You are looking for information, articles, knowledge about the topic nail salons open on sunday near me how to build a matchlock musket on Google, you do not find the information you need! Here are the best content compiled and compiled by the Chewathai27.com team, along with other related topics such as: how to build a matchlock musket how to fire a matchlock musket, how to load a matchlock musket, matchlock diagram, 17th century musket, colonial matchlock musket, how does a matchlock gun work, flintlock vs matchlock, matchlock barrel
Contents
How long did it take to load a matchlock musket?
Some sources say that the matchlock musket take one minute to reload (before the reforms provided by the king Gustav Adolf). Other sources say that it take more than two minutes.
How was the matchlock made?
The matchlock was the first mechanical firing device. It consisted of an S-shaped arm, called a serpentine, that held a match, and a trigger device that lowered the serpentine so that the lighted match would fire the priming powder in the pan attached to the side of the barrel.
What is the difference between musket and matchlock?
is that matchlock is early type of firearm, using a smoldering piece of cord to fire the powder in the firing pan while musketis a species of firearm formerly carried by the infantry of an army it was originally fired by means of a match, or matchlock, for which several mechanical appliances (including the flintlock, …
What caliber is a matchlock?
| Artifact Identification | Reproduction: .67 Caliber Matchlock Musket (1956.01.0019) |
|---|---|
| Classification/ Nomenclature | Science & Technology T&E : Armaments : Firearms |
| Artist/Maker | None |
| Geographic Location | Europe, West : Austria? |
| Period/Date | Renaissance, 1550 – 1650 |
Which is better matchlock vs flintlock?
Compared to the earlier matchlock, flintlocks could be reloaded roughly twice as fast, misfired far less often, and were easier to use in various environments due to the fact that they did not require a lit match.
How fast can a matchlock fire?
| Belton flintlock | |
|---|---|
| Designed | Prior to 1777 |
| Specifications | |
| Action | Repeating flintlock |
| Rate of fire | 30–60 rounds/min theoretically |
What came first matchlock or flintlock?
flintlock, ignition system for firearms, developed in the early 16th century. It superseded the matchlock and wheel lock and was itself outmoded by the percussion lock in the first half of the 19th century.
How far can a musket shoot?
Most muskets were lethal up to about 175 yards, but was only “accurate” to about 100 yards, with tactics dictating volleys be fired at 25 to 50 yards. Because a portion of the powder in a cartridge was used to prime the pan, it was impossible to ensure a standard amount of powder was used in each shot.
How did Japan get guns?
Firearms were introduced to Japan in the 13th century by the Chinese, but saw little use. Portuguese firearms were introduced in 1543, and intense development followed, with strong local manufacture during the period of conflicts of the late 16th century.
Why did the flintlock replace the matchlock?
It was slow, because the wheel had to be rewound after each shot before the gun could be loaded, primed, and ready to fire again. A more practical ignition mechanism was needed, and the answer came with the flintlock. The new lock was simplicity itself, producing its spark by striking flint against steel.
Who invented guns first?
The first devices identified as guns or proto-guns appeared in China from around AD 1000. By the end of the 13th century, they had become “true guns,” metal barrel firearms that fired single projectiles which occluded the barrel. Gunpowder and gun technology spread throughout Eurasia during the 14th century.
Are muskets matchlocks?
It was replaced in the mid-19th century by the breechloading rifle. Muskets were matchlocks until flintlocks were developed in the 17th century, and in the early 19th century flintlocks were replaced by percussion locks. Most muskets were muzzle-loaders.
How accurate is a matchlock musket?
An antique 17th century matchlock was tested in Austria (IIRC) against a man sized silhouette. The gun was aimed and fixed directly onto the center of the targets chest. At 100 meters it hit 50% percent of the time. The same test was done with a pistol from the same period with the result of 98% accuracy at 30 meters.
When did the flintlock replace matchlock?
Between 1625 to around 1675, it replaced the matchlock, wheelock, and all other type flint arms. By 1700, these early dog locks gave way entirely to what is considered the true flintlock.
Did they have muskets in English Civil War?
Lower in cost than the flintlock variety, matchlock muskets were the most common muskets in the English Civil Wars. Loaded via the barrel, the musketeer lowered a slow-burning match to the priming pan via the trigger to fire.
How long did it take to load muskets?
It takes two or three minutes to load a flintlock rifle, as opposed to, say, eight seconds for a musket. If you’re trying to shoot a squirrel out of that tree, you’ve got all the time in the world.
How long did it take to reload a gun in 1791?
In 1791, it took the average gun owner about thirty seconds to load and fire his gun, and it took great skill practice to be able to hit what he was aiming at.
How long did it take to reload a rifle during the Revolutionary War?
A well-trained soldier could generally fire and reload a flintlock weapon three times a minute, whereas the American long rifle required a more tightly loaded bullet and generally took a minute to load and fire a single shot.
How fast can you reload a Civil War musket?
A properly trained group of regular infantry soldiers was able to load and fire four rounds per minute. A crack infantry company could load and fire five rounds in a minute.
