[Jean Thibodeau]

Just something about the butt styles of early muskets, arquebus or petronels and how they were shouldered or not shouldered in the modern way.

Just looking at the way the butts are designed on some of these it seems obvious that they could not be shouldered without major discomfort when fired or they were not shouldered at all.

Wth the Japanese muskets the lack of a butt makes this obvious and I think they held their firing hand on the pistol grip close to the cheek or tight against the cheek.

With the European ones I often see in photographs some sort of nob at what would be the upper part of the butt and would be very painfull if held against the shoulder at firing: This style of butt also seems very square or diamond shape in section and sometimes what would be the butt plate is cut at an extreme angle forming almost a sharp point, If the but was put on the shoulder the gun would be pointing almost 45 degrees down!

By the way what is this " nob", for the lack of a better word, does it function as protection for the stock when the stock is in contact with the ground or is it some sort of removable pricker used to clean the touch hole ? Just don't know as I have not come across an explanation of this in any of my reference books. ( And have not had the experience of handling any original. )

Another style is the extremely curved form of petronel stock which is often described as being held against the chest when firing: It is not clear to me if this is close to the place on the shoulder were we shoulder a rifle today or is it placed closer or at the center of the chest.

Also are some of these old styles meant to be used without any shouldering in the style resembling the Japanese muskets?

So I'm asking these questions because very few if any of my reference books deal with exactly how these were used and I assume that people who shoot reproductions of these or actually make these types of muskets would know how it was done historicaly or having tried shooting with them have learned what is the most comfortable way to use these!

[Gordon Frye]

Jean;

I guess you could say that there are three basic ways of steadying the long-arm as you fire it (four, if you count the earlier handegonne style of holