This is not as much a comparison, contrasting two arms at opposite ends of the quality spectrum, as its predecessor was. These are, sadly, closer and I also have less detail on one to show”¦
The longer arm was made by John Buck, may he rest in peace. I don’t know if he’s actually died yet but he’s dead to the black powder shooting sports community of course. In any case, it hales from the vintage where these types of arms were few and as far between as they are now, except, then there was a growing movement for such in a few burgeoning reenacting arenas and the SCA (where rapier fencing had dawned). A long time ago, like-pre-internet, John provided progress vs. perfection with many affordable working examples of such arms primarily thru a fellow Virginia sutler. It’s a version of his versions of a Spanish harquebus circa 1580 bases on one recovered from a well in St. Augustine, Florida dating back to the 16th C. It may have been related to Sir Francis Drake's raid where the city was destroyed in 1586. The tiller trigger is spring loaded to return the serpentine to the “up” position. The barrel is just a straight tube (tubing) which is 38¾" long and is a .56 caliber smoothbore in Walnut. I leave it with its given name of “harquebus” because, given its length and barrel OD if not its rather diminutive bore, it fits best into that loose category. The shorter arm does not as easily. Let me take a minute to explain myself”¦
The terms used for matchlocks, especially as they became the predominant weapon of warfare, in the 16th C. was confused and confusing, changed a bit over time, was different in different principalities, and often had (and has) to be looked at in the context of the references themselves. I am defining my perspective here. Muskets were heavy, large caliber, shooting-fork-rested, firearms that could defeat any armor on the battlefield. Think 4 foot barreled .80 caliber guns and stalwart musketeers. (H)Arquebuses would be smaller, think 3 to 4 foot .70 caliber barreled shoulder-fired guns, whilst calivers were the carbines of the day with, let’s say, 2 to 3 foot barrels of maybe .60 caliber. Petronels were another type, even smaller, “very long pistols” usually of the cavalry. I put my ambiguous definitions here for a really broad and generic frame of reference and to avoid any contradictions so please don’t anyone use them as an excuse for any”¦
This second is a bigger-bored .65 cal. India-made gun but has only a 28” barrel. Sold as a “1520’s Arquebus Matchlock Musket” by a sutler in my region who feels dedicated to muzzloader living history and historically accurate muzzleloaders, per my definitions it cannot reasonably be called both, and arguably is neither. Of course it is a matchlock but it fits best into the category of caliver as far as I’m concerned.
The handy size caught my eye but so did that the barrel is tapered octagonal and the stock is Mango wood (which the sutler claims looks like Walnut ”“ you be the judge). The barrel is 1-3/16th inches at the breach and 7/8ths at the muzzle. The maker was so well chuffed he put a front site bead on the thing! It was test fired with 75 grs. FFg, a .600 ball, and double oiled patch.
The arquebus’ stock is well-enough done for what it is, shaped, contoured, and fits well to shoot. The caliver is “a plank” by comparison and does not allow a very good sight picture down the barrel ”“ if it was a Trap shotgun it’d be just fine.
The barrel wall at the muzzle on the arquebus is quite thick as straight tubing (with a screwed in breech). That’s OK ”“ the gun SHOULD be a heavier caliber and it looks it from it’s profile. The India-made breech is screwed in as well; the muzzle still has hacksaw (cutoff tool) marks though! I didn’t get the barrels off of either gun ”“ I could not pop the barrel pins on the arquebus and though I could on the newer caliver it seems the Indians basically glued the barrel in (apparently coated the channel with filler). Speaking of the barrels, the entire India-made gun is the usual super-high-luster mirror-polished metal ”“ there is not a straight section of the barrel. As you look over it there are nothing but waves as though it were ice and melting water were running down its entire surface. Not sure the picture looking down it from the cheek shows this ”“ certainly not much.
Looking at the locks, the arquebus’ simple rectangular plate is a little proud of the stock which can’t be seen well, and when I tapped it back it sat deeper but the lock nails (you’d call them screws) protrude well through the lockplate ”“ file time. The caliver’s plate has a little shape to it, kudo’s, but could not be removed. Whilst the arquebus’ tiller trigger unscrews counter clockwise the India-made caliver’s is apparently held in with a cross screw accessed through that non-historically correct plate-covered hole on the left of the stock. The wood that holds it in is stripped and I didn’t want to beat the gun up further to get that plate out (it refused to be easily pried), so, the caliver lock stayed where it was.
The arquebus lock is actually pretty smooth with relatively tight tolerances given the way Buck brazed a loop into the mechanism. The India-made caliver’s trigger mechanism is actually the sloppiest I think I’ve ever felt. The tiller trigger is loose enough that it wobbles a circle about the size of a quarter. If you look at the position of the serpentine to the pan in the pics you’ll see it moves loosely from left to right almost an inch. The only reason the matchcord gets near the pan, which is largely blocked directly to the touchhole and needs filing there anyway, is the stock and pan restrict its movement some as it is being lowered. The seller wouldn’t comment on this when I asked him to. Understandable as I bought another gun he built where he botched the half-cock safety on an L&R lock and then lied on gun brokering website that he offered me a new lock when he had me return it to him for a repair and it did nothing!
Another thing about the India-made serpentine”¦ If you’ll notice the notch is very narrow as are the jaws of the serpentine. This gun CANNOT use standard 3/8” match ”“ you must use crappy thin ¼” match such as Dixie sells.