Making a Matchlock
- Article author: jan.ucc.nau.edu
- Reviews from users: 26132
Ratings - Top rated: 4.6
- Lowest rated: 1
- Summary of article content: Articles about Making a Matchlock Updating …
- Most searched keywords: Whether you are looking for Making a Matchlock Updating
- Table of Contents:
Tools
Materials
Construction
Conclusion
Reload time of the musket — myArmoury.com
- Article author: myarmoury.com
- Reviews from users: 48224 Ratings
- Top rated: 4.1
- Lowest rated: 1
- Summary of article content: Articles about Reload time of the musket — myArmoury.com Updating …
- Most searched keywords: Whether you are looking for Reload time of the musket — myArmoury.com Updating A resource for historic arms and armor collectors with photo galleries, reviews, reference materials, discussion forums, a bookstore and a comparison tool.history,historic,arms,armor,armour,sword,dagger,mace,warhammer,crossbow,knife,medieval,re-enactment,chainmail,history books,bookstore,collection,collectible,reproduction,gallery,viking,renaissance,museum,art,bladesmith,swordsmith,martial arts,combat,living history,western marial arts,WMA,historical european martian arts,HEMA
- Table of Contents:
matchlock | firearm ignition device | Britannica
- Article author: www.britannica.com
- Reviews from users: 43355 Ratings
- Top rated: 4.3
- Lowest rated: 1
- Summary of article content: Articles about matchlock | firearm ignition device | Britannica Updating …
- Most searched keywords: Whether you are looking for matchlock | firearm ignition device | Britannica Updating matchlock, in firearms, a device for igniting gunpowder developed in the 15th century, a major advance in the manufacture of small arms. The matchlock was the first mechanical firing device. It consisted of an S-shaped arm, called a serpentine, that held a match, and a trigger device that lowered the serpentine so that the lighted match would fire the priming powder in the pan attached to the side of the barrel. The flash in the pan penetrated a small port in the breech of the gun and ignited the main charge. In the matchlock all the working elements were protectedmatchlock, encyclopedia, encyclopeadia, britannica, article
- Table of Contents:
brainly.in
- Article author: brainly.in
- Reviews from users: 34013 Ratings
- Top rated: 3.0
- Lowest rated: 1
- Summary of article content: Articles about brainly.in Updating …
- Most searched keywords: Whether you are looking for brainly.in Updating
- Table of Contents:
Reproduction: .67 Caliber Matchlock Musket, Search the Collection, Spurlock Museum, U of I
- Article author: www.spurlock.illinois.edu
- Reviews from users: 39871 Ratings
- Top rated: 3.9
- Lowest rated: 1
- Summary of article content: Articles about Reproduction: .67 Caliber Matchlock Musket, Search the Collection, Spurlock Museum, U of I Updating …
- Most searched keywords: Whether you are looking for Reproduction: .67 Caliber Matchlock Musket, Search the Collection, Spurlock Museum, U of I Updating
- Table of Contents:
Collections Submenu
Basic Information
Physical Analysis
Research Remarks
Artifact History
Share What You Know!
Home made Matchlock Musket | Musketeers, Antique guns, Diy guns
- Article author: www.pinterest.com
- Reviews from users: 50000 Ratings
- Top rated: 4.1
- Lowest rated: 1
- Summary of article content: Articles about Home made Matchlock Musket | Musketeers, Antique guns, Diy guns Updating …
- Most searched keywords: Whether you are looking for Home made Matchlock Musket | Musketeers, Antique guns, Diy guns Updating Sep 15, 2016 – This is a hand made .75 caliber smoothbore Matchlock Musket shown from start to the first firing, taking one month to make.The Barrel is a 1710 Dutch Flintlo…
- Table of Contents:
how to build a matchlock musket
- Article author: www.quora.com
- Reviews from users: 7378 Ratings
- Top rated: 4.7
- Lowest rated: 1
- Summary of article content: Articles about how to build a matchlock musket I’d probably go with a matchlock since it’s easier to put a burning wick on a pivoted piece of metal than to make a spring driven hammer for a percussion cap or … …
- Most searched keywords: Whether you are looking for how to build a matchlock musket I’d probably go with a matchlock since it’s easier to put a burning wick on a pivoted piece of metal than to make a spring driven hammer for a percussion cap or …
- Table of Contents:
See more articles in the same category here: Chewathai27.com/toplist.
Making a Matchlock
Tools
Materials
The Barrel
The Stock
Misc. Parts
Construction
Be very careful when inletting your barrel so that you obtain a good fit. Your barrel should not have a sloppy fit to the stock. Once the barrel is pinned to the stock it should have a very tight fit with no movement of the barrel. You may use lampblack on the bottom of your barrel and use a wood mallet to lightly tap your barrel down into the channel. Remove any high spots to allow for a perfect fit.
The Lock
Below your barrel you will need to inlet a ramrod channel. You must also drill a hole into the stock following the line of the ramrod channel to allow you to carry your ramrod on your musket. The length of the ramrod must be long enough to easily load your firearm. When planning the location of your ramrod channel, the portion that extends into the stock must be set up so that it will not enter the lock mortise and it will miss the lock bolts. You must also be careful so that the ramrod hole does not exit the bottom of the stck or come up into the barrel channel. Commercially available ramrod drills are available from a number of companies including Mountain State Muzzleloading.
Once you have finished inletting the barrel and you have a functional lock, you should then inlet the lock. The use of a good razor knife to mark the inlet is preferable. You may then remove wood inside this cut. Be very careful when working your chisels that you do not remove too much material. It is very easy to ruin a stock. During this process you should also cut the slot for the squeeze bar or trigger. Again, make this slot as small as possible. You may always remove more wood but it is very hard to put it back on…
Conclusion
If you have any questions about building 16th and early 17th C. Arms, please feel free to contact the author.
