Pilgrim's Muskets

[Asher]

They put 'em to good use! An interesting footnote in history, from Peter Marshall and David Manuel's The Light and the Glory. Shortly after landing at Plymouth, several men went to scout out Cape Cod, and were ambushed by a hostile Indian tribe.

"'But presently, all of the sudden they heard a great and strange cry, which they knew to be the same voices they [had] heard in the night, though they varied their notes, and one of their company, being abroad, came running in and cried, "Indians, Indians!" and withal, arrows came flying in amongst them... two muskets were discharged at them, and two more [men] stood ready in the entrance of their rendezvous, but were commanded not to shoot till they could take full aim at them.... The cry of the Indians was dreadful.'

"The skirmish continued, with neither side gaining any advantage, until several of the Pilgrims, wearing coats of mail, rushed forth from the barricade and discharged their muskets together. The Indians quickly scattered, 'except for one brave, who stood behind a tree within half a musket-shot, and let his arrows fly at them. He was seen to shoot three arrows, which were all avoided. He stood three shots of a musket, till one, taking full aim at him, made the bark or splinters of the tree fly about his ears, after which he gave an extraordinary shriek, and away they went, all of them.' Later, in the journal which Bradford and Edward Winslow wrote together, they added:

"'Yet by the especial providence of God, non of [their arrows] either hit or hurt us, though many came close by us and on every side of us, and some coats which were hung up in our barricado were shot through and through. So, after we had given God thanks for our deliverance... we went on our journey and called this place "The First Encounter".'"

A little web search says that the Pilgrims brought 10 matchlock muskets and 50 snap-haunce muskets with them when they arrived in 1620. Fascinating stuff!

 

[cynthialee]

It is interesting that in the time of the Snaphounce there were still some Matchlocks in thier armoury.
Wonder if they were brought with them because they were not able to find or perhaps afford 10 more snaphounse? Or perhaps they were personal property of some settlers? Or training guns perhaps...?

 

[Asher]

One place I read suggested that it was because the matchlocks were more complicated, and surprisingly, more expensive. I dunno, I'm no expert...

 

[cynthialee]

anouther thing came to mind

When the percusion cap came out many shooters wanted nothing to do with them at first. Same when cartridges came on the scene. Sam Colt figured they wouldn't sell well as 'real shooters would want to load their own anyways'.
Maybe there was some Matchlock guys in the group who didn't want anything to do with them fancy snaphounse guns.

 

[Col. Batguano]

maybe tempering frizzens wasn't clearly understood. Maybe chert was scarce.
Ever get a misfire with a flint lock before? Of course. Ever have black powder fail to ignite after you put a lit cigarette in it? I doubt it. (Kids, don't try this at home.)

 

[Alden]

Quite right. Snaphaunces would have been the cream of the crop. Matchlocks were still the common arm. These Pilgrims were well armed. They learned the lessons of their predecessors. Well some. Sorta. Roanoke of 1590, Jamestown of 1607, Lake (Samuel de) Champlain of 1609, etc.

 

[Yancey von Yeast]

Hello,

You have touched on something that I have been searching for. A long time, actually. If you don't mind my asking, where did you find the info on the 50 snaphaunces and 10 matchlocks?

Thanks,
Yancey

 

[pargent]

Matchlocks were still in use by the French military in 1700 in Qubec, the .50 browning machine gun is still in use by the US. & every NATO military organisation (just as a modern comparison ). Most equipment is not replaced until it is worn out ,then sold off.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

First, the situation may simply have been they could not find any more than 50 snaphaunces for sale. We have a tendency in our modern age of high supply to forget that prior to industrialization, folks sometimes had choices "forced" upon them by lack of supply. The matchlock is less complicated than the snaphaunce, and they chose their muskets in a ratio of 5:1, which pretty much indicates that they understood the technology, and accepted it as reliable. It was probably as simple as they had a need for 60 muskets, could only find 50 snaphaunces to buy, and everybody knew how to use the matchlocks so make due with 10 of the obsolete but functioning guns.

