• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades

Tale of Two More Calivers, Almost (Picture Heavy)

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Alden

Cannon
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
6,476
Reaction score
54
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!
 
Thanks.

Correction: I reversed (h)arquebus with caliver. No excuses but you know how it is once you get writing quickly, you switch something and perpetuate the mistake, so, please think of them the other way 'round...


Caliver bigger than (h)arquebus!


I also originally meant to include this photo contrasting thin and standard match...




Thanks again.
 
Pretty neat. Good showing too. The ones I make, have the self opening pan cover or the pan
attached to the lock plate...I liked the challenge
of the connected parts and the timing of both. But
they are much later.
Wulf
 
Thanks.

You should do a pictorial for us!

Now where did I see an original matchlock where the pan cover closed automatically? Looked much like a snaphaunce cover on the outside...
 
Why not just open the jaws on the serpentine to accept a larger match? I did that without any problems on mine.
 
That would be the weird Model 1664 :thumbsup:

to ye new patterne of Matchlocke Musqt with a Drawing pan lid... wth ye pann cover to draw wth ye tricker.

Look for Henry the Eighth's gun in the Tower or London. A converted wheel lock with the only surviving (probably) p1664 lock on it.

There is one picture in one book that I know of. I think you should mount an expedition and adventure for a close-up :hatsoff:
 
believe me I have tried to post pics on pre-
flintlocks but they are always moved elsewhere.
if I ever figure out how to make this confuser
do what I want I will be happy to send...So many
of the good members sent me instructions but the
problem is with the machine...Maybe someplace in
the files are pictures of my locks...
 
Trettie, it may not be obvious in the picture(s) but take a close look at how shallow-the-cut-in/short-the-tines-are-on the serpentine. The hard metal really cannot be opened wide enough for standard match...

:(
 
Couldn't you heat them and bend them a little?
The thumb screw appears to be long enough.

By the way....how well do they shoot? Have you put them on paper?
 
Alden said:
Now where did I see an original matchlock where the pan cover closed automatically?

Leonardo da Vinci’s drawing show a matchlock with a self-opening, closing pan cover


William Alexander
 
I got my pattern from a picture of a 1619[I think]
match lock.
 
Thanks for the post and photos, Alden. Dunno why these simple arms are so darned fascinating. Do you notice any difference in "lock time" between the two pan shapes? I would think ignition would be a bit faster on the Buck gun.
Wulf, hope you can get your photo issues sorted out. We would all love to see your work.
 
Bill, haven't fired the India-made gun. First I have to make sure my insurance is up to date and my affairs are in order...

Seriously though, I haven't had time; it's just not a priority. It was compellingly interesting (albeit overly-shiny) acquisition. Besides, the touch hole has an inadequate path to the pan -- regardless of how primer ignites a main charge I need to Dremel a path to where the powder goes, LOL.

The simple Buck piece(s) do(es) go off at least, yes.
 
Back
Top