Reload time of the musket
Author Message
Guilherme Dias Ferreira S
Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 44
Location: BrazilJoined: 14 Nov 2006 Posted: Sun 10 Dec, 2006 3:49 pm Post subject: Reload time of the musket Some sources say that the matchlock musket take one minute to reload (before the reforms provided by the king Gustav Adolf). Other sources say that it take more than two minutes. Anyone could confirm any of these affirmations considering a time took by a soldier with ordinary training, and the evolution of this time until the came of the flintlock musket.
Gordon Frye
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Reading list: 15 books
Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,191
Location: Kingston, WashingtonJoined: 20 Apr 2004 Posted: Sun 10 Dec, 2006 6:24 pm Post subject: Re: Reload time of the musket
It all depends upon the time frame you’re asking about. In 1530, with the “moschetto” that the Spaniards were experimenting with that were little more than wall-guns with a staff to support them (rather than a wall), and no clear proceedure as to how to go about reloading, yes, it probably DID take two minutes to reload one.
If you are talking 1590’s or so, with the details long since worked out and usually some established “drill” in each company or army to follow (even moreso with the reforms of Maurice of Nassau in 1599), then the rate of fire would be much closer to the one minute mark you mentioned. Sir Roger Williams claimed in his 1590 treatise Brief Discourse on Warre that veteran musketeers could fire 40 rounds in an hour, which when you take into account the need to recharge bandoliers and fatigue is probably about the same as a shot every minute when really needed.
Personally, I can reload my matchlock in less than a minute, but then, I have a Bastard Musket, not a full sized one, and thus I don’t have to wrestle with the musket rest. I suspect that most calivers could be shot just as rapidly, if not moreso.
Google “Matchlock Musket” and I am sure that you will come up with far more information than you can absorb.
Cheers,
Gordo Guilherme;It all depends upon the time frame you’re asking about. In 1530, with the “moschetto” that the Spaniards were experimenting with that were little more than wall-guns with a staff to support them (rather than a wall), and no clear proceedure as to how to go about reloading, yes, it probably DID take two minutes to reload one.If you are talking 1590’s or so, with the details long since worked out and usually some established “drill” in each company or army to follow (even moreso with the reforms of Maurice of Nassau in 1599), then the rate of fire would be much closer to the one minute mark you mentioned. Sir Roger Williams claimed in his 1590 treatisethat veteran musketeers could fire 40 rounds in an hour, which when you take into account the need to recharge bandoliers and fatigue is probably about the same as a shot every minute when really needed.Personally, I can reload my matchlock in less than a minute, but then, I have a Bastard Musket, not a full sized one, and thus I don’t have to wrestle with the musket rest. I suspect that most calivers could be shot just as rapidly, if not moreso.Google “Matchlock Musket” and I am sure that you will come up with far more information than you can absorb.Cheers,Gordo “After God, we owe our victory to our Horses”
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/ “After God, we owe our victory to our Horses”Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
Jean Thibodeau
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book
Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,308
Location: Montreal,Quebec,CanadaJoined: 15 Mar 2004 Posted: Sun 10 Dec, 2006 6:42 pm Post subject:
With paper cartridges with loose fitting ball ( easier to load with a dirty bore. ) 2 to 4 shots a minute with no time taken for more than rough aiming might be the maximum: This would include percussion lock rifles with mini ball.
With all loose components, a rifled bore, tight fitting ball and patch I could see it taking at least a couple of minutes per shot ?
Of course the ignition system has some influence on speed: Rushing it with a matchlock might be possible but the lit ends of the slow match slows things down for safety reasons compared to a flintlock. The actual loading and priming time might be the same but the extra steps putting the match out of reach of powder during the operation and reattaching the match plus making sure the tip is actually lit and that there is no long piece of ash that could fall of and cause a premature ignition.
Well, that would seem like reasons why matchlocks would be at least a bit slower i.e. more steps to safely load. Gordon has the real world experience and I’m just speculating here:With paper cartridges with loose fitting ball ( easier to load with a dirty bore. ) 2 to 4 shots a minute with no time taken for more than rough aiming might be the maximum: This would include percussion lock rifles with mini ball.With all loose components, a rifled bore, tight fitting ball and patch I could see it taking at least a couple of minutes per shot ?Of course the ignition system has some influence on speed: Rushing it with a matchlock might be possible but the lit ends of the slow match slows things down for safety reasons compared to a flintlock. The actual loading and priming time might be the same but the extra steps putting the match out of reach of powder during the operation and reattaching the match plus making sure the tip is actually lit and that there is no long piece of ash that could fall of and cause a premature ignition.Well, that would seem like reasons why matchlocks would be at least a bit slower i.e. more steps to safely load. You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
Gordon Frye
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Reading list: 15 books
Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,191
Location: Kingston, WashingtonJoined: 20 Apr 2004 Posted: Sun 10 Dec, 2006 7:19 pm Post subject: Jean Thibodeau wrote:
Of course the ignition system has some influence on speed: Rushing it with a matchlock might be possible but the lit ends of the slow match slows things down for safety reasons compared to a flintlock. The actual loading and priming time might be the same but the extra steps putting the match out of reach of powder during the operation and reattaching the match plus making sure the tip is actually lit and that there is no long piece of ash that could fall of and cause a premature ignition.
Well, that would seem like reasons why matchlocks would be at least a bit slower i.e. more steps to safely load.
Jean;
Pretty much the case. The matchlock has some definite safety issues (i.e the smouldering matchcord) that must be taken into account when reloading. Using the “bandolier of charges” speeds things up quite a bit, though, and is much safer than using the direct loading from the flask. Flintlock muskets were definitely somewhat safer in that regard, but of course, they have their own set of safety issues to consider when loading with paper cartridges.
