever so it's not a job to rush at.

 

[john wilson]

Hi Alden, think I'm a bit dubious with experts. More often than not they've already got the answer to your question before you even ask it so their first word is also their last. You can't blame 'em, you have to put a lot of time in to be a real expert, some little upstart like me comes along telling 'em they might be wrong doesn't go down well. Unless this thing's got some sort of mark or some other indisputable characteristic I don't think it'll ever be taken seriously by the experts. Be nice if one of them took the time to have a proper look though. :dead: :haha:

 

[john wilson]

Three thousand! Anybody want to see a pic of my wheel lock Gatling gun??? :slap: :rotf:

 

[john wilson]

What a nice guy Senor Gatto is I sent him a snap of my pistol and asked him what he thought and if he had any information on which he based the design of his pistol and he sent me a two foot long email and big hugs from Argentina! Unfortunately it's all in Spanish, I tried the normal google translation but it leaves a bit to be desired so I'm on the case with a Spanish friend of my daughters but she's off on holiday for a couple of weeks so it looks like I'm going to have to wait some more. Thanks for the tip though, y'never know... :thumbsup: