Battle accounts of matchlocks vs. flintlocks?

[TobJohn]

Really? Huh, from what I've read the "twelve apostles" bandoleer was still standard issue (at least among the British) through to the end of the English Civil War. I've even seen some claims that they were still commonly issued during the Glorious Revolution of the 1680s. I always thought paper cartridges didn't really become common until the 1700s.

Here are two good threads on the subject:
Ca. 1500 to 1650: Bandeliers for Arquebusiers and Musketeers - Ethnographic Arms & Armour
Mid to Late 16th Century Patrons for Paper Cartridges - Ethnographic Arms & Armour

My general understanding is that a lot of artistic depictions are from later and anachronistically show them in use to the end of the 1600s.

 

[Arquebusier]

I find it interesting that Gustavus Adolphus replaced early flintlocks with matchlocks.

 

[user 56333]

I find it interesting that Gustavus Adolphus replaced early flintlocks with matchlocks.

Interesting indeed. That reminds me of a forum post I read years ago where somebody alleged that "snaplock" firearms in Scandinavia during the 1600s were considered a "peasants weapon". I doubt many peasants owned firearms in the 17th century, but I think his point was that, in that part of the world, they were not considered suitable for "proper" soldiering.

I didn't believe it years ago, since I'd always assumed flint-ignition firearms were seen as "cutting edge" compared to matchlocks during that era, but from what you posted, maybe the guy was right after all...

Wish I could find that post again to get the proper context of what he was talking about. Can't even remember what forum it was...

That is an interesting point about the Swedes initially adopting snaplocks because they didn't have a reliable source of match cord. I guess, in one way, perhaps flint-ignition guns could be a bit cheaper to operate than a matchlock? After all, if you want to have a matchlock "at the ready" you need to have the match cord constantly lit, which means you're regularly burning through stocks of it. But in a flintlock, you can go out on patrol or stand guard duty with the gun "at the ready" without actually wearing down the flint.

 

[TobJohn]

Interesting indeed. That reminds me of a forum post I read years ago where somebody alleged that "snaplock" firearms in Scandinavia during the 1600s were considered a "peasants weapon". I doubt many peasants owned firearms in the 17th century, but I think his point was that, in that part of the world, they were not considered suitable for "proper" soldiering.

I didn't believe it years ago, since I'd always assumed flint-ignition firearms were seen as "cutting edge" compared to matchlocks during that era, but from what you posted, maybe the guy was right after all...

Wish I could find that post again to get the proper context of what he was talking about. Can't even remember what forum it was...

That is an interesting point about the Swedes initially adopting snaplocks because they didn't have a reliable source of match cord. I guess, in one way, perhaps flint-ignition guns could be a bit cheaper to operate than a matchlock? After all, if you want to have a matchlock "at the ready" you need to have the match cord constantly lit, which means you're regularly burning through stocks of it. But in a flintlock, you can go out on patrol or stand guard duty with the gun "at the ready" without actually wearing down the flint.

Peasant weapon may not be the right description. They were civilian weapons because 1. they are better for hunting and fowling and 2. A person buying their own gun would want to get something better than the cheapest.

That is a big part of why they were more common in the colonies. Even if there were not laws to mandate them, if you need a gun for militia duty, you may as well get a good multipurpose one.


The Bavarian militias in the 30 years war formed units out of men armed with firelocks to act as skirmishers. While rifles were a decent percentage, smooth bore hunting guns were also common. Unfortunately, the book I got this from (link) does not have detailed accounts of the militia in action, but does mention they were widely considered useless in combat. By the 1640s, the competent militia men armed with firelocks (rifled and smooth) were formed into one of the first Jager regiments for the proper army.

 

[tenngun]

It's during discussions like this that I stop and remember that, on average, people back then were smaller than today, and start to wonder just how well some malnourished 5'6" footsoldier was able to handle a 16 lb firearm... Guess people just complained less than we do today.

While people were smaller in Western Europe everything was done by hand. Pound for pound people tended to be stronger, as everything was hard work.
The voyager were expected to be short, for instance, but given at least one 90 lbs pack to move on a potage and paid a bonus if could carry more then one. It’s reported some carried three. Normal portage was six hundred feet and rest, but still little guys moving that much then repeating several times then hopping in the boat to paddle had to make for some short little Schwarzeneggers.

 

[tenngun]

 

[TobJohn]

I find it interesting that Gustavus Adolphus replaced early flintlocks with matchlocks.
View attachment 198334

The gun in the article:
Snapplåsbössa, Sverige? cirka 1625. - Sök i samlingarna
A similar example:
Snapplåsbössa, Jönköping, cirka 1625. - Sök i samlingarna
What I assume the Rifle Shoppe Snaplock is based on:
snapplåsmusköt, lägglås, utfjäderslås - Sverige, Snapplåsmusköt, lägglås, utfjäderslås, Sverige ca 1600. - Sök i samlingarna
A very early example:
snapplåsbössa, lägglås, utfjäderslås - långt rör, pipa Nürnberg, Snapplåsbössa, Nürnbergipa ca 1550, troligen stockad och försedd med lås i Arboga 1556 - den äldsta bössan med svenskt snapplås. - Sök i samlingarna

@rickystl, I do not know if you intended to become the go to guy for knowledge on the flintlock lock family, but it seems like the swedes are abnormally eager to add standalone locks to their digital collections. May be of some interest to you:
Search: text:"snapplås"
Sök i samlingarna - Statens Historiska Museer - Sök i samlingarna

 

[TobJohn]

View attachment 198441View attachment 198442

Whats the source of this? The different descriptions of buttstocks are fascinating and if it is from the period, the description of the French stock can help solve a mystery I have been trying to figure out.