Cheers!
Gordon Jean;Pretty much the case. The matchlock has some definite safety issues (i.e the smouldering matchcord) that must be taken into account when reloading.Using the “bandolier of charges” speeds things up quite a bit, though, and issafer than using the direct loading from the flask. Flintlock muskets were definitely somewhat safer in that regard, but of course, they have their own set of safety issues to consider when loading with paper cartridges.Cheers!Gordon “After God, we owe our victory to our Horses”
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/ “After God, we owe our victory to our Horses”Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
Gordon Frye
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Reading list: 15 books
Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,191
Location: Kingston, WashingtonJoined: 20 Apr 2004 Posted: Sun 10 Dec, 2006 10:06 pm Post subject:
I’m wondering, are you guys going through the manual per the de Gheyn drill, or using the later ECW stuff? Being as I mostly do late-16th Century, de Gheyn is the drill manual I use. I know that following that drill to the letter is the safest and most practical way to go about it, but it sure does take time. (I also find that loading with ball seriously cuts down on my speed, especially as the bore gets dirtier.) Of course I’m using a fairly tight fitting ball in my bastard musket (.715″ in a nominal 12-bore) so it does take some effort, much more than loading the same ball in a paper cartridge in my Brown Bess (11-bore). With that combination I can manage 4 a minute.
Good to have other shooters of matchlocks posting, so thanks! Now for Chris Last to chime in…
Cheers!
Gordon Stephen;I’m wondering, are you guys going through the manual per the de Gheyn drill, or using the later ECW stuff? Being as I mostly do late-16th Century, de Gheyn is the drill manual I use. I know that following that drill to the letter is the safest and most practical way to go about it, but it sure does take time. (I also find that loading with ball seriously cuts down on my speed, especially as the bore gets dirtier.) Of course I’m using a fairly tight fitting ball in my bastard musket (.715” in a nominal 12-bore) so it does take some effort, much more than loading the same ball in a paper cartridge in my Brown Bess (11-bore). With that combination I can manage 4 a minute.Good to have other shooters of matchlocks posting, so thanks! Now for Chris Last to chime in…Cheers!Gordon “After God, we owe our victory to our Horses”
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/ “After God, we owe our victory to our Horses”Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
David Evans
Joined: 09 Sep 2004
Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 229
Location: Rotherham, West RidingJoined: 09 Sep 2004 Posted: Mon 11 Dec, 2006 3:16 am Post subject:
http://www.geheugenvannederland.nl/gvn/search…ode=LEMU01
Thro this page might interest you
By and large, I average about 20 seconds without ball. I’ve averaged 25 -30s with ball. thro I suspect that’s a little quick for the period, Modern powder is too clean and balls tend to be better cast and more liable to be the right size! Gordon, De Gheyn is the only way forward. Doesn’t matter who you check, if you examine any woodcuts showing the drill, it’s the same… If you look here, at a dutch held copy of HexhamThro this page might interest you http://www.geheugenvannederland.nl/gvn/search…ode=LEMU01 By and large, I average about 20 seconds without ball. I’ve averaged 25 -30s with ball. thro I suspect that’s a little quick for the period, Modern powder is too clean and balls tend to be better cast and more liable to be the right size!
Jean Thibodeau
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book
Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,308
Location: Montreal,Quebec,CanadaJoined: 15 Mar 2004 Posted: Mon 11 Dec, 2006 3:52 am Post subject:
Probably everyone has a comfortable speed, a maximum fumble free speed and the ” I’m going against a stop watch speed and I”m taking every short cut I can speed ” and would probably mess up 50% of the time.
Nice to test if it can be done safely as some steps not done like leaving the match in place and praying are much too dangerous.
I guess one could do a test using some substitute to powder that couldn’t ignite and time things from start of the process to simulated firing ? Using a real musket with real ball would be a pain having to remove the ball with a worm every time.
A dummy musket with an open breech were the ball and phony powder would just fall out would make repeated speed re-loading less annoying ? Just and idea but an old and not very valuable musket repro or a special dummy barrel could be used as a practice tool to refine and practice maximum speed reloading using the approved and safe moves: Might be useful as a training tool.
Oh, might be a safe way to teach novices and get them to repeat the loading drill at speed a few thousand time.
( Like practicing loading an M1 Garand with dummy rounds in concept. )
They might alternate the speed drill with doing it slowly for actual shooting. ( Most people would like to do some real shooting in between the drills ! Sort of reminds me of ” The Karate Kid ” and )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Karate_Kid The expression ” Hurry up slowly ” comes to mind and the right drill and lots of practice makes things faster no matter what skill we are talking about.Probably everyone has a comfortable speed, a maximum fumble free speed and the ” I’m going against a stop watch speed and I”m taking every short cut I can speed ” and would probably mess up 50% of the time.Nice to test if it can be done safely as some steps not done like leaving the match in place and praying are much too dangerous.I guess one could do a test using some substitute to powder that couldn’t ignite and time things from start of the process to simulated firing ? Using a real musket with real ball would be a pain having to remove the ball with a worm every time.A dummy musket with an open breech were the ball and phony powder would just fall out would make repeated speed re-loading less annoying ? Just and idea but an old and not very valuable musket repro or a special dummy barrel could be used as a practice tool to refine and practice maximum speed reloading using the approved and safe moves: Might be useful as a training tool.Oh, might be a safe way to teach novices and get them to repeat the loading drill at speed a few thousand time.( Like practicing loading an M1 Garand with dummy rounds in concept. )They might alternate the speed drill with doing it slowly for actual shooting. ( Most people would like to do some real shooting in between the drills ! Sort of reminds me of ” The Karate Kid ” and polishing M. Miyagi’s car: ” WAX ON / WAX OFF ” a few million times before he would even teach him any real techniques. You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
Lafayette C Curtis
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books
Posts: 2,698
Location: IndonesiaJoined: 29 Nov 2006 Posted: Mon 11 Dec, 2006 6:19 am Post subject: moschetto , a heavy-duty specialist weapon that took forever to load and required rather considerable strength to use. This was considered a distinct weapon from the more popular general-purpose arquebus, which was both much lighter, much more practical, and could be loaded much faster. On a good day and wit hall possible shortcuts I managed to make three shots in a minute with the arquebus on several occasions–but with the musket three shots in two minutes was more typical for me. A larger and stronger man would probably have required less time because he wouldn’t have tired as quickly fro mthe weapon’s weight and the damned huge recoil.
