Perhaps of interest, some matchlocks & period accessories

[Lead Snowstorm]

What is the approximate date for this very cool musket?

Putting several observations together, I arrive at a range of 1590-1630, and I personally favor the earlier portion of that date range.

The "CL" marking is noted in Neue Stoeckel to be on matchlocks ("Luntenmusketen") from c.1590-1600.

I derive the later portion of the date range by the dimensions of the musket - total length 61 inches/155 cm; barrel length 45-1/2 inches/115.5 cm. One of the great experts in the field, the late Michael Tromner, summarized the shift towards smaller dimensions in the second quarter of the 17th Century well in post #11 of this thread: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=18199 (the entire thread is most useful).

Finally, this one is particularly interesting to me as I haven't often seen a musket of this type with a full-length octagonal barrel. Many have an octagonal breech, incised lines maybe 1/3 of the way down, and are round from then on to the muzzle. My rather tentative observation is that the full-length octagonal barrels are earlier examples, but on that subject I am not an expert and would invite other observations!

 

[PathfinderNC]

Putting several observations together, I arrive at a range of 1590-1630, and I personally favor the earlier portion of that date range.

The "CL" marking is noted in Neue Stoeckel to be on matchlocks ("Luntenmusketen") from c.1590-1600.

I derive the later portion of the date range by the dimensions of the musket - total length 61 inches/155 cm; barrel length 45-1/2 inches/115.5 cm. One of the great experts in the field, the late Michael Tromner, summarized the shift towards smaller dimensions in the second quarter of the 17th Century well in post #11 of this thread: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=18199 (the entire thread is most useful).

Finally, this one is particularly interesting to me as I haven't often seen a musket of this type with a full-length octagonal barrel. Many have an octagonal breech, incised lines maybe 1/3 of the way down, and are round from then on to the muzzle. My rather tentative observation is that the full-length octagonal barrels are earlier examples, but on that subject I am not an expert and would invite other observations!

Thanks for your explanations on the gun. It certainly is a wonderful piece of history that you’ve got to be honored to own.
By the way, it seems the original user got a bit of his shirt sleeve torn and stuck in the **** jaws

 

[TobJohn]

Putting several observations together, I arrive at a range of 1590-1630, and I personally favor the earlier portion of that date range.

The "CL" marking is noted in Neue Stoeckel to be on matchlocks ("Luntenmusketen") from c.1590-1600.

I derive the later portion of the date range by the dimensions of the musket - total length 61 inches/155 cm; barrel length 45-1/2 inches/115.5 cm. One of the great experts in the field, the late Michael Tromner, summarized the shift towards smaller dimensions in the second quarter of the 17th Century well in post #11 of this thread: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=18199 (the entire thread is most useful).

Finally, this one is particularly interesting to me as I haven't often seen a musket of this type with a full-length octagonal barrel. Many have an octagonal breech, incised lines maybe 1/3 of the way down, and are round from then on to the muzzle. My rather tentative observation is that the full-length octagonal barrels are earlier examples, but on that subject I am not an expert and would invite other observations!

The tube sights seem to have also fallen out of use in the 17th century, at least based off of surviving examples

 

[Rudyard]

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.

Dear Lead. Looks good to me , Borers are a 'Feature ' but the musket looks a great example ,agree re tube sight great find .
Regards Rudyard

 

[Flintlock1640]

I wonder if the small tube sights on these also fell out of favor because of their somewhat delicate nature under military stresses. It's missing for a reason. Probably buried on some battlefield after it was knocked off.

 

[Rudyard]

I wonder if the small tube sights on these also fell out of favor because of their somewhat delicate nature under military stresses. It's missing for a reason. Probably buried on some battlefield after it was knocked off.

That could be, whether the others of this origin have lost their tube sights ? , maybe some unit commander didnt' like them. Two of my Matchlocks have the tube sights I usually fit them its considered worth more points in a MLAIC type match .My Snap matchlock has a rifled 54 cal but its smooth barrel a 50 cal has the tube rear & the necessary Dragons of course . MLAIC match means all shots in 30 minets at 55 yards standing or Kneeling on the French musket target
Regards Rudyard
Who shot this event many times in the M L A G B short range Comps at Bisley's Short Siberia range even won a gold in 1988,it went to Jersey like many another gun number was also number 88 .

 

[TobJohn]

That could be, whether the others of this origin have lost their tube sights ? , maybe some unit commander didnt' like them. Two of my Matchlocks have the tube sights I usually fit them its considered worth more points in a MLAIC type match .My Snap matchlock has a rifled 54 cal but its smooth barrel a 50 cal has the tube rear & the necessary Dragons of course . MLAIC match means all shots in 30 minets at 55 yards standing or Kneeling on the French musket target
Regards Rudyard
Who shot this event many times in the M L A G B short range Comps at Bisley's Short Siberia range even won a gold in 1988,it went to Jersey like many another gun number was also number 88 .