 

[tenngun]

Whats the source of this? The different descriptions of buttstocks are fascinating and if it is from the period, the description of the French stock can help solve a mystery I have been trying to figure out.

Sir Rodger Williams Briefe (sic) Discourse on warfare 1590

 

[TobJohn]

Sir Rodger Williams Briefe (sic) Discourse on warfare 1590

Amazing, thanks!

Online version I found:
A briefe discourse of vvarre. VVritten by Sir Roger VVilliams Knight; vvith his opinion concerning some parts of the martiall discipline. Newly perused

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

Sir Rodger Williams Briefe (sic) Discourse on warfare 1590

I don't know quite what to make of all that ... as he advocates for muskets over calivers, but then says muskets only get 8 to 12 shots per pound of powdah ... which would be loads of 875 and 583.3 grains respectively. That's ridiculous!

When I see such blatant errors in documents, even in original manuscripts, it makes me question the validity for any of the other information or opinion presented in there too, but that's just me!

 

[TobJohn]

I don't know quite what to make of all that ... as he advocates for muskets over calivers, but then says muskets only get 8 to 12 shots per pound of powdah ... which would be loads of 875 and 583.3 grains respectively. That's ridiculous!

When I see such blatant errors in documents, even in original manuscripts, it makes me question the validity for any of the other information or opinion presented in there too, but that's just me!

Instead of muskets, they were actually using antitank guns. Cuirassiers didn't stand a chance.

 

[tenngun]

I don't know quite what to make of all that ... as he advocates for muskets over calivers, but then says muskets only get 8 to 12 shots per pound of powdah ... which would be loads of 875 and 583.3 grains respectively. That's ridiculous!

When I see such blatant errors in documents, even in original manuscripts, it makes me question the validity for any of the other information or opinion presented in there too, but that's just me!

This was late sixteenth century. Is this supper charge secondary to serpentine powder?
Even in the time of the revolution muskets might be loaded twenty five shots to the pound, 280 grains. This was low grade military powder
He does mention that a lighter cavilier couldn’t handle this shot.

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

This was late sixteenth century. Is this supper charge secondary to serpentine powder?
Even in the time of the revolution muskets might be loaded twenty five shots to the pound, 280 grains. This was low grade military powder
He does mention that a lighter cavilier couldn’t handle this shot.

Good question! But alas I don't know the answer ...

 

[user 56333]

On the subject of operating costs, did matchlocks have any economic advantage over flintlocks in the American colonies? I've read that even up to the 19th century America had to import many of its gun flints from Europe. Meanwhile, hemp and cotton was being grown across the warmer parts of the Americas in decent quantities, both of which could have provided an easy local source of material for making slow match for matchlocks.

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

Me thinks that survival was significantly more important to our early Colonies than economics, when looking at either a matchlock versus a firelock.

There are many accounts (Harmon’s Rangers, 1600s) where they just pointed their matchlocks at the Natives, threatening to shoot … but in reality they couldn’t shoot, as all their matchcord was wet.

As previously noted, militia laws changed to the point where you had to put aside your matchlock and field a firelock!

 

[tenngun]

On the subject of operating costs, did matchlocks have any economic advantage over flintlocks in the American colonies? I've read that even up to the 19th century America had to import many of its gun flints from Europe. Meanwhile, hemp and cotton was being grown across the warmer parts of the Americas in decent quantities, both of which could have provided an easy local source of material for making slow match for matchlocks.

That’s assuming they knew about them. By 1750 there is a good chance that few if anyone in America knew what a matchlock was.
I THINK in a survival situation I would want my TFC and reserve a suppository gun for defense only. I would husband that ammo closely. But how many survival guns that you see talked about are ml.
People tend to think in terms of current technology
Only nerds that think centuries old.

 

[user 56333]

Me thinks that survival was significantly more important to our early Colonies than economics, when looking at either a matchlock versus a firelock.

There are many accounts (Harmon’s Rangers, 1600s) where they just pointed their matchlocks at the Natives, threatening to shoot … but in reality they couldn’t shoot, as all their matchcord was wet.

As previously noted, militia laws changed to the point where you had to put aside your matchlock and field a firelock!

I've heard several times about colonial militias outlawing matchlocks. I'm curious now, could you provide me with any specific examples and dates?

That’s assuming they knew about them. By 1750 there is a good chance that few if anyone in America knew what a matchlock was.
I THINK in a survival situation I would want my TFC and reserve a suppository gun for defense only. I would husband that ammo closely. But how many survival guns that you see talked about are ml.
People tend to think in terms of current technology
Only nerds that think centuries old.

I was thinking more about the colonies in the 1600s, when matchlocks were still in use.

 

[TobJohn]

On the subject of operating costs, did matchlocks have any economic advantage over flintlocks in the American colonies? I've read that even up to the 19th century America had to import many of its gun flints from Europe. Meanwhile, hemp and cotton was being grown across the warmer parts of the Americas in decent quantities, both of which could have provided an easy local source of material for making slow match for matchlocks.

While mining existed in the colonies before 1700, true local manufacturing of weapons was not really a thing. I also think gunpowder production was severely limited, but I cannot find my source on that... Either way, most weapons would have been thought in the context of having to import everything.

While trying to find a source, I came across these statistics which are much earlier and more lopsided towards firelocks than I had originally thought:

History of Armour and Weapons Relevant to Jamestown - Historic Jamestowne Part of Colonial National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service)

 

[TobJohn]

I've heard several times about colonial militias outlawing matchlocks. I'm curious now, could you provide me with any specific examples and dates?



I was thinking more about the colonies in the 1600s, when matchlocks were still in use.

I coincidentally answered it for Virginia, but here is a source for new England:
Arms and Armor of the Pilgrims 1620-1692, by Harold L. Peterson—A Project Gutenberg eBook