In the 17th century, though, the word “arquebus” shifted in meaning to refer to the precursor of the cavalry carbine, and I got the impression that the old arquebus got lumped into the “musket” category–so when talking of a 17th-century musket, we can no longer be so sure of whether we’re talking of the real huge musket or a firearm more closely resembling the moderate-sized arquebus of previous days. Same with loading time.
I’m a bit of an obsessive driller. On the bus or another public transportation vehicle–and when there’s enough room–I often go through the motions of either archery or musket drills in the air. That has attracted more than a few odd ooks from people, but I don’t really care. It depends, because the definition of “musket” seems to have changed with time. In the 16th century it referred only to the Spanish, a heavy-duty specialist weapon that took forever to load and required rather considerable strength to use. This was considered a distinct weapon from the more popular general-purpose arquebus, which was both much lighter, much more practical, and could be loaded much faster. On a good day and wit hall possible shortcuts I managed to make three shots in a minute with the arquebus on several occasions–but with the musket three shots in two minutes was more typical for me. A larger and stronger man would probably have required less time because he wouldn’t have tired as quickly fro mthe weapon’s weight and the damned huge recoil.In the 17th century, though, the word “arquebus” shifted in meaning to refer to the precursor of the cavalry carbine, and I got the impression that the old arquebus got lumped into the “musket” category–so when talking of a 17th-century musket, we can no longer be so sure of whether we’re talking of the real huge musket or a firearm more closely resembling the moderate-sized arquebus of previous days. Same with loading time.I’m a bit of an obsessive driller. On the bus or another public transportation vehicle–and when there’s enough room–I often go through the motions of either archery or musket drills in the air. That has attracted more than a few odd ooks from people, but I don’t really care.
Last edited by Lafayette C Curtis on Mon 11 Dec, 2006 6:36 am; edited 1 time in total
Lafayette C Curtis
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books
Posts: 2,698
Location: IndonesiaJoined: 29 Nov 2006 Posted: Mon 11 Dec, 2006 6:24 am Post subject: Re: Reload time of the musket Gordon Frye wrote: Personally, I can reload my matchlock in less than a minute, but then, I have a Bastard Musket, not a full sized one, and thus I don’t have to wrestle with the musket rest. I suspect that most calivers could be shot just as rapidly, if not moreso.
How long is this weapon and how much did it weigh? If it was beloe ten pounds, then probably it’s the kind of weapon a 16th-century man would have called an “arquebus” rather than a “musket,” and I won’t be surprised if you can get two or even three shots out a minute with it. With a caliver I once managed to get four, but admittedly it was of the “snaphaunce” kind with a flint rather than a match, though I still had to flick the pan open manually each time.
Gordon Frye
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Reading list: 15 books
Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,191
Location: Kingston, WashingtonJoined: 20 Apr 2004 Posted: Mon 11 Dec, 2006 9:48 am Post subject: As noted, I can get off four rounds a minute with a Brown Bess with cartridges…and ball. However, with matchlock, and using bandoliers and the full de Gheyn drill manual, I’m sure that one every 30-40 seconds is quite plausible. I just haven’t timed it of late.
My “Bastard Musket” is about 9-10 pounds, with a rather short (36″) barrel of 12-bore. Too short to be a mosquet, too large-bore to be a caliver/arquebus. Thus “Bastard Musket” seems to be the period (1560-1620) designation that fits it best. Here’s a pic of it (along with some other goodies that aren’t relevant to this discussion, made by the same gunsmith)
And another of my Daughter and I shooting our matchlocks at a range, at a Schützenfest.
But mostly I tend to shoot wheellocks and flint-ignition-locks anymore, since I’m not keen on the idea of dropping a burning match on my horse’s neck…
Cheers!
Gordon
Gordon This is a pretty amusing thread! When I say “Less than a minute” I mean to imply that a minute is somewhat longer than I need. I CAN shoot my matchlock rather rapidly… but I certainly don’t choose to very often.As noted, I can get off four rounds a minute with a Brown Bess with cartridges…and ball. However, with matchlock, and using bandoliers and the full de Gheyn drill manual, I’m sure that one every 30-40 seconds is quite plausible. I just haven’t timed it of late.My “Bastard Musket” is about 9-10 pounds, with a rather short (36″) barrel of 12-bore. Too short to be a mosquet, too large-bore to be a caliver/arquebus. Thus “Bastard Musket” seems to be the period (1560-1620) designation that fits it best. Here’s a pic of it (along with some other goodies that aren’t relevant to this discussion, made by the same gunsmith)And another of my Daughter and I shooting our matchlocks at a range, at a Schützenfest.But mostly I tend to shoot wheellocks and flint-ignition-locks anymore, since I’m not keen on the idea of dropping a burning match on my horse’s neck…Cheers!GordonGordon
Attachment: 25.34 KB
25.34 KB “After God, we owe our victory to our Horses”
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/ “After God, we owe our victory to our Horses”Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
Chris Last
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Reading list: 8 books
Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 264
Location: Janesville, WIJoined: 21 Jun 2004 Posted: Mon 11 Dec, 2006 9:56 am Post subject:
When doing a competition against a bowman, I’ve managed about 25-30 seconds with a matchlock. That isn’t so much ramming as it is thumping the butt of the gun hard against the ground and hoping everything sets in appropriately though.
