Treatise on shooting a Petronel

[Flint62Smoothie]

FYI, the builder/owner of this fabulous Petronel shared with me his thoughts on shooting such a stock design.

Now recall these were used in the evolutionary age that went from archery, swords, crossbows and pikes ... to muskets. So troops were still wearing chest armor in some fashion or another, which can make it entirely UNpractical to shoot a firelock from the shoulder. Mounted troops would often use the 'paddle butt' shaped stocks and fire them from their cheek. @TobJohn started a post once that explored the firing of arms from the chest or from in front of the chest. Anyways ... we will continue to research and discuss the matter. But in the interest of experimental archaeology ... here is the opinion of the ONLY person I know of who has actually fired a Petronel firearm:

"It may be a good thing that you didn’t make your petronel yet. I made mine, well, just because. They always looked so cool in the old engravings, no two men were ever holding them the same way to shoot them, and it seemed like a good idea (shooting off the chest versus the shoulder). As I worked on it, the idea seemed to make even better sense; it’s ambidextrous and you can sight it with whichever eye is your strongest.

Then came the day that I took it to the range ...

When I touched it off, the difference between the high plane of the barrel and the ‘lowness’ of the butt, made the piece lift up! No matter how much I tried to hold it level, I looked like Elmer Fudd. It might explain why some old engravings look like the shooter is holding the forestock in one hand and that ‘hook’ shaped butt in the other. It also goes a long way to explain why they dropped that style, and why so many matchlocks, especially heavy muskets had relatively straight fish-tail or “zee form” stocks after that. Just sayin’ ... "

 

[TobJohn]

It is very good to see some practical experience!
The painting Massacre de Vassy shows French Catholics holding their arquebuses in a very similar way to what he described:

To add more confusion to the issue:

Halbhaken (Petronel, Petrinal) 1572

@Rudyard has mentioned shooting his like a Tanegashima, but less practical.

 

[TobJohn]

Here is my photo of the same smaller style petronel, compared to a normal sized long arm

(As always, please ignore the dork in the reflection)

 

[tenngun]

Here is my photo of the same smaller style petronel, compared to a normal sized long arm
View attachment 245712
(As always, please ignore the dork in the reflection)

Ha, I got a shot like that, L and C museum at Point Disapointment

 

[TobJohn]

Ha, I got a shot like that, L and C museum at Point DisapointmentView attachment 245737

Even got the beard, hat and glasses, but your beard and hat are much more stylish!

 

[TobJohn]

I know I can’t help myself obsessing over petronels, but had i an idea. One issue that’s really bothered me about bracing directly against the chest, is that the pointed curve of the stock would focus all the recoil, and for flat armor, would have minimal contact to brace. However, cuirasses from the 16th century were curved and pointed. If the smaller ones were meant to be fired by an armored cavalry soldier, the flat part of the curved stock could actually brace flat against the right breast of the armor, and potentially provide a sight picture. Using your chest to successfully aim a gun while on horseback, is an entire other issue.
View attachment 0B804103-CA30-42CA-9A4A-9BBFDA059074.jpeg

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

Here’s that 16th century cuirasses:

 

[TobJohn]

Here’s that 16th century cuirasses:

View attachment 245948

Thanks for the assist. My phone sometimes does weird thing while trying to add images here.

It may be a red herring anyway, because I found some full sized muskets with the same exact stock shape and musketeers didn’t wear breast plates.

 

[rickystl]

REF: Post #7:

I note where the shoulders and arms are positioned, the breast plate edges curve outward. Besides comfort, that outward edge probably served to catch a sword blade during a glancing blow to the breastplate. But I can see where that edge could also serve as a sort of back-stop for the butt of a petronal. It would seem that the curve of the breastplate would have the flat butt of the petronal sliding back and forth if trying to position the butt in the middle area of the breastplate.

Rick

 

[TobJohn]

REF: Post #7:

I note where the shoulders and arms are positioned, the breast plate edges curve outward. Besides comfort, that outward edge probably served to catch a sword blade during a glancing blow to the breastplate. But I can see where that edge could also serve as a sort of back-stop for the butt of a petronal. It would seem that the curve of the breastplate would have the flat butt of the petronal sliding back and forth if trying to position the butt in the middle area of the breastplate.

Rick

If there was something to it, I could see it as aiming the gun slightly off to the side, so the shooter would be looking to their right with the gun on the right (flat) side of the breastplate, with the right hand holding the gun against the plate and the left hand on the rains. I haven’t ridden a horse since I was 6 though, so no idea if that would actually make things any easier for a rider.

