Ottoman matchlock examples.

Pukka Bundook · 10th December 2015, 03:14 PM

David R,

I have heard exactly the same reason for the long usage of the matchlock in India.

Eric,
The photos you posted of the breeches at the bottom of page 1, show new 'tin' attached on some of the miquelet examples. This Must be to cover up the slot for the former matchlock serpentine. The new tin-work is not up to the standard of the rest of the gun, so must be there for this reason.
If I had one of these conversions, I'd be prying said tin up a bit and having a look!
Eftihis,
You barrel does look like a re-used Ottoman barrel, tired but still Ottoman. :-)

estcrh · 14th December 2015, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

The photos you posted of the breeches at the bottom of page 1, show new 'tin' attached on some of the miquelet examples. This Must be to cover up the slot for the former matchlock serpentine. The new tin-work is not up to the standard of the rest of the gun, so must be there for this reason.
If I had one of these conversions, I'd be prying said tin up a bit and having a look!

When you compare the matchlocks to the miquelets there is a big difference in the locations of the triggers. The matchlock triggers are way farther back, if one of the miquelets were a converted matchlock there would have to be an empty slot were the matchlock trigger was previously located. The old matchlock trigger slot would have to be filled in or covered with a plate, seeing something like this would indicate a matchlock conversion I would think.

estcrh · 14th December 2015, 11:25 PM

A few more examples.

Pukka Bundook · 15th December 2015, 01:51 PM

Eric,
Yes, the scear is further back on matchlocks, but took it for granted that many of these arms have inlays on the lower buttstock as well, and such could easily cover up the changed trigger position.

Richard.

estcrh · 16th December 2015, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

Eric,
Yes, the scear is further back on matchlocks, but took it for granted that many of these arms have inlays on the lower buttstock as well, and such could easily cover up the changed trigger position.

Richard.

I agree, there would have to be a metal cover plate or inlay etc to cover up the slot left in a matchlock conversion. You can barely see some inlay on the miquelet you thought may be a conversion so it could have been a matchlock at one time, unfortunately there are no direct images of this area. At least we know that if someone does have an Ottoman miquelet that is solid wood underneath were the trigger is located that is was not a conversion.

Here is an image of the one with the tin plate that you thought may be a matchlock conversion. I also checked the Ottoman miquelet that I own, it is not a conversion as it is solid wood underneath.

Pukka Bundook · 17th December 2015, 02:39 PM

Eric,

Even on these that are Not conversions, the barrel could well be older, and re-stocked.
So difficult to pin down, and no good for me to generalise!

The one you show above with the tin plate;
It (the tin) certainly isn't original, but that's all I can say!

rickystl · 19th December 2015, 08:46 PM

Hi Everyone. Been away from the Forum for a while. Busy time of the year. Whew!
What an interesting Thread this has been. Thank you Estcrh for starting same.

It would be a relatively simple matter to convert the Ottoman matchlock to use a flintlock - espectially in miquelet form. It would require removal of the matchlock pan - which would likely leave evidence of the removal. Since there was no original wood removal from the Right panel of the matchlock, the miquelet lock could be inlet to the stock from scratch allowing perfect match-up with the original vent hole of the barrel. And since the trigger/bar of the matchlock was originally set further to the rear of the stock, a new slot could be cut just below the lock and a new trigger added to fire the miquelet. The mainspring of the miquelet lock being on the outside (vs inside like the traditional French style flintlock) requires Less wood removal. That's why the one gun posted above with both matchlock and miquelet locks would not be difficult to make. But you would think that any conversions would leave at least some kind of evidence of the change over??
Still, it doesn't explain the lack of Ottoman matchlock examples. I've now seen more Ottoman matchlock samples on this Thread than I've ever seen. LOL I do think that "part" of the reason is the Ottomans use of the miquelet very early on. But we also know the matchlock also continued in use. So to me, it's still a mystery why so few examples remain.

Rick.

14th December 2015, 11:25 PM	#3
estcrh Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: USA Posts: 1,492	A few more examples. Attached Images Last edited by estcrh; 15th December 2015 at 01:09 PM.

10th December 2015, 03:14 PM	#1
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	David R, I have heard exactly the same reason for the long usage of the matchlock in India. Eric, The photos you posted of the breeches at the bottom of page 1, show new 'tin' attached on some of the miquelet examples. This Must be to cover up the slot for the former matchlock serpentine. The new tin-work is not up to the standard of the rest of the gun, so must be there for this reason. If I had one of these conversions, I'd be prying said tin up a bit and having a look! Eftihis, You barrel does look like a re-used Ottoman barrel, tired but still Ottoman. :-)

15th December 2015, 01:51 PM	#4
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Eric, Yes, the scear is further back on matchlocks, but took it for granted that many of these arms have inlays on the lower buttstock as well, and such could easily cover up the changed trigger position. Richard.

17th December 2015, 02:39 PM	#6
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Eric, Even on these that are Not conversions, the barrel could well be older, and re-stocked. So difficult to pin down, and no good for me to generalise! The one you show above with the tin plate; It (the tin) certainly isn't original, but that's all I can say!

19th December 2015, 08:46 PM	#7
rickystl Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: St. Louis, MO area. Posts: 1,633	Hi Everyone. Been away from the Forum for a while. Busy time of the year. Whew! What an interesting Thread this has been. Thank you Estcrh for starting same. It would be a relatively simple matter to convert the Ottoman matchlock to use a flintlock - espectially in miquelet form. It would require removal of the matchlock pan - which would likely leave evidence of the removal. Since there was no original wood removal from the Right panel of the matchlock, the miquelet lock could be inlet to the stock from scratch allowing perfect match-up with the original vent hole of the barrel. And since the trigger/bar of the matchlock was originally set further to the rear of the stock, a new slot could be cut just below the lock and a new trigger added to fire the miquelet. The mainspring of the miquelet lock being on the outside (vs inside like the traditional French style flintlock) requires Less wood removal. That's why the one gun posted above with both matchlock and miquelet locks would not be difficult to make. But you would think that any conversions would leave at least some kind of evidence of the change over?? Still, it doesn't explain the lack of Ottoman matchlock examples. I've now seen more Ottoman matchlock samples on this Thread than I've ever seen. LOL I do think that "part" of the reason is the Ottomans use of the miquelet very early on. But we also know the matchlock also continued in use. So to me, it's still a mystery why so few examples remain. Rick.