Best-
Chris From my experience using drill based on DeGehyn, we get a shot every 45-60 seconds with the muskets. Now that is moving at a clip and with some of our guys that have been doing the drill for a season or two (3 months on 2 day a week practice). I’ve found that a new recruit averages about 75 seconds the first few times they try it out. This is with bandolier and double lit match.When doing a competition against a bowman, I’ve managed about 25-30 seconds with a matchlock. That isn’t so much ramming as it is thumping the butt of the gun hard against the ground and hoping everything sets in appropriately though.Best-Chris ” Hang fires are all fun and games untill someone gets their eye poked out… by charging calvary.” – J.Shoemaker
Chris Last
GSM-Bristol
http://www.gsmbristol.org ” Hang fires are all fun and games untill someone gets their eye poked out… by charging calvary.” – J.ShoemakerChris LastGSM-Bristol
Guilherme Dias Ferreira S
Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 44
Location: BrazilJoined: 14 Nov 2006 Posted: Mon 11 Dec, 2006 5:28 pm Post subject: I saw in a site that one of the military reforms provided by the king Gustav Adolf reduced in one third the reload time of the musket. Considering that in the beginning the musket took 1 minute to reload, after that it took 20 seconds. I know that a ordinary soldier, after the flintlock revolution, could shoot 3 times a minute. So what it’s the point of the matchlock/flintlock transition besides, of course, of the considerable evolutions in aspect of safety and simplicity.
David Evans
Joined: 09 Sep 2004
Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 229
Location: Rotherham, West RidingJoined: 09 Sep 2004 Posted: Tue 12 Dec, 2006 3:05 am Post subject: Guilherme Dias Ferreira S wrote: I saw in a site that one of the military reforms provided by the king Gustav Adolf reduced in one third the reload time of the musket. Considering that in the beginning the musket took 1 minute to reload, after that it took 20 seconds. I know that a ordinary soldier, after the flintlock revolution, could shoot 3 times a minute. So what it’s the point of the matchlock/flintlock transition besides, of course, of the considerable evolutions in aspect of safety and simplicity.
I’d doubt that, purely based on how badly period blackpowder bungs up the barrel..! Just look at some of the writing by various gents in the 1790-1810’s, over 150 years later. The various means to speed up rates of fire are a)Drill and b) technology.
a) Drill:- by changes to the method by which each rank in a body fires and the depth of each file you can increase the rate of fire of the body without massive increases in the speed at which each musketeer fires.
b) Metal scouring sticks….Longer life, being less prone to breakages. Decent cartridges. Better cast ball. better metals in locks
The swap to Flint lock has a number of advantages. Match is bulkly to store and carry and needs to stay dry. Wet Match doesn’t work, wet match that has dried out is patchy in use. It needs to be lit at the start of an enagement and kept lit. Each Musketeer needs to carry large chunks of match just for a single days use, which all has to be resupplied. On Guard a musketeer can burn up vast lengths of match doing nothing.
Flint has fewer of these dramas. Spare flints can be held in a pocket and weigh bugger all!
Lafayette C Curtis
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books
Posts: 2,698
Location: IndonesiaJoined: 29 Nov 2006 Posted: Tue 12 Dec, 2006 9:40 am Post subject: A match also gives off a tiny pin-prick of light and a thin trail of smoke that can give off an attempt at an ambush.
Not that the flint-based locks don’t have their disadvantages, though. The flint requires periodic readjustments, and you’d better know how to knap your own flint if you don’t have to bug your fellow soldiers every time your flint breaks or goes missing. And the downside of not carrying a match is that yo ucan more easily lose track of time–a smoldering slow match is a surprisingly good timekeeper!
That being said, I’d say “no way ‘to Gustaf Adolf’s drills suddenly cutting the reload time by two-thirds. if the reload time of a musket at the beginning of the 16th century is compared to the general-purpose “musket” more closely resembling the arquebus used with the imporved drills of the 17th century, there will certainly be a very appreciable increase–but it would be a faulty kind of comparison because 1) the weapons are different and 2) the change occured over many decades, and more evolutionary than revolutionary.
However, if it’s “one-third” as in cutting down from thirty seconds to twenty seconds (that is, from two shots a minute to three), I can still believe it. After all, the Prussian drills promulgated by Frederick William and further improved by the other Frederick (the Great, that is) effectively allowed the Prussian soldiers to fire four musketballs in the time it took most of their opponents to fire three.
Daniel Staberg
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Likes: 2 pages
Reading list: 2 books
Posts: 570
Location: Gothenburg/SwedenJoined: 30 Apr 2005 Posted: Tue 12 Dec, 2006 1:11 pm Post subject: Guilherme Dias Ferreira S wrote: I saw in a site that one of the military reforms provided by the king Gustav Adolf reduced in one third the reload time of the musket. Considering that in the beginning the musket took 1 minute to reload, after that it took 20 seconds. I know that a ordinary soldier, after the flintlock revolution, could shoot 3 times a minute. So what it’s the point of the matchlock/flintlock transition besides, of course, of the considerable evolutions in aspect of safety and simplicity.
