How late 15th to mid 16th century guns were aimed, in historic illustrations

Matchlock · 17th November 2010, 09:33 AM

Thank you so much, Alexender, for sharing these!

m

RDGAC · 26th November 2010, 01:19 PM

Fascinating stuff, Michael! I'm especially captivated by the few I see where the user seems to be gripping the butt-stock beneath the crook of his arm - gets me wondering about "jezail grip" again, y'see.

Interesting also is the subject of sights. I recall a conversation on the Nihonto Message Board, in which I asked essentially a similar question to one mentioned earlier: "Why put fore and backsights on something so inaccurate as a smoothbore muzzle-loader?" The answer has yet to be found, but one fellow suggested that it might be partially explained by the near-constant Japanese desire to improve on their wares, no matter how fractionally. I'd certainly call putting fore, intermediate and back sights on a Tanegashima an improvement - and a fractional one, at that.

Might we be seeing something similar here: early European gunsmiths (at their own impulse, or the instigation of their buyers) attempting to improve the breed?

Matchlock · 26th November 2010, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RDGAC

Might we be seeing something similar here: early European gunsmiths (at their own impulse, or the instigation of their buyers) attempting to improve the breed?

Thank you, RDGAC,

Fascinating point. I just can't actually imagine how to do it. Do you have an idea?

Best,
Michael

RDGAC · 3rd December 2010, 11:00 AM

With contemporary technology? Not a single clue

Rifling the bore would help improve accuracy at the price of a severe penalty to rate of fire; decreasing the windage might help a little and slow you down a little less, but the bullet will still fly in a fairly random manner and still not do too much beyond, say, a couple of hundred yards. Even the jezail, anecdotally renowned for accuracy at what were, by contemporary standards, longish ranges, has to obey the laws of physics.

The only good reason I can see for adding all this panoply of sights to the guns is as a sort of "on the off-chance" measure. Most of the time, the thing's far too inaccurate to make use of them (especially if it's got a dodgy stock design, as in the Tanegashima), but occasionally you might just happen to encounter the right set of circumstances for them to be useful.

fernando · 3rd December 2010, 06:40 PM

Speaking of early gun sights and aiming positions.
... probably some of these are already known

.

Matchlock · 4th December 2010, 05:15 PM

Thank you, 'Nando,

I was aware of these and I am convinced that in Europe, too, sights were used from the point they arose (ca. 1460-70). The only remaining question is what their worth actually was, as the insides of the barrels were quite rough and not yet rifled.

Best,
Michl

fernando · 4th December 2010, 05:47 PM

Well, a sight is a sight ... independently from the amount of result it produces.
Perhaps we should go back into period context, to ponder on this situation, by not assuming that the sight helps you hiting a precise spot, but considering that it helps you hiting closer from such spot.
... Or, by other means, an educational tool, to make you start thinking about aiming and not just pointing.
Oh, forget it

3rd December 2010, 06:40 PM	#5
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Speaking of early gun sights and aiming positions. ... probably some of these are already known . Attached Images

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

17th November 2010, 09:33 AM	#1
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Thank you so much, Alexender, for sharing these! m

26th November 2010, 01:19 PM	#2
RDGAC Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: York, UK Posts: 167	Fascinating stuff, Michael! I'm especially captivated by the few I see where the user seems to be gripping the butt-stock beneath the crook of his arm - gets me wondering about "jezail grip" again, y'see. Interesting also is the subject of sights. I recall a conversation on the Nihonto Message Board, in which I asked essentially a similar question to one mentioned earlier: "Why put fore and backsights on something so inaccurate as a smoothbore muzzle-loader?" The answer has yet to be found, but one fellow suggested that it might be partially explained by the near-constant Japanese desire to improve on their wares, no matter how fractionally. I'd certainly call putting fore, intermediate and back sights on a Tanegashima an improvement - and a fractional one, at that. Might we be seeing something similar here: early European gunsmiths (at their own impulse, or the instigation of their buyers) attempting to improve the breed?

3rd December 2010, 11:00 AM	#4
RDGAC Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: York, UK Posts: 167	With contemporary technology? Not a single clue Rifling the bore would help improve accuracy at the price of a severe penalty to rate of fire; decreasing the windage might help a little and slow you down a little less, but the bullet will still fly in a fairly random manner and still not do too much beyond, say, a couple of hundred yards. Even the jezail, anecdotally renowned for accuracy at what were, by contemporary standards, longish ranges, has to obey the laws of physics. The only good reason I can see for adding all this panoply of sights to the guns is as a sort of "on the off-chance" measure. Most of the time, the thing's far too inaccurate to make use of them (especially if it's got a dodgy stock design, as in the Tanegashima), but occasionally you might just happen to encounter the right set of circumstances for them to be useful.

4th December 2010, 05:15 PM	#6
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Thank you, 'Nando, I was aware of these and I am convinced that in Europe, too, sights were used from the point they arose (ca. 1460-70). The only remaining question is what their worth actually was, as the insides of the barrels were quite rough and not yet rifled. Best, Michl

4th December 2010, 05:47 PM	#7
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Well, a sight is a sight ... independently from the amount of result it produces. Perhaps we should go back into period context, to ponder on this situation, by not assuming that the sight helps you hiting a precise spot, but considering that it helps you hiting closer from such spot. ... Or, by other means, an educational tool, to make you start thinking about aiming and not just pointing. Oh, forget it