Perhaps of interest, some matchlocks & period accessories

[Lead Snowstorm]

Recently sold at Bonhams Skinner, note lots 1009 - 1023.

https://www.bonhams.com/auction/302...d-rare-british-cavalry-and-naval-arms/?page=5

I won the matchlock seemingly from the Emden Armory. Looks like the stock has seen much better days, pretty sure it looks as much wood filler as wood by this point. But, it appears to be full length; the stock does have some original surface left with a branded "18" over the lock (have seen others marked "14" or "20"); I have had the devil of a time finding one of these 'fishtail' stocked muskets for under 5 figures on this western side of the Atlantic; and even some of the ones going for $10K+ have some issues.

Will update when I receive it!

 

[russellshaffer]

Good for you. Let us know when you have it in your hands and post some more photos.

 

[Lead Snowstorm]

As promised, some pictures!

Overall, it is too long for my backdrop! Total length of 61 inches/155 cm.

Looks to be quite a bit of restoration of the wood in places, but fortunately it blends semi-decently and there is a bit of original stock surface. I've seen muskets with "14" and "20" branded/stamped above the lockplate; this one shows what I think is the remnant of an "18" or maybe "13":

I have not been able to match the lockplate marking in Neue Stoeckel; I went through the H's, K's, and M's. Looks like "CH" or "GH" or "CK" or "GK" surmounted by a crown. The hunt goes on:

This marking on the top of the barrel was a quick and easy match, although it did not come with the name of the maker:

And this appears to be the stylized "E" of these Emder Rüstkammer matchlocks:

Also visible on the above, I believe this one may have originally had a tubular rear sight, as the flash shield appears to be cut out for such:

Here is the pan cover, and a marking on the tang with several possibilities, including Essen, Zella, Suhl, and some others:

The barrel is a total of 45-1/2 inches/115.5 cm, and has a front sight.

Sheet metal buttplate with nails, continuing over the top of the buttstock:

Trigger guard has some old tags - past owners, museum identifiers? Who knows.

Well, there you have it - let me know if there are any other details of interest and I can get some photos. Overall this falls far, far short of some of the nicer Emden matchlocks I've stalked at auction, but at just shy of $6350 to get it in my hands, it is 50-75% the price!

Some of those other apparent Emden examples from this side of the pond:

https://www.rockislandauction.com/d...y-suhl-spanish-butt-matchlock-musket-and-rest

https://bidlive.bruneauandco.com/lots/view/1-5O6SMU/german-matchlock-musket-from-emden-castle

https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/87/3304/massive-matchlock-wall-gun

Other examples have come to auction at Hermann Historica - the cost of getting them across the Atlantic has kept me from bidding too enthusiastically.

 

[TobJohn]

Congrats and thanks for the photos! Could you show a picture of the muzzle?

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

Beautiful! Kindly suggest you send it my way and I will test it out for you, L O L!

 

[PhDBrewer]

Thank you for sharing. Nice to see the images and markings.
Enjoy!

 

[Lead Snowstorm]

Congrats and thanks for the photos! Could you show a picture of the muzzle?

You bet - let me know if this shows what you need or if there’s a better angle I can get.

 

[russellshaffer]

What might be the purpose of the slots in the top of the flash guard? And did that guard maybe get added on? A fine musket you have here. I bet it is shootable but I wouldn't.

 

[Lead Snowstorm]

What might be the purpose of the slots in the top of the flash guard? And did that guard maybe get added on? A fine musket you have here. I bet it is shootable but I wouldn't.

A good question; I’m not sure why the slots. The flash guard is present on some other examples, including a couple of those linked above, but they don’t extend over the top of the barrel. Also, reference:

https://www.hermann-historica.de/en/auctions/lot/id/70428

This one seems to extend over a tube rear sight and is a bit more decorative.

I would bet the barrel would be shootable, but I fear the stock might fly to pieces…!

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

What might be the purpose of the slots in the top of the flash guard?

You know, just wild azz guess here, but as a shooter … here on my thoughts.

If you look, those slots are not parallel to the bore, but seem to be on an angle from the buttstock towards the pan area.

I would bet money this is so that the shooter can see how far the head of the match is being lowered towards the pan before ignition.

 

[Lead Snowstorm]

You know, just wild azz guess here, but as a shooter … here on my thoughts.

If you look, those slots are not parallel to the bore, but seem to be on an angle from the buttstock towards the pan area.

I would bet money this is so that the shooter can see how far the head of the match is being lowered towards the pan before ignition.

That makes a lot of sense! I tried it out and you can indeed watch the match a bit longer on the way down. Of course, the other thing I always wonder is whether or not things served a functional/operative purpose, or instead a production/machining purpose. Like octagonal barrels/barrel flats - I should think those simplified manufacture to some extent. But of course, I am shooting in the dark (ha) a bit there.

I have to say also, though, as a point of interest - the stock geometry makes it a bit challenging for me to actually peer through that cutout down to the front sight even in the absence of the tube sight I speculate was originally there. I have some theories as to why - the first being that this sucker is HEAVY, and clearly meant to be fired off the fork rest. And the second is that I’m not wearing 17th century armor (or even a buff coat).

Thus, I bet ‘shouldering’ looked quite a bit different under 17th C battlefield dress and conditions. Still, just a couple of decades later, you have the emergence of the club-butt stocks* and the even later more recognizable shapes we still use today. So this is a very iconic and attractive stock shape, but maybe even then recognized as not optimal? (Of course, going with a stock dropping at the wrist gives rise to weak points predisposing to those baneful wrist cracks that make me weep on otherwise wonderful guns!)

*my other matchlock, from the latter period of the 30 Years’ War:

 

[TobJohn]

That makes a lot of sense! I tried it out and you can indeed watch the match a bit longer on the way down. Of course, the other thing I always wonder is whether or not things served a functional/operative purpose, or instead a production/machining purpose. Like octagonal barrels/barrel flats - I should think those simplified manufacture to some extent. But of course, I am shooting in the dark (ha) a bit there.

I have to say also, though, as a point of interest - the stock geometry makes it a bit challenging for me to actually peer through that cutout down to the front sight even in the absence of the tube sight I speculate was originally there. I have some theories as to why - the first being that this sucker is HEAVY, and clearly meant to be fired off the fork rest. And the second is that I’m not wearing 17th century armor (or even a buff coat).

Thus, I bet ‘shouldering’ looked quite a bit different under 17th C battlefield dress and conditions. Still, just a couple of decades later, you have the emergence of the club-butt stocks* and the even later more recognizable shapes we still use today. So this is a very iconic and attractive stock shape, but maybe even then recognized as not optimal? (Of course, going with a stock dropping at the wrist gives rise to weak points predisposing to those baneful wrist cracks that make me weep on otherwise wonderful guns!)

*my other matchlock, from the latter period of the 30 Years’ War:

Fishtail stocks seem to have a wide variety of geometry, from having the buttplate completely perpendicular to the rest of the gun, to pretty aggressively angled. I wonder how much of it is purely an aesthetic choice. By the time the fishtail became widespread, armor had fallen out of use for musketeers but their clothing could still be a factor.

 

[Colonial Boy]

Thank you for an enjoyable and informative post, my first genuine antique matchlock was Japanese and I bought it at a shop on the Ginza for a few dollars in 1954, foolishly I let it get away some years ago.

 

[Relic shooter]

Thanks for sharing your neat acquisition !!
One way you can rule out the notches being used for sighting is to determine if the bore is in alignment with the exterior.
Probably not a good idea to disassemble the rifle & remove the breech plug so run a long close fitting rod down the bore to determine alignment.

 

[Lead Snowstorm]

I will check that out, although I must say I’m 99% sure (based on the offset, to the wrong side for a right-eye shooter) they are not for sighting, whatever their purpose.

As I say, I’m betting there was a tube sight originally on this gun. Which is, to me, a really interesting feature of these 17th C guns. In the flintlock period, for military muskets, sights were…well, rudimentary is being generous. I would’ve assumed the same all the way back through the wheellock and matchlock era; yet if you look at the original pieces, they frequently have sighting apparatuses of a sophistication that isn’t really seen again on military weapons until the era of rifled guns.

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

… yet if you look at the original pieces, they frequently have sighting apparatuses of a sophistication that isn’t really seen again on military weapons until the era of rifled guns.

I too, never understand that, if you look at the last developments of the crossbows, they had a tube site (which functions like a peep site nowadays), i.e., allows the front sight and the target to be on the same visual plane, and a lever to release the sear.

I agree with you … going back to open sight over an aperture sight was a step backwards, but my guess it was more driven by the military order of the day, en mass rank and file ‘volley’ shooting.

 

[Lead Snowstorm]

That is cool, I hadn’t thought about the crossbow sights. Anyone have experience to say what the accuracy of the crossbow of the day was, compared with the musket?

My understanding is that the accuracy of the musket was limited by the relatively undersized balls used to speed loading.

Did our ancestors simply transfer sights from more accurate crossbow to less accurate musket, then realize the inherent limitations of the musket, and rationally forego the sights on military smoothbore muskets…until the advent of the Minie ball? (I have in mind, of course, the “long range sights” of the M1855, and the ‘rifled and sighted’ M1842 and the like.)

 

[TobJohn]

That is cool, I hadn’t thought about the crossbow sights. Anyone have experience to say what the accuracy of the crossbow of the day was, compared with the musket?

My understanding is that the accuracy of the musket was limited by the relatively undersized balls used to speed loading.

Did our ancestors simply transfer sights from more accurate crossbow to less accurate musket, then realize the inherent limitations of the musket, and rationally forego the sights on military smoothbore muskets…until the advent of the Minie ball? (I have in mind, of course, the “long range sights” of the M1855, and the ‘rifled and sighted’ M1842 and the like.)

I’m not 100% sure, but I’m pretty sure the crossbow, with aperture sights, postdates them on matchlocks. In the 16th century, there seems to be a greater emphasis on aimed fire, which fits the matchlocks role of a supporting arm to the pike. The Royal Armouries has a video on an arquebus in their collection and the curator claims they used a better fitting ball and aimed.

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

The Royal Armouries has a video on an arquebus in their collection and the curator claims they used a better fitting ball and aimed.

Yes … that is why above I had used the terms “en (or ‘in’) mass rank and file ‘volley’ shooting”.

In a way, as @TobJohn points out, the musketeer with a reasonably accurate musket, aperture sight and rest support was almost acting like a ‘sniper’ if you will, with aimed fire. Once there were enough muskets to arm and equip 1,000 of troops … (of questionably less trained conscripts, just trained to be ‘good enough’) the order of drill commands became, “Ready - Present - Fire”! Not ‘aimed’, lol.

One only had to point in the general direction when there were 1,000s firing.

 

[PathfinderNC]

What is the approximate date for this very cool musket?