Thanks for reading!
The longer arm was made by John Buck, may he rest in peace. I don’t know if he’s actually died yet but he’s dead to the black powder shooting sports community of course. In any case, it hales from the vintage where these types of arms were few and as far between as they are now, except, then there was a growing movement for such in a few burgeoning reenacting arenas and the SCA (where rapier fencing had dawned). A long time ago, like-pre-internet, John provided progress vs. perfection with many affordable working examples of such arms primarily thru a fellow Virginia sutler. It’s a version of his versions of a Spanish harquebus circa 1580 bases on one recovered from a well in St. Augustine, Florida dating back to the 16th C. It may have been related to Sir Francis Drake's raid where the city was destroyed in 1586. The tiller trigger is spring loaded to return the serpentine to the “up” position. The barrel is just a straight tube (tubing) which is 38¾" long and is a .56 caliber smoothbore in Walnut. I leave it with its given name of “harquebus” because, given its length and barrel OD if not its rather diminutive bore, it fits best into that loose category. The shorter arm does not as easily. Let me take a minute to explain myself”¦
The terms used for matchlocks, especially as they became the predominant weapon of warfare, in the 16th C. was confused and confusing, changed a bit over time, was different in different principalities, and often had (and has) to be looked at in the context of the references themselves. I am defining my perspective here. Muskets were heavy, large caliber, shooting-fork-rested, firearms that could defeat any armor on the battlefield. Think 4 foot barreled .80 caliber guns and stalwart musketeers. (H)Arquebuses would be smaller, think 3 to 4 foot .70 caliber barreled shoulder-fired guns, whilst calivers were the carbines of the day with, let’s say, 2 to 3 foot barrels of maybe .60 caliber. Petronels were another type, even smaller, “very long pistols” usually of the cavalry. I put my ambiguous definitions here for a really broad and generic frame of reference and to avoid any contradictions so please don’t anyone use them as an excuse for any”¦
This second is a bigger-bored .65 cal. India-made gun but has only a 28” barrel. Sold as a “1520’s Arquebus Matchlock Musket” by a sutler in my region who feels dedicated to muzzloader living history and historically accurate muzzleloaders, per my definitions it cannot reasonably be called both, and arguably is neither. Of course it is a matchlock but it fits best into the category of caliver as far as I’m concerned.
The handy size caught my eye but so did that the barrel is tapered octagonal and the stock is Mango wood (which the sutler claims looks like Walnut ”“ you be the judge). The barrel is 1-3/16th inches at the breach and 7/8ths at the muzzle. The maker was so well chuffed he put a front site bead on the thing! It was test fired with 75 grs. FFg, a .600 ball, and double oiled patch.
The arquebus’ stock is well-enough done for what it is, shaped, contoured, and fits well to shoot. The caliver is “a plank” by comparison and does not allow a very good sight picture down the barrel ”“ if it was a Trap shotgun it’d be just fine.
The barrel wall at the muzzle on the arquebus is quite thick as straight tubing (with a screwed in breech). That’s OK ”“ the gun SHOULD be a heavier caliber and it looks it from it’s profile. The India-made breech is screwed in as well; the muzzle still has hacksaw (cutoff tool) marks though! I didn’t get the barrels off of either gun ”“ I could not pop the barrel pins on the arquebus and though I could on the newer caliver it seems the Indians basically glued the barrel in (apparently coated the channel with filler). Speaking of the barrels, the entire India-made gun is the usual super-high-luster mirror-polished metal ”“ there is not a straight section of the barrel. As you look over it there are nothing but waves as though it were ice and melting water were running down its entire surface. Not sure the picture looking down it from the cheek shows this ”“ certainly not much.
Looking at the locks, the arquebus’ simple rectangular plate is a little proud of the stock which can’t be seen well, and when I tapped it back it sat deeper but the lock nails (you’d call them screws) protrude well through the lockplate ”“ file time. The caliver’s plate has a little shape to it, kudo’s, but could not be removed. Whilst the arquebus’ tiller trigger unscrews counter clockwise the India-made caliver’s is apparently held in with a cross screw accessed through that non-historically correct plate-covered hole on the left of the stock. The wood that holds it in is stripped and I didn’t want to beat the gun up further to get that plate out (it refused to be easily pried), so, the caliver lock stayed where it was.
The arquebus lock is actually pretty smooth with relatively tight tolerances given the way Buck brazed a loop into the mechanism. The India-made caliver’s trigger mechanism is actually the sloppiest I think I’ve ever felt. The tiller trigger is loose enough that it wobbles a circle about the size of a quarter. If you look at the position of the serpentine to the pan in the pics you’ll see it moves loosely from left to right almost an inch. The only reason the matchcord gets near the pan, which is largely blocked directly to the touchhole and needs filing there anyway, is the stock and pan restrict its movement some as it is being lowered. The seller wouldn’t comment on this when I asked him to. Understandable as I bought another gun he built where he botched the half-cock safety on an L&R lock and then lied on gun brokering website that he offered me a new lock when he had me return it to him for a repair and it did nothing!
Another thing about the India-made serpentine”¦ If you’ll notice the notch is very narrow as are the jaws of the serpentine. This gun CANNOT use standard 3/8” match ”“ you must use crappy thin ¼” match such as Dixie sells.
Thanks for reading!