Good point. Even those still seem to be nicer than a comparable era European gun, right? Could you post one, if it’s not already in the thread?
-
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
Ottoman Guns
- Thread starter Rudyard
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
- Joined
- May 24, 2005
- Messages
- 5,481
- Reaction score
- 5,285
Yes, I believe that was a major reason for the different levels of decoration.
Here's mine
Have to agree with Rick, the nicest examples tend to last the longest. The plain ones usually saw hard use and show up in bad condition
Great, thank you! That is more plain than the ones I was an aware of.Here's mine
Have to agree with Rick, the nicest examples tend to last the longest. The plain ones usually saw hard use and show up in bad condition
- Joined
- May 24, 2005
- Messages
- 5,481
- Reaction score
- 5,285
Here you go. This is closer to a plain, munitions grade Tufuk. Simple horn nose cap and trigger plate. Simple, flat brass decoration on butt stock. For a plain gun, this one is in nice condition. That's why I bought it. It's probably still safe to shoot as-is today. It has a heavy patina but is in really solid condition. Seldom see these plain ones in this good of condition.
Rick
- Joined
- May 24, 2005
- Messages
- 5,481
- Reaction score
- 5,285
Cyten: That is another good munitions grade example.
Rick
Rick
Rick you can also tell by the wear at the muzzle from the steel ramrod that this gun was well used; however, its owner kept it in very good condition...must have been a personally owned piece....pride of ownership!
- Joined
- May 24, 2005
- Messages
- 5,481
- Reaction score
- 5,285
That's what it appears to be. Used, but not abused. The bore still needs a better cleaning, but is in much better shape than most I've seen.
Still, I would not shoot it until the breech plug was removed and inspected. A habit of mine. The lock functions well. Yes, even though a plain example, seems this one was reasonably cared for. Would be an ideal piece for a shooter.
Rick
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2019
- Messages
- 3,518
- Reaction score
- 4,482
I believe its generally true . On the subject of wider opened muzzle common in such arms if not peculiar to them theirs are oft as not, Not rod wear since the rifling follows them. Yes it seemingly aids the easy starting & in moderation this is true but it isn't too easy to put the ball if patched as oft as not goes cockeye on you ..Down the barrel it goes then like as not the breach area is open your patched ball sits prone to gas blowing by it while on exit the blow by gases may or may not disturb the flight . Rod wear errosion deliberate plan ??? all three? , but this is typical of such barrels .
Most modern shooters would be aghast at going that route if some gentle lead in coned muzzle is by many acceptable & I factor some lead in. I file grouve's deeper on PB rifles to make them look deeper , But nothing like the Islamic barrel survivor's tend to be .
One thing they are not is stupid, they made some of the finest barrels much admired by Europeans' and mounted by the top gunmakers . Much as latterly the Spanish barrels where esteemed for there qualities .If in Spain's case usually smooth bore barrels & they were also open at the breach & relived at the muzzle by design.
Rudyard
Another plain jane next to a Persian rifle.
I also wanted to point out something of interest, perhaps only to myself. We know that the Ottomans adopted the Miquelet from the Spanish style and from some of the earlier 17th century examples we can see a decoration that they took as well and kept for sometime...
The Swirl
The first is a Spanish lock that is dated from the 1660's, the next is an Ottoman example that was present at the Siege of Vienna in 1683, the next was captured in the 18th century and is on display in Austria, the last two are not dated and no known provenance
I also wanted to point out something of interest, perhaps only to myself. We know that the Ottomans adopted the Miquelet from the Spanish style and from some of the earlier 17th century examples we can see a decoration that they took as well and kept for sometime...
The Swirl
The first is a Spanish lock that is dated from the 1660's, the next is an Ottoman example that was present at the Siege of Vienna in 1683, the next was captured in the 18th century and is on display in Austria, the last two are not dated and no known provenance
those swirls were very common on Italian and German wheellocks from the period.
Locks from around 1580-1600
Interesting! I just noticed it was always in the same place on the Ottoman locks. Some more examples in Elgoods book on Balkan arms. And also the "shell" looking aesthetics
Shells are also on Italian matchlock mechanisms, but I assume that is just because Spain, Italy, and the Ottomans are all on the sea.
Can be seen here at the root of the Serpentine:
I had previously assumed the swirls were just part of some renaissance artistic trend, but ottoman use certainly adds more to think about.
The spring design of the ottoman lock, where its thin and angled for the portion connecting to the joint and then widening out into rounded knob shapes also matches a lot of wheellocks. Very strange considering Ottoman general disinterest in wheellocks, though they did have plenty of opportunities to capture them.
Sam squanch
69 Cal.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2019
- Messages
- 3,171
- Reaction score
- 4,535
They may have realized that wheellocks were more trouble than they were worth.
A wheellock isn't something you could make in your back yard, so think they were wise enough to not try.
