fish-butted matchlocks

[44-henry]

FWIW that Newtowne musket is a fake ...

I am all for passing of knowledge, but when you make a statement like that I really hope you have something to back it up. Several others have asked that you provide some additional information, I would add that if you can't the right thing to do would be to retract your statement.

 

[wahkahchimaol.com]

I agree, Alexander....the credibility of the National Guard Enlisted Association and the Rifle Shoppe is on the line here. If the Newtowne musket is a fake, then show us the proof, and we'll know what's real. After all, there have been plenty of faked historical artifacts before, and you are doing us all a favor by educating us. But if the Newtowne Musket is NOT a fake, then to claim it is bogus is simply inflammatory and mendacious. So...proof please.

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

THESE VERY FORUMS are full of warnings by posters of reknown like Tom Patton (Okwaho) and Mike Brooks about a man named Teff who apparently made a lot of fakes.

Use the SEARCH feature for more details, looking for 'Teff'.

Esteemed muzzleloading Authors such as Merrill Lindsay and Tom Grinslade have also made mentions of this dubious practice by Teff, who worked with Kimball Arms out of Boston.

I have spoken with Leonard Day in person about the Newtowne musket in detail and it is his opinion that it is a fake!

 

[raszpla]

:hatsoff:

 

[raszpla]

 

[raszpla]

 

[raszpla]

w omawianym muszkiecie ( myślę o samym zamku ) nie było automatycznej odsłony panewki ale film pokazuje ogólną zasadę systemu snap
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gi6bZe5gWAM&list=UUzoxW2OCcpGjs_VuLPYLRkg&index=9&feature=plcp

 

[wahkahchimaol.com]

So this was originally a snapping matchlock? Does it look fake to you?

Tak (więc) to był początkowo szczękanie *matchlock*? Robi to patrzą (wyglądać) szwindel wy?

 

[wahkahchimaol.com]

This forum gets more and more interesting!

 

[raszpla]

I have no objection to the age of weapons. I say that it is possible that the mechanism (lock) originally had a snap functions.possible that the builder adopted a defective mechanism (lock) to build this particular musket and rebuilt the mechanism (lock) to the normal system matchlock.
This may indicate only that there came the musket from the construction of a series Only it was improvised weapons. and that the mechanism (lock) can be much older than this model musket.
if you can understand me?
:hatsoff:

 

[raszpla]

I do not speak English and I'm not sure if you can understand

 

[wahkahchimaol.com]

What you are saying makes sense, especially since any American-made gun would have to be made of European parts during that time. I can't speak for everyone else, but I think I understand you!

 

[Jim Blair]

I understand what he's getting at.Given the museum is IDing as made in Mass. mid 1600s it would stand to reason it was made from parts from other guns.Are those saying it is a fake saying in it's entirety or just as far as the "Newtowne" markings?It seems from reading about "Teff" his forte was more in enhancing existing original pieces than creating one from whole cloth in it's entirety.

 

[raszpla]

museum tells how old musket? please give the date.

:hatsoff:

 

[raszpla]

If some of you present a good picture of the mechanism plate , I'll try to create a mechanism for the reconstruction of the original scheme (lock)

change in the system of the mechanism (lock)---> will change the trigger --->it changes the form of wood and the trigger guard would be needed.

:hatsoff:

 

[Jim Blair]

museum tells how old musket? please give the date.

:hatsoff:

The only dating information is that the gun was built in the first half of the 1600s in Massachusetts.Then you have to consider that it is likely built out of parts from an older European built weapon.But,how much older and what.

 

[ChrisPer]

Newtowne Musket
http://www.newtownemusket.com/

The Smithsonian dates their musket to 1636 because Newtowne changed its name to Cambridge in 1636, when Harvard University was founded there.

 

[raszpla]

photographs shown on this website is of little value cognitive. it is unlikely that someone brought to America a defective mechanism (lock)- I if I went on a journey of his life, across the ocean, I took me with him an efficient mechanism (lock)- (weapon).I am of the opinion that it is worthwhile to focus on the mechanism (lock).
I suggest the primary mechanism of age for the years 1590 - 1620. After reconstruction, the age of a new form of matchlock had to be younger.but it is necessary to evaluate a good picture of the mechanism plate.image which shows the important structural holes.
:hatsoff:

 

[raszpla]

read information from the website:http://americanhistory.si.edu/militaryhistory/exhibition/flash.html?path=1.1.r_410 I do not see any contradiction.However, the original predecessor remains a mystery!
:hatsoff:

 

[bioprof]

I seem to remember a discussion a couple of years ago about the Newtowne musket. The conclusion of the people discussing it was not that it was a forgery, but it was a gun that was restocked in the colonies from older parts. In other words, it was a cobbled-together gun.

The question then is this, is is an original? Are the people making reproductions of it without mentioning that it was a cobbled gun being completely honest?

Of course, I could be completely wrong (and frequently am), but I don't think the gun is representative of a typical matchlock. I don't think that the person who restocked it knew what a matchlock was supposed to look like.