That's a SWAG of course, for today we know (or think we know) the snaphaunce to be the better choice for North America, but perhaps it was a reversed situation? Perhaps the guns everybody wanted in 1620 were the matchlocks, and they could only find 10, as perhaps the local makers were filling government contracts or there were laws against sales of large numbers of them etc etc..., but the persons selling the new snaphaunce couldn't sell them, and had money tied up in them, so "dumped" them by selling them to the Pilgrims? Phil pointed out that 80 years later in 1700, the matchlock was still used in Canada..., so maybe not so obsolete?

:hmm:

LD

 

[Alden]

Gustavus Adolphus (The Great), father of the modern military who died in battle in 1632, introduced standardized snaphaunces to his revolutionary smallarms-dominated infantry driven largely by enough slowmatch being just too hard to obtain. They phased OUT their snaphaunces as soon as they reasonably could though, finding the matchlock persuasively more reliable in practice. Under their particular tactical circumstances I can envision that...

...the Baltic flintlock design (I shoot a .77 caliber one) is a little unique, and really cool. Regardless, I am convinced a decent snaphaunce and short steel sword were the ideal arms here of the colonies' beachhead generation vs. savages.

 

[BillinOregon]

Alden, any theories on why the Swedes would have gone BACK to matchlocks from the snaphaunce? Was it in fact metallurgical issues with the snaphaunce battery? I can't imagine a matchlock being more reliable in the climate of Northern Europe.

 

[Alden]

Remembering the timeframe understand there was a campaigning SEASON. Spring brought combat and Winter ended it. Besides, the 30 Years War here was focused in Germany, Austria, Northern Italy (though these countries didn't actually exist yet), etc... Not at The North Pole. Besides, the ambient temperature doesn't matter as much as any precipitation (including snow and rain) where neither ignition system works especially well. I can see matchcord lighting a pan very reliably in most situations -- haven't YOU wished you had some bright orange glowing slowmatch to ignite a pan when you're flintlock just isn't getting it done for some reason? Like on a hot, DISGUSTINGLY HUMID, Summer day!?

Flintlocks obviously have some features with definite benefits and of course they did get simpler as well as more robust and reliable while the century progressed -- by the end of it flintlocks, basically as we know them today, with bayonets were the state of the art of war alongside mobile field artillery whose strategy Gustav developed.

 

[BillinOregon]

Good points Alden. Being as I am from Oregon, I tend to think in terms of lots of rain ...

:wink:

 

[Supercracker]

I'm most surprised to see that they were wearing mail.

 

[cynthialee]

I'm most surprised to see that they were wearing mail.

Makes sense. The enemies they would encounter would not have fire arm tech.

 

[Alden]

The beachhead colonists used lotsa milsurp. They were hand-me-downs -- some because they were cheap, others because they were cheap and still effective. Chainmail and metal breastplates afforded quite good protection from blows and even native's arrows. These had already been abandoned in Europe by and large for the Buff Coat. The Connecticut (Colony) Pike was a 10' thing being advanced here while pikes were being phased off of European battlefields, just as mounted knights had been the century before, "back home."

Same for bandoliers and matchlocks as time went on: good enough for the colonies. When the latest and greatest arms were adopted by any army, including in the US, the older ones were relegated to secondary service. Here, for example, The US Volunteers/Militia/Reserve soldiers who were most of the fielded troops fighting in the Spanish American War, were using single-shot blackpowder .45-70 Trapdoor Springfields while numbered US Army Regiments had the smokeless .30-40 Krag-Jorgensen single-shot repeater (and the Spanish had the superior 7mm Mauser main battle rifle).

 

[Carteret Kid]

Those 60 guns were probably discount guns sold the those "troublesome exiles" out the back door. Imagine what a treasure that a known documented "Mayflower" musket would be now.

 

[pargent]

The English went from matchlock to englishlock (doglock) then flint (military). Other than price availability etc. One thing to consider is the english gun makers didnt come into their stride until the very early 1700s, apart from civilian guns most English guns came from Dutch gun makers. The surplus market would not have been a large one at this time. I could be wrong but I would have thought that a match lock would have been much easier to keep operational in a new colony , all powder , cord, shot etc would have to come by sea no mater what it was for .

 

[Alden]

Like this'n?
http://www.nramuseum.org/the-museu...yflower-gun/mayflower-wheellock-carbine.aspx#

Not one of those 60 snaphaunces and matchlocks, is it now...

 

[pargent]

:thumbsup: What a nice personal gun to have owned in 1620