 

[TobJohn]

While looking for more period sources on the use of petronels, I have found sufficient evidence that they were not just some rare curio, but the primary form of firearm used by infantry in the second half of the 16th century. The paintings and prints are from different artists and different conflicts, all around the same period.

In no particular order, with publish date and author:

French Florida, 1570s? (Jacques Le Moyne de Morgues)

Spanish sack of Antwerp, 1590 at the latest (Frans Hogenberg)

Tudor Conquest of Ireland, 1581 (John Derricke)

Drake's landing at New Albion 1590 (Theodor De Bry)

​

The Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, 1584 at the latest (François Dubois)

 

[rickystl]

I wonder if the butt style of the petronal was a development after the cheek rest, and before the full shoulder stock ?

Rick

 

[TobJohn]

I wonder if the butt style of the petronal was a development after the cheek rest, and before the full shoulder stock ?

Rick

Michael claimed the earliest surviving fishtail stocks are from the 1560s, so it could be a parallel development. The Mary rose style of arquebuses from the 1540s look like they could be comfortably shouldered, but I am not sure if that is the intention.

A strange issue I have come across is that I haven’t found any period art depicting musketeers with petronels. Michael had a gigantic petronel musket, that could only conceivably been fired from a rest, but all the period art shows arquebuses/calivers.

It’s additionally fascinating that a decent amount of the period art was made in the 1590s, but only 10 years later, there are surviving records calling the stock style obsolete and armories refurbishing them to a more modern stock.

 

[TobJohn]

The Royal Armouries’s caliver also has a shoulder stock and is dated to 1560.

Matchlock muzzle-loading arquebus - Or Caliver A military style in use across Europe at this time. - Royal Armouries collections

Note that the stock actually kind of looks like a contemporary petronel stock that has been bent straight.

 

[BillinOregon]

Well in spite of the practical difficulties presented by the shape of the petronel and the armor worn by the bearer, it appears the petronel was very useful in murdering Huguenots.

 

[TobJohn]

Well in spite of the practical difficulties presented by the shape of the petronel and the armor worn by the bearer, it appears the petronel was very useful in murdering Huguenots.

I almost spat out my morning coffee. Very dark, but certainly plenty of historical evidence.

 

[Pukka Bundook]

To be honest the true petronel looks the unhandiest thing ever thought up in my eyes!
the grip for the firing hand means it is more like a pistol, so even placing it against a breastplate would Appear to have the shooting hand held very close in to the body.
Yes, there are beautifully made and decorated examples, and that they were effective we cannot doubt, but still I never felt like making one !
The Mary Rose were shoulder stocked, and we can see the evolution from the earlier Tusco-Emilian stock from Michael's collection, (being of the same manufacture )
Now, if the "pistol grip" of the petronel had a trigger, so the grip could be held firmly with the other fingers, that might have made sense to me,LOL!
But as it is, and must admit never fired one, these still look unhandy.
Stylish but unhandy.

All best,
Richard.

 

[TobJohn]

Stylish but unhandy.

That’s initially why I was so skeptical of them being the primary gun style in the second half of the 16th century, until I found more evidence. Michael posted all those great portraits of landsknechts with them (along with some of the battle prints/paintings) and I had assumed it was because the mercenaries wanted to pose with their most stylish weapons. Bloke on The Range recently had a video where he mentioned how style (in very English words) is an important part of kit, and we all know landsknechts were all about style.

 

[Pukka Bundook]

All very true, Jon!!
Michael once made the observation to me about Tudor times, how everything was short and thick, ..From Henry V111 himself (!)
to guns, candle sticks, chimney pots, all had the same style .

 

[Rudyard]

I have been rash enough to make two of them ,the first for the Ship replica of' The Golden Hinde '(the crews preferred spelling) its now in a Winnipeg Museum along with a rude Caliver I also made with kit entire for the Gunner 'Sam the Mariner ' . I hunted Wood pigeons with both and shot the Caliver at Bisley's Short Siberia Range MLAGB Champs in 1974 if not in any match ,
I don't recall the Petronel as too unhandy but likley was .It was at least bigger than the last one I made recently as it came out small & so unhandy I gave up the' from the chest' notion & held & shot it like you would a Jap Matchlock only it didn't have the snap lock however results whern't so bad considering. Would I go after a wild pig?' No'. but a bunny well be ok with that if the bunny is unlikey to oblige . As ergonomic designs go the Petronel was a failure I think . But the engravings' dont lie So they must have used such awkward guns regardless of our views in long hind sight . Great topic anyway .
Regards Rudyard