I have heard that clock makers made at least some wheellock mechanisms, and probably there was a shortage of Ottoman clock makers.
Pure conjecture again on my part!
I have heard that clock makers made at least some wheellock mechanisms, and probably there was a shortage of Ottoman clock makers.
Pure conjecture again on my part!
Agreed. Note: Only a personal opinion....The Ottoman empire was one of the largest and most long-lasting empires in world history. An Islamic-run superpower which ruled huge areas of the Middle East, Eastern Europe and North Africa for more than 600 years through fratricide, the devshirme system in the early years and using forced Christian converts for the military, they ultimately missed out of the industrial revolution and with poor leadership leading to their end.
However, I don't believe that beyond their sheer volume of force and the artistic ability to decorate and manufacture basic locks/firearms in massive quantities, the typical Ottoman armorer was equipped, nor had the top down appetite or talent technologically as the Dutch Germanic, Italian, French or the Spanish armorer. They had their own basic tools and equipment needs and human military numbers to limp through the very early 20th century, which then terminated as it was far behind the technology of the western world.
Last edited:
This is probably the answer.
In Europe, wheellock development was heavily driven by cavalry needs. The wheellock pistol and carbine came into widespread use during the evolution of European cavalry in the 16th century, where the struggled to find methods of staying cost effective and contending with pike and shot infantry. Ottoman cavalry didn’t have the same problems and were able to stay highly competitive against western cavalry in the 17th century, even without the widespread use of guns. I’m less familiar with when the ottomans first adopted the Miquelet but it seems it was before their main European rivals adopted firelocks in large numbers. By the siege of Vienna at the end of the 17th century, the Austrians were still using matchlocks in massive numbers.
- Joined
- May 24, 2005
- Messages
- 5,481
- Reaction score
- 5,285
The Greeks were especially fond of doing this. You often find the barrel on a Greek gun with the simple outline of a human face on top of the barrel near the breech. They also would make the triggers themselves (usually on pistols) in the shape of a human. I've also read that the Greek locals would add a decoration to their gun stocks after each battle as a thank you to the gun for helping in the owner's survival.
Rick
- Joined
- May 24, 2005
- Messages
- 5,481
- Reaction score
- 5,285
Rudyard makes some good points here. The Ottoman area made barrels may or may not have a slight swell at the muzzle, especially the smooth bores. With the smooth bores, if you plan on shooting the original barrel, you need to measure about 3-inches or so into the muzzle to determine the caliber. I remember when my Albanian barrel was at Bobby Hoyt's to get a new liner. He called me and asked if I wanted to keep the swell at the muzzle. I said no. Just make it regular cylinder bore it's entire length. At least with the smooth bores, based on original loads being extracted from the barrels, it appears the locals did not use a greased patch. The ball (usually under-sized) would sit on top of the powder with a wad of tow on top to keep everything in place.
The rifled barrels, I'm not sure. I supposed some had a swell at the muzzle. But the original - rifled - barrels that I have do not. And I lead slugged the barrels about 3 inches into the barrels just to make sure.
As Rudyard mentions, we generally like to use a greased patch with the ball for loading. But with a swell at the muzzle, it would make it just as easy as not to get the pre-cut patch ****-eyed while starting into the muzzle. (Which in my case, I found the use of a loading block to be very useful LOL )
During the period, we seldom find a Spanish (or Italian for that matter) gun with a rifled barrel. Even ones for hunting/sporting use. For some reason they didn't find a rifled barrel any advantage. Curious. The only two Spanish sporting shoulder guns I've seen, one had a German barrel and the other a Turkish barrel.
Here is the muzzle of my Sindh rifle. It's a .41 caliber and takes a .400 ball with a thick patch. There is no swell at the muzzle. But the way the rifling is cut makes it look like a larger caliber than it is. Possibly more for decoration than anything else. And notice the round bottom rifling.
Based on the remaining specimens today, it seems the Ottoman/Turkish barrels run about 50/50 rifled versus smooth bore.
Rick
- Joined
- May 24, 2005
- Messages
- 5,481
- Reaction score
- 5,285
Some great comments. While Europe, at least military-wise would develop large armories churning out the same guns over and over, the Ottomans made use of hundreds (if not thousands) of small, independent shops throughout the Empire to build these guns. In fact, I've read that entire towns/villages were enlisted to make weapons under contract with the Ottoman Empire. Of course, all these individual shops would account for the vast variety of differences in the Ottoman guns beyond a basic pattern.
As you mentioned, besides sheer volume, this eventually put the Empire technologically behind Europe in gun development. And the best example of that is the continued use of flintlocks even during the BPC period. And many of these Ottoman guns were handed down from Father to Son to Grandson. Which would account for many specimens today showing heavy/long-term field use. I've also wondered if during the 19th Century many Ottomans conscripted in the Military we required to supply their own guns ?
Rick
