East meets west. Peter Hofkircher C 1525

[Pukka Bundook]

Looking for a specific set of images for a thread here, I ran again into the Peter Hofkircher tinderlock of C 1525. (Tob, your picture added in a recent post reminded me!)
I had not noticed it before, how the stock behind the breech is so very similar to the Indian Torador.

See link;
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=7854&highlight=Peter+Hofkircher
It may well be that guns of this type were the first taken to India, and influenced design for a great deal of time thereafter.

 

[PathfinderNC]

More fascinating guns!
The resource forum is very interesting indeed and well worth delving into!
Thanks for sharing this @Pukka Bundook

 

[TobJohn]

That is a very interesting hypothesis. The Portuguese took Goa by 1510, so the timing would work.

 

[Pukka Bundook]

Two breeches,
First one is a Toradar from up in the Oudh area, but most are the same.
Thiis one has lost the lug for the pin to hold the breech down.

Second one, made in Suhl, C. 1535

As you can see, apparently forged in plugs, and no tang. this is usual on a Torador (spelling varies !) but is almost forgotten on Europea narms.

 

[rickystl]

Pukka: Those are some really interesting observations. I also had not noticed the similarities of the stock design behind the breech of both guns. And the forging of the breech plugs methods look identical. Even the pan designs look similar. Incredible to think the breech plug installation on Torador type barrels used into the 19th Century used the same method of European barrels from the early 16th Century. But that seems to be the case.
One thing I have noticed with matchlocks from India, Japan, Oman, and elsewhere, is that the builders of these guns avoided using any parts requiring "threads" where possible.

Rick

 

[TobJohn]

Pukka: Those are some really interesting observations. I also had not noticed the similarities of the stock design behind the breech of both guns. And the forging of the breech plugs methods look identical. Even the pan designs look similar. Incredible to think the breech plug installation on Torador type barrels used into the 19th Century used the same method of European barrels from the early 16th Century. But that seems to be the case.
One thing I have noticed with matchlocks from India, Japan, Oman, and elsewhere, is that the builders of these guns avoided using any parts requiring "threads" where possible.

Rick

I think the Wikipedia article on Tanegashimas has a section how the threaded breech plug on the Portuguese arquebus was the hardest part for the original gunsmith to replicate because they didn’t have metal threading techniques.

Michael had some great posts on threading in European gun making and that screws and threads were still rare in Europe during the beginning of the 16th century. This is why a lot of the very early snapping matchlock mechanisms were nailed on and possibly why the barrels were tangless and forge welded at the breech.

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

I think the Wikipedia article on Tanegashimas has a section how the threaded breech plug on the Portuguese arquebus was the hardest part for the original gunsmith to replicate because they didn’t have metal threading techniques.

I am still in the beginning chapters of reading Shigeo Sugawa's 'bible' on the Tanegashimas (The Japanese Matchlock: A Story of the Tanegashima) as they originated from the Portuguese Goa, and I sure hope he gets into this.

Luckily I had picked up an extremely rare 1st (and only!) edition in English!

 

[Pukka Bundook]

Rick,
I do not know if anyone ran a rod down any of these early 16th century European barrels, to see if they had chambers
Yes indeed, the earlier hand gonnes had chambers, but now I would like to know if these were abandoned Before guns like the one in the OP, or Modified, or what?
It is a thing I never thought to ask Michael!
Do they have the same chamber as the guns that copied them? (Torador etc?)
I do not know if Graz would oblige in replying to this if they know, Or be willing to run a rod down to find out!

I really want to know, LOL!!

Tob,
You have a good point.
No tang essentially required if no threaded breech!
Yes, some Indian/Persian barrels with welded breeches Do have tangs, but these Appear to copy guns similar to what we see in the Royal Armouries from the Tudor times, (Henry V!!!) As in, Somewhat later than the gun in the OP.

 

[TobJohn]

Rick,
I do not know if anyone ran a rod down any of these early 16th century European barrels, to see if they had chambers
Yes indeed, the earlier hand gonnes had chambers, but now I would like to know if these were abandoned Before guns like the one in the OP, or Modified, or what?
It is a thing I never thought to ask Michael!
Do they have the same chamber as the guns that copied them? (Torador etc?)
I do not know if Graz would oblige in replying to this if they know, Or be willing to run a rod down to find out!

I really want to know, LOL!!

Tob,
You have a good point.
No tang essentially required if no threaded breech!
Yes, some Indian/Persian barrels with welded breeches Do have tangs, but these Appear to copy guns similar to what we see in the Royal Armouries from the Tudor times, (Henry V!!!) As in, Somewhat later than the gun in the OP.