There are many claims that Gustav Adolf ‘invented’ a lot of things which he never did. The reload time for a soldier in his army was the same as that of a well drilled soldier in any other European army at the time, after all the drill and equipmnet was exactly the same. Sounds like somethig connected with the old myth that he introduced the cartridge and/or flintlock on a wide scale. Gustav Adolf’s main invention was a new firing system which allowed for for effective and disciplined salvo fire even after the first salvo.
Stephen Hand
Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Reading list: 1 book
Posts: 226
Location: Hobart, AustraliaJoined: 03 Oct 2004 Posted: Tue 12 Dec, 2006 5:42 pm Post subject: Yes, can I add my name to the chorus of people who doubt that claim. Modern research is showing that Gustavus was less of an innovator than first thought. Many of his “advances”, such as commanded shot interleaved with hsi cavalry and the return of the cavalry charge were due to the poor quality of his cavalry equipment, not enough armour and guns so they needed to be reinforced by musketeers and had to rely on swords rather than firepower.
The salvo is still regarded as a significant innovation of Gus.
By the way, in my experience flintlocks are more adversely affected by wet weather than matchlocks. Matchlocks are, however, very susceptible to losing the powder in the pan in high winds. I’ve personally shot in falling rain and falling snow, where those with flintlocks were often regaled with the cry “get a matchlock” as the hammer came down to no effect.
A regiment of 1000 with two thirds musketeers was said (I forget by which period author) to need a hundred weight of match a day (100 pounds is a lot of match!) and could take as long as a hour to get all matches lit in preparation for the whole regiment firing. They were faced with the choice of having all matches lit, at roughly a foot of match per man, per hour, or having just a few matches lit and lighting the others off the lit ones if trouble appeared. No wonder they needed pikemen. I always liked the story of Hopton’s Royalist Army in the ECW requisitioning the cords from all the bed bases in the town of Devizes to be made into match.
Oh, and although some people have alluded to it, no one has come out and said that there is a huge difference between firing for five minutes and sustained fire over long periods. I can load and fire off a bondolier of twelve powder flasks in under ten minutes, but there’s no way I could fire through six sets of bandoliers (72 shots) in an hour. When you figure in time to reload the bandoliers, time to flush powder residue out of the barrel (which starts to become an issue after about two bandoliers or 24 shots) then the 40 shots an hour quoted above sounds pretty reasonable. Oh, and of course I’ve never reloaded under hostile fire.
Cheers
Stephen Stephen Hand
Editor, Spada, Spada II
Author of English Swordsmanship, Medieval Sword and Shield
Stoccata School of Defence Stephen Hand
Gordon Frye
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Reading list: 15 books
Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,191
Location: Kingston, WashingtonJoined: 20 Apr 2004 Posted: Tue 12 Dec, 2006 8:47 pm Post subject: Stephen Hand wrote: By the way, in my experience flintlocks are more adversely affected by wet weather than matchlocks. Matchlocks are, however, very susceptible to losing the powder in the pan in high winds. I’ve personally shot in falling rain and falling snow, where those with flintlocks were often regaled with the cry “get a matchlock” as the hammer came down to no effect.
Ain’t it the truth! I’ve had much better luck firing matchlocks in drizzly weather than flintlocks (though with a REALLY good flintlock, and a fresh, sharp flint, they go off fine..) A good hot match will in effect dry out the damp powder, and set it off. Might not be very instantaneous, but by God it goes off, which is the important thing.
I also agree totally with you on the sustained fire, Stephen. I think Sir Roger was dead on the money with “40 rounds in an hour” considering the contortions one must make to reload either flask or bandoliers, AND ball bag. Not may soldiers packed even 40 round ball on their persons in 1590, let alone several pounds of powder. And if Sir Roger is to be taken at face value, and means just what he wrote, then they were using a weight-to-weight equivalent of powder to lead in the heavier Spanish muskets of the day. i.e. 8-12 shots per pound. THAT would, even with fairly poor quality powder and a 15+ pound musket, result in a punishing recoil indeed! And 40 shots of that? Yikes!
I’ll chime in and agree with Lafayette, Daniel and Stephen on the subject of Gustavus Adolphus too. Concerning adding his musketeers between his columns of Horse, Henri of Navarre did exactly the same thing at the battle of Coutras in 1587 (partially due to having insufficient pikemen to back them up), which was well known to the Protestant soldiers of that day and age, so Gustavus hardly could be claimed to have come up with it by himself. Perhaps siezed upon it and codified it, but that’s about it.
This is turning into quite a nice discussion!
Cheers!