I found the wider tube sight on the petronel particularly handy. Works well with the various methods of trying to hold that style of gun!

 

[rickystl]

Hi Lead

Congratulations on your recent acquisition, as well as your 30 Years War musket. Very cool guns with lots of interest. And, great Thread started here.
As mentioned above, it may have been the Military of the period that decided to discontinue the use of the original tube sights, rendering them superfluous. While an advantage for target shooting, they take a longer amount of time to gain a sight picture. The smoothbore muskets being a pointing gun like a shotgun versus an aiming gun like a rifle. Under battlefield/military conditions with volley fire, there was likely little time to try and "aim" the musket. So the need for fast reloading, volley fire in a general direction, the front sight was all that was necessary.
It seems right about the time of the rifled military musket that rear sights then reappeared. But even then they were "open" sights, not covered. Thus, rendering the hooded (earlier) and peep (later) sights for sporting purposes. Whatever rear sight the later military would adopt would have to offer a quick sight picture.

That separate flash-guard type piece with the slots is a complete mystery to me. But really interesting trying to figure out it's intended use.

Rick

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

I wonder if the small tube sights on these also fell out of favor because of ...

I still believe that it was the latest military order of battle, i.e., volley shooting en masse by wide/ranked lines, that was the impetus.

 

[TobJohn]

I still believe that it was the latest military order of battle, i.e., volley shooting en masse by wide/ranked lines, that was the impetus.

Combined with the socket bayonet. Crushing weight of volley fire + charge

 

[Rudyard]

Hi Lead

Congratulations on your recent acquisition, as well as your 30 Years War musket. Very cool guns with lots of interest. And, great Thread started here.
As mentioned above, it may have been the Military of the period that decided to discontinue the use of the original tube sights, rendering them superfluous. While an advantage for target shooting, they take a longer amount of time to gain a sight picture. The smoothbore muskets being a pointing gun like a shotgun versus an aiming gun like a rifle. Under battlefield/military conditions with volley fire, there was likely little time to try and "aim" the musket. So the need for fast reloading, volley fire in a general direction, the front sight was all that was necessary.
It seems right about the time of the rifled military musket that rear sights then reappeared. But even then they were "open" sights, not covered. Thus, rendering the hooded (earlier) and peep (later) sights for sporting purposes. Whatever rear sight the later military would adopt would have to offer a quick sight picture.

That separate flash-guard type piece with the slots is a complete mystery to me. But really interesting trying to figure out it's intended use.

Rick

Yes Curious indeed the two slots ,Since there seems to be several survivors of this same sort & origin it would be interesting if the others had the slots or just this one piece. Those who are familiar with the Tromner /Viking sword posts like' Pukka Bundook' is (When he's not flat stick farming ). Some sort of clip on rain repellant' mini brolly' ?. Cant see it but who knows logic then as now dosn't always enter into the human mind . Some latter day Heath Robinson having a bit of fun ?.
On one shot gun barrel I engraved 'Another' it was a rejected deemed a waister but I added it to an existing rifle .for my own use . Auction houses list shot guns re tubed as' Gun by so & so' rebarreled by Another '. meaning not by the original maker .My smooth bore snap matchlock made with a rifled barrel but the added smooth bore declares on the under side" Finest selected Montana barrel Co 5$ reject'' because it was, its 490 just a whisker under 50 cal maybe that was why .
I got another thrown out 58 short with a one in 16" pitch He was into long range stuff it bore' Trash'. in black marker pen ,Its been many years a cheek stocked' English lock 'with dog carbine I engraved' Trash 'under the barrel keep some future collector puzzled if the world last long enough to have any . Its stock was a buetifull short piece of hard maple but it had a shake (crack) Wayne Dunlap sold it me cheap, My sliding wooden tool box covered that minor fault. They where good to me at Friendship shoots Jim Chambers gave me the lock or major parts of his Germanic lock no internals they I made as' English' lock I think it was singing him a song or could have been my juggling. For traders it was a long hot dusty place but we had fun
Regards Rudyard

 

[Lead Snowstorm]

I still believe that it was the latest military order of battle, i.e., volley shooting en masse by wide/ranked lines, that was the impetus.

I agree. I wonder if this early focus on sights is reflective of more of an earlier sporting use; or perhaps also reflective of the origin of the military use of these weapons as descendants of hooked wall guns, wherein both mobility and also rate of fire might be a tad less critical.

But putting them onto the battlefield in the 16th century would be inevitably to develop a focus on massed volley fire and volume of fire. Thus individual marksmanship is deemphasized and the sights become more rudimentary and then drop from favor until the rifled musket age.

Even then you see (in the US) a period in which more elaborate long range sights are installed to take advantage of enhanced range and accuracy of the rifled musket, only to be discarded in favor of more basic battle sights as the fundamental rate of fire of 19th C muzzleloaders remains a prime limiting factor (cf the model 1855/1861/1863 rifled muskets).