Armin König, Michael’s good friend, built a replica of one of these early Styrian matchlocks. I can PM you his contact info if you want to ask him.

 

[rickystl]

I think the Wikipedia article on Tanegashimas has a section how the threaded breech plug on the Portuguese arquebus was the hardest part for the original gunsmith to replicate because they didn’t have metal threading techniques.

Michael had some great posts on threading in European gun making and that screws and threads were still rare in Europe during the beginning of the 16th century. This is why a lot of the very early snapping matchlock mechanisms were nailed on and possibly why the barrels were tangless and forge welded at the breech.

The Tanegashimas only threaded connection was the breech plug. The rest of the gun was assembled with pins. The Indian Torador was assembled with no threaded connections.
My earliest knowledge of the use of threads is the sliding nasal bars on some of the later medieval helmets. But the lack of tap and die tools during early gun making must have prompted gun makers to avoid making threads when ever possible.
I have a sporting powder flask that Michael T dated to the third quarter of the 16th Century. One time I dis-assembled the flask and noted the tiny screws that held the flask head. While the flask was skillfully made, the threads for the tiny head screws were quite crude. (Somewhere, I have a photo of this) But looking at threaded screws 100 years later showed much improvement, and wide spread usage. And another 100 years looked still better.
So nails and pins would seem the norm for the earliest lock mounting to stocks.

Rick

 

[rickystl]

Rick,
I do not know if anyone ran a rod down any of these early 16th century European barrels, to see if they had chambers
Yes indeed, the earlier hand gonnes had chambers, but now I would like to know if these were abandoned Before guns like the one in the OP, or Modified, or what?
It is a thing I never thought to ask Michael!
Do they have the same chamber as the guns that copied them? (Torador etc?)
I do not know if Graz would oblige in replying to this if they know, Or be willing to run a rod down to find out!

I really want to know, LOL!!

Tob,
You have a good point.
No tang essentially required if no threaded breech!
Yes, some Indian/Persian barrels with welded breeches Do have tangs, but these Appear to copy guns similar to what we see in the Royal Armouries from the Tudor times, (Henry V!!!) As in, Somewhat later than the gun in the OP.

Hi Pukka

LOL. I never thought to ask Michael either. Darn. That would be very interesting to know.

Rick

 

[rickystl]

"Armin König, Michael’s good friend, built a replica of one of these early Styrian matchlocks. I can PM you his contact info if you want to ask him."

That's a good idea. Maybe someone could email him - someone with more knowledge of these early European guns than myself. Hint ! Hint ! LOL

Rick

 

[TobJohn]

"Armin König, Michael’s good friend, built a replica of one of these early Styrian matchlocks. I can PM you his contact info if you want to ask him."

That's a good idea. Maybe someone could email him - someone with more knowledge of these early European guns than myself. Hint ! Hint ! LOL

Rick

Lol I can ask him next time I talk to him. I don’t want to spam his inbox too much.

 

[Rudyard]

Looking for a specific set of images for a thread here, I ran again into the Peter Hofkircher tinderlock of C 1525. (Tob, your picture added in a recent post reminded me!)
I had not noticed it before, how the stock behind the breech is so very similar to the Indian Torador.

See link;
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=7854&highlight=Peter+Hofkircher
It may well be that guns of this type were the first taken to India, and influenced design for a great deal of time thereafter.

View attachment 266503

Pukka Your the man ! great pics a joyous look into the 'new way backwards' ". Build a better matchlock & the world will beat a path to your door " Not sure about that but for such as we its true enough . chuckling, you made my day at least .
Regards Rudyard

 

[Rudyard]

I am still in the beginning chapters of reading Shigeo Sugawa's 'bible' on the Tanegashimas (The Japanese Matchlock: A Story of the Tanegashima) as they originated from the Portuguese Goa, and I sure hope he gets into this.

Luckily I had picked up an extremely rare 1st (and only!) edition in English!

Portuguese Goa is west coast India .( Or was ) I firmly believe what gun the Portuguese flicked off to the Japanese was the remnant of a Venetian snap matchlock .They are too alike to be coincidence. The MLAIC Commitee pushed the' Portuguese' angle and limit other styles mostly to placate the Japanese but there by denied the boundless creativity found in European ones or Indian or any such indigenous examples . Not that I ever considered competing in MLAIC events other that at the MLAGB annual short range matches at Bisley, Where any sort of matchlock could & was used , I even won Gold silver & bronze in that event over the years (long since) . Ide make the lock in NZ stock it in the US with a US barrel ,Use it & proof it in UK then sell it to one of the Jersey Branch ,Dave Dorgan & repeat the performance next year . It was number 88 in 1988 all the' 8s' that won me the gold . " But that's all gone behind me now, Long ago & far away' an their aint no busses runnin from the Bank to Mandalay". Couldnt resist it, never was in Mandalay but was in Rangoon one time .
Regards Rudyard

 

[Pukka Bundook]

Tob,
Replied to your PM, but seeing as you know Armin, please would you ask re. breech arrangement?