Gordon Ain’t it the truth! I’ve had much better luck firing matchlocks in drizzly weather than flintlocks (though with a REALLY good flintlock, and a fresh, sharp flint, they go off fine..) A good hot match will in effect dry out the damp powder, and set it off. Might not be very instantaneous, but by God it goes off, which is the important thing.I also agree totally with you on the sustained fire, Stephen. I think Sir Roger was dead on the money with “40 rounds in an hour” considering the contortions one must make to reload either flask or bandoliers, AND ball bag. Not may soldiers packed even 40 round ball on their persons in 1590, let alone several pounds of powder. And if Sir Roger is to be taken at face value, and means just what he wrote, then they were using a weight-to-weight equivalent of powder to lead in the heavier Spanish muskets of the day. i.e. 8-12 shots per pound. THAT would, even with fairly poor quality powder and a 15+ pound musket, result in a punishing recoil indeed! And 40 shots of that? Yikes!I’ll chime in and agree with Lafayette, Daniel and Stephen on the subject of Gustavus Adolphus too. Concerning adding his musketeers between his columns of Horse, Henri of Navarre did exactly the same thing at the battle of Coutras in 1587 (partially due to having insufficient pikemen to back them up), which was well known to the Protestant soldiers of that day and age, so Gustavus hardly could be claimed to have come up with it by himself. Perhaps siezed upon it and codified it, but that’s about it.This is turning into quite a nice discussion!Cheers!Gordon “After God, we owe our victory to our Horses”
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/ “After God, we owe our victory to our Horses”Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
Daniel Staberg
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Likes: 2 pages
Reading list: 2 books
Posts: 570
Location: Gothenburg/SwedenJoined: 30 Apr 2005 Posted: Wed 13 Dec, 2006 12:59 am Post subject: [quote=”Gordon Frye”] Stephen Hand wrote:
I’ll chime in and agree with Lafayette, Daniel and Stephen on the subject of Gustavus Adolphus too. Concerning adding his musketeers between his columns of Horse, Henri of Navarre did exactly the same thing at the battle of Coutras in 1587 (partially due to having insufficient pikemen to back them up), which was well known to the Protestant soldiers of that day and age, so Gustavus hardly could be claimed to have come up with it by himself. Perhaps siezed upon it and codified it, but that’s about it.
This is turning into quite a nice discussion!
Cheers!
Gordon
Gustavus half-brother Karl Karlsson Gyllenhjelm served in Henri IV’s army in the 1590’s and recomended similar tactics during the war in Livonina 1600-1611 were he served as field commander prior to being captured. He ended up as member of the Royal Council and the Swedish Lord-Admiral so it would have been strange if the and Gustavus never discussed military matters. Shot supporting horse Henri style and shot supporting Gustavus style are two similar but in many ways rather diffrent things. Henri’s shot woudl get of one salvo and get out of the way as the Huguenot ‘Millers’ charged in and took only limited part in the further action. Swedish shot would reload in place and wait for the Swedish cavalry to rally and return to their starting positions. One polish eyewitness decribed the Swedish horse as protecting the musketeers while they reloaded.
IMHO Henri used his shot to prepare the way for a decisive charge with his horse while Gustavus tatcis were more drawn out and attritional, the enemy horse was worn down with musketry and limited counter-charges rather than risking everything on one slavo and one all out charge. Which is just the thing to do when your men are less well mounted and armoured than the enemy.
/Daniel
Lafayette C Curtis
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books
Posts: 2,698
Location: IndonesiaJoined: 29 Nov 2006 Posted: Wed 13 Dec, 2006 6:24 am Post subject: Dutch drills, which tallies well with the recurring mention of de Gheyn’s late 16th-century drill manual in this thread. The Swedish army adopted the drills through the agency of officers who had served in Maurice of Nassau’s army in the early 17th century. Perhaps the reason why they became more popularly known as the innovator is that Maurice was a cautious general by nature and he fought very few battles, preferring to fight a territorial war of attrition from well-fortified places. Gustaf II was a much more battle-oriented commander, so he fought more battles and gave people more chances to appreciate the tactical effects of the new drills. Still, he would look remarkably cautious compared to the battle-crazy ECW generals.
Edited to add: here’s one such Swedish officer who studied the methods of the Dutch army.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_De_la_Gardie I’d also like to add that the drills used by the Gustaf Adolf’s Swedish musketeers were actuallydrills, which tallies well with the recurring mention of de Gheyn’s late 16th-century drill manual in this thread. The Swedish army adopted the drills through the agency of officers who had served in Maurice of Nassau’s army in the early 17th century. Perhaps the reason why they became more popularly known as the innovator is that Maurice was a cautious general by nature and he fought very few battles, preferring to fight a territorial war of attrition from well-fortified places. Gustaf II was a much more battle-oriented commander, so he fought more battles and gave people more chances to appreciate the tactical effects of the new drills. Still, he would look remarkably cautious compared to the battle-crazy ECW generals.Edited to add: here’s one such Swedish officer who studied the methods of the Dutch army.
matchlock | firearm ignition device
matchlock, in firearms, a device for igniting gunpowder developed in the 15th century, a major advance in the manufacture of small arms. The matchlock was the first mechanical firing device. It consisted of an S-shaped arm, called a serpentine, that held a match, and a trigger device that lowered the serpentine so that the lighted match would fire the priming powder in the pan attached to the side of the barrel. The flash in the pan penetrated a small port in the breech of the gun and ignited the main charge.
In the matchlock all the working elements were protected inside the lock. The device also freed the hand of the user or his aide. Early matchlock guns had a number of names including harquebus, hacquebut, hagbutt, hachbuss, caliver, and musket. Slow and somewhat clumsy, the matchlock was difficult to use in wind or rain, and its glow presented a hazard at night or in ambush. Matchlock guns, however, remained primary military firearms in Europe even after other ignition systems were invented.
So you have finished reading the how to build a matchlock musket topic article, if you find this article useful, please share it. Thank you very much. See more: how to fire a matchlock musket, how to load a matchlock musket, matchlock diagram, 17th century musket, colonial matchlock musket, how does a matchlock gun work, flintlock vs matchlock, matchlock barrel
