Matchlock accessories

kahnjar1 · 31st January 2016, 03:43 AM

Hi Richard,
Yes you are of course right. I was not thinking about the match being wrapped around the stock, as I have not seen any Indian matchlocks with wrapped match cords as one usually sees on Omani ones. My mind was set on the pic at the beginning of this thread where the cord is only a short piece.
Stu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

Stu,

To quote you;
"There MUST be some sort of holder to attach the match to the gun otherwise it would just fall out and be lost. "

I don't know that much about matchlocks, but can't see how the match can be lost, as it is wrapped around the stock behind the breech, and the other end is in the jaws of the serpent.
European matchlocks have no match holder, apart form the serpent, and the match was often wrapped around either the barrel or the arm.

I suppose if a very short length of match was used this could be a possibility, but such a short length would be unusual and the jaws would hold it well enough. Am I missing something obvious?? (Wouldn't be the first time!!)

Marcus,
Thank you for the link to the other photos. Very kind of you!

Best regards
Richard.

Pukka Bundook · 31st January 2016, 03:41 PM

And you in turn are also quite right Stu,
As keeping a short length in place like that in the photo would be the very devil!
I'll see if I can dig out a photo of a torador ready for use. :-)

R.

rickystl · 1st February 2016, 01:40 AM

Hi Marcus.
That is a very nice Torador. I really like the iron chisel work and engraving. Very tastefully done. as mentioned above, the large cone would have been used to extinguish the match cord while not in use and help keep the cord tip dry during transit. The small horizonal cone would be to store the vent pick that would also be attached with a chain.
It would be interesting to know what the item is that Stu pointed out. Have no idea what it is.

Again, super nice Torador.

Rick

Pukka Bundook · 1st February 2016, 04:04 AM

Stu,

Here are a couple of old paintings with the gun ready for use, with matchcord wrapped around the buttstock;

The first is of Shah Jahangir. (son of Shah Jahan)

Rick, I have no clue what the other little accessory is, it is wired in place and the wire looks new. Maybe not related at all??

All the best,
Richard.

Marcus · 1st February 2016, 01:49 PM

Thanks for all the comments and information. Would people guess this was Mughal? Happy also to hear opinions about age.
Marcus
P.S. The short bit of match was just cut for the recent pictures. It actually is a bit too thick that serpent. It fits my Japanese matchlock better. I have timed its burn as 5 minutes per inch.

Pukka Bundook · 1st February 2016, 03:16 PM

Marcus,

I do wish All Indian arms were easier to date!
As most remained very much the same from the time of Akbar to the mid 19th century, it is only in small details or decoration that we might see differences.
Even then, decoration could and often was added later so we are a bit at sea.

In Robert Elgood's books, he will attribute a certain matchlock to a certain period, but I would very much like to know Why such attribution is made!
"OK, What makes this one mid 18th century?" type of thing.
I have looked and looked at matchlocks from the Indian sub -continent, and have found up to now very little evidence for age.
It would appear that barrels with a very heavy, parallel breech, then a turned section, are somewhat later than those with a tapered breech, but that is something I am still working on.
Of course, a nice inscription helps!...........butvnot very often!
If anyone else knows what signs to look for in dating these arms, I would be most grateful to learn.
If I had to guess, I'd say yours was late 18th C,- early 19th c. going by the engraving on the lock -plates.
Might be wrong, and I hope if so, someone can Tell me why I'm wrong!

Interesting that my homemade matchcord burns at the same rate, Marcus.
(Inch in 5 minutes)

Jens Nordlunde · 1st February 2016, 03:58 PM

Unfortunately Richard is right. Decorations and inscriptions could have been added later. To this comes that even in India, centuries ago, faking an inscription with the name of a famous smiths name was not uncommon, or maybe adding a date years before the gun was made.
But on the other hand, the decoration and the inscription could be of the same time as the gun :-).

1st February 2016, 04:04 AM	#4
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Stu, Here are a couple of old paintings with the gun ready for use, with matchcord wrapped around the buttstock; The first is of Shah Jahangir. (son of Shah Jahan) Rick, I have no clue what the other little accessory is, it is wired in place and the wire looks new. Maybe not related at all?? All the best, Richard. Attached Images

1st February 2016, 01:49 PM	#5
Marcus Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 420	Where and when Thanks for all the comments and information. Would people guess this was Mughal? Happy also to hear opinions about age. Marcus P.S. The short bit of match was just cut for the recent pictures. It actually is a bit too thick that serpent. It fits my Japanese matchlock better. I have timed its burn as 5 minutes per inch.

31st January 2016, 03:41 PM	#2
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	And you in turn are also quite right Stu, As keeping a short length in place like that in the photo would be the very devil! I'll see if I can dig out a photo of a torador ready for use. :-) R.

1st February 2016, 01:40 AM	#3
rickystl Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: St. Louis, MO area. Posts: 1,632	Hi Marcus. That is a very nice Torador. I really like the iron chisel work and engraving. Very tastefully done. as mentioned above, the large cone would have been used to extinguish the match cord while not in use and help keep the cord tip dry during transit. The small horizonal cone would be to store the vent pick that would also be attached with a chain. It would be interesting to know what the item is that Stu pointed out. Have no idea what it is. Again, super nice Torador. Rick

1st February 2016, 03:16 PM	#6
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Marcus, I do wish All Indian arms were easier to date! As most remained very much the same from the time of Akbar to the mid 19th century, it is only in small details or decoration that we might see differences. Even then, decoration could and often was added later so we are a bit at sea. In Robert Elgood's books, he will attribute a certain matchlock to a certain period, but I would very much like to know Why such attribution is made! "OK, What makes this one mid 18th century?" type of thing. I have looked and looked at matchlocks from the Indian sub -continent, and have found up to now very little evidence for age. It would appear that barrels with a very heavy, parallel breech, then a turned section, are somewhat later than those with a tapered breech, but that is something I am still working on. Of course, a nice inscription helps!...........butvnot very often! If anyone else knows what signs to look for in dating these arms, I would be most grateful to learn. If I had to guess, I'd say yours was late 18th C,- early 19th c. going by the engraving on the lock -plates. Might be wrong, and I hope if so, someone can Tell me why I'm wrong! Interesting that my homemade matchcord burns at the same rate, Marcus. (Inch in 5 minutes)

1st February 2016, 03:58 PM	#7
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Unfortunately Richard is right. Decorations and inscriptions could have been added later. To this comes that even in India, centuries ago, faking an inscription with the name of a famous smiths name was not uncommon, or maybe adding a date years before the gun was made. But on the other hand, the decoration and the inscription could be of the same time as the gun :-).