• 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

Lodgewood has a Matchlock Musket

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Jul 26, 2014
Messages
5,217
Reaction score
5,813
Location
Southern Illinois
Lodgewood currently has this:

6A719765-6536-4074-B5E7-C3CB1E400D9A.png

https://www.lodgewood.com/Custom-Late-15th-Century-Serpentine-Matchlock-_p_6048.html
A newly made 15th C matchlock by Steve Krolick.

Thoughts on this piece? Should I buy it? Thanks!
 
A couple thoughts ...

First - I have a couple of guns by Steve and his build quality is excellent!

2nd ... that is NOT a snap or snapping matchlock! Look at the original and you will see a spring that powers the serpentine. I don't get it ... this is the 2nd one now that they have misidentified as a snaplock, yet it is not ... it is a manual arm.

3rd - While I personally do not care for the green paint, the description and text [less as above] is correct and it is representative of an early arm. If mine, I would distress the wood and age the metal with bleach and make it dark.

Lastly - Until the sons of Leonard Day start making and shipping matchlocks, you would be hard-pressed to find one for this price! Indian imports are now $750+!

If not in a rush ... I do prefer the matchlock styles the Days will be selling ...
 
I own the same type of gun from them. It’s well made and a fun gun, but not worth the price. They have a weirdly good attention to detail to random parts, like the lack of barrel tang, but the overall shape has some correct and incorrect parts.
Front ramrod lug: incorrect
Patch(actually tool) box: actually correct
Serpentine: more correct on this than on mine
Tube sight: correct (probably…)

Mine was made by Dave, and was ironically better than the two preceding Steve guns. The text on this looks mostly copy pasted from one of the older Steve guns, so not sure if it’s actually him, or Dave.
 
A couple thoughts ...

First - I have a couple of guns by Steve and his build quality is excellent!

2nd ... that is NOT a snap or snapping matchlock! Look at the original and you will see a spring that powers the serpentine. I don't get it ... this is the 2nd one now that they have misidentified as a snaplock, yet it is not ... it is a manual arm.

3rd - While I personally do not care for the green paint, the description and text [less as above] is correct and it is representative of an early arm. If mine, I would distress the wood and age the metal with bleach and make it dark.

Lastly - Until the sons of Leonard Day start making and shipping matchlocks, you would be hard-pressed to find one for this price! Indian imports are now $750+!

If not in a rush ... I do prefer the matchlock styles the Days will be selling ...

Do you have any more details on these Day matchlocks? I’m intrigued. I know Leonard stopped making them for sale some time ago.
 
I own the same type of gun from them. It’s well made and a fun gun, but not worth the price. They have a weirdly good attention to detail to random parts, like the lack of barrel tang, but the overall shape has some correct and incorrect parts.
Front ramrod lug: incorrect
Patch(actually tool) box: actually correct
Serpentine: more correct on this than on mine
Tube sight: correct (probably…)

Mine was made by Dave, and was ironically better than the two preceding Steve guns. The text on this looks mostly copy pasted from one of the older Steve guns, so not sure if it’s actually him, or Dave.

Thank you. I see the original has a metal piece extending from the wooden “bulge” near the muzzle. The reproduction lacks this, and I’m not sure why/if any originals would have featured this bulge if it wasn’t for the attachment of a blade or hook of some sort?

Also, you mention the “patch box” is actually for tools. What kinds of tools would originally have been placed in there? Thanks!
 
Thank you. I see the original has a metal piece extending from the wooden “bulge” near the muzzle. The reproduction lacks this, and I’m not sure why/if any originals would have featured this bulge if it wasn’t for the attachment of a blade or hook of some sort?

Also, you mention the “patch box” is actually for tools. What kinds of tools would originally have been placed in there? Thanks!
The original theirs is based on is a completely different gun. It’s a snapping tinder lock. I think they were just using it for evidence of the color. There is a Bavarian guy who has perfectly replicated that exact gun, but he makes his in batches and not to order. Some calivers from 100+ years later had a bulge like that. I think it’s just a style choice.

The ramrod attachments were stored there, like worms or ball pullers. I think I also saw an example with a flint and steel in it. When I’m back home, I can find some of the examples. Pukka’s arquebus has a tool box.
 
The original theirs is based on is a completely different gun. It’s a snapping tinder lock. I think they were just using it for evidence of the color. There is a Bavarian guy who has perfectly replicated that exact gun, but he makes his in batches and not to order. Some calivers from 100+ years later had a bulge like that. I think it’s just a style choice.

The ramrod attachments were stored there, like worms or ball pullers. I think I also saw an example with a flint and steel in it. When I’m back home, I can find some of the examples. Pukka’s arquebus has a tool box.

Awesome, thank you. I see that it’s not a very authentic build. For the price I am thinking of avoiding it now.
 
Awesome, thank you. I see that it’s not a very authentic build. For the price I am thinking of avoiding it now.
Yeah, it’s a well made product, but too expensive. They have also been improving their pre flintlock (excluding the handgonnes) so you may as well just wait and see what options there are and check their builds periodically. I think the Day sons are around half a year out from new builds, based on when I talked to them a couple of months ago. You could also try Old Guard, if you want to figure out importing.
 
I don't like paint , it can hide a multitude of sins . Also there is no clamp to hold the match firmly in the serpentine . The bulge in the forend is to hook over ramparts or somesuch .
 
Also there is no clamp to hold the match firmly in the serpentine . .
I think they are trying replicate the tinder lock style serpentine, but it was a bit of a pain at the range. The cotton match I had was snug in the serpentine, but shooting would knock it out, sometimes.
 
Yep , unless you use short pieces of match cord it will pull out under its own weight .
The best source of fungus for tinder , that I have found , is growing all over the sign at the entrance to our black powder range :thumb:
It apparently grows in Shenandoah, near my home, so I’ve been meaning to collect some to use with the arquebus I am buying from our other illustrious kiwi.
 
So this Krolick-made serpentines have issues with properly holding the match cord as well?
Yes, due to the lack of screw holding it in. This is actually historically correct (even though they historically used tinder and not match chord) and theirs has a good fit with match, it’s just an inherent design flaw.
 
Yes, due to the lack of screw holding it in. This is actually historically correct (even though they historically used tinder and not match chord) and theirs has a good fit with match, it’s just an inherent design flaw.

Can you describe how tinder was used? Could tinder be used today in such a serpentine lever and if so, how? Thanks!
 
Back
Top