Thank you my friend!
I will keep his email for when time is less pressing though!

 

[RAEDWALD]

You can see the early versions of the breech stock shape in the early snap matchlocks in your attachment. It makes me think of the link to India in that both Central Europe and India were on either side of the Ottoman empire so it is feasible that the design wandered across that empire to be picked up in India without European involvement. Indian powder was much like older European powder, meal or friable corning so the old breech chamber would be appropriate to both.

 

[TobJohn]

The snapping hook gun does not have a smaller powder chamber. Europe stopped using the smaller chamber in the mid 1400s because it was a design for serpentine powder. Newer gunpowder did not need it to function properly. I am fairly sure I have seen Rickystl or Pukka Bundook mention Toradars using serpentine powder, so it would make a lot of sense for the difference.

 

[rickystl]

The snapping hook gun does not have a smaller powder chamber. Europe stopped using the smaller chamber in the mid 1400s because it was a design for serpentine powder. Newer gunpowder did not need it to function properly. I am fairly sure I have seen Rickystl or Pukka Bundook mention Toradars using serpentine powder, so it would make a lot of sense for the difference.

Hi Tob

What little I've read in the past, I also recall that the remaining examples of original European hand gonnes in museums and collections did indeed have a "smaller" than bore size powder chamber in the breech. With the research you have done, can you - or anyone - confirm this? During the hand gonne period, the use of and explosive characteristics of the so-called Serpentine powder may have caused the barrel makers then to develop the "theory" of the smaller powder chamber (?) Why smaller versus larger ? I don't know. LOL

Assuming this same serpentine style of powder was still being made and used in the India Continent, is it possible the Torador barrel makers in Central and Northern India developed their own - and different - theory with the use of this powder ? That being the "larger" powder chamber where most of the explosive energy was created and then transferred through the narrow section to the projectile in the bore. It's obvious that the narrow section was designed to keep the projectile from being compressed against the powder. In fact, an air gap along with the extra air space in the chamber. I've never seen this breech design in any barrels. Only the Torador barrels. And it seems that virtually all have this design. But my combination Flintlock/Matchlock musket from the Coorg Region of "South" India has a standard cylinder bore.

I can't come up with any other theory of why the breach design was done with the Torador barrels other than the type of powder used. But I'm open to any and all theories. LOL

Rick

 

[TobJohn]

Hi Tob

What little I've read in the past, I also recall that the remaining examples of original European hand gonnes in museums and collections did indeed have a "smaller" than bore size powder chamber in the breech. With the research you have done, can you - or anyone - confirm this? During the hand gonne period, the use of and explosive characteristics of the so-called Serpentine powder may have caused the barrel makers then to develop the "theory" of the smaller powder chamber (?) Why smaller versus larger ? I don't know. LOL

Assuming this same serpentine style of powder was still being made and used in the India Continent, is it possible the Torador barrel makers in Central and Northern India developed their own - and different - theory with the use of this powder ? That being the "larger" powder chamber where most of the explosive energy was created and then transferred through the narrow section to the projectile in the bore. It's obvious that the narrow section was designed to keep the projectile from being compressed against the powder. In fact, an air gap along with the extra air space in the chamber. I've never seen this breech design in any barrels. Only the Torador barrels. And it seems that virtually all have this design. But my combination Flintlock/Matchlock musket from the Coorg Region of "South" India has a standard cylinder bore.

I can't come up with any other theory of why the breach design was done with the Torador barrels other than the type of powder used. But I'm open to any and all theories. LOL

Rick

Small powder chambers are definitely the norm on medieval cannons and handgonnes. From what I have read and talking to Armin, serpentine powder separates really easily, so the small chamber allows better contact between the components, along with small air gap for the pressure to build and provide ignition between powder. I had previously read that bombards only partially filled their smaller powder chambers, so this provides a better explanation why. Grained powder is already mixed (hence grained) and has a natural air gap (also because of grain shape), so the smaller chamber has no benefit.

Don't order from Amazon, but this book had a great examination at this period of technology transition:
https://www.amazon.com/Weapons-Warfare-Renaissance-Europe-Technology/dp/0801855314/ref=sr_1_5?crid=1Y8Y8O3LM13V1&keywords=renaissance+warfare&qid=1700066091&sprefix=renassiance+warfare,aps,76&sr=8-5&ufe=app_do:amzn1.fos.17d9e15d-4e43-4581-b373-0e5c1a776d5d