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

Spiridonov · 16th November 2010, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

Maybe this will do.

You will find here 144 images, covering both low and high choir.

LINK

Thanks, Fernando. I have found else images of handgonners from these resourse (unfortunatli there's too low resolution):

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

3rd December 2010, 06:40 PM	#6
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

17th November 2010, 09:33 AM	#2
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	#3
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	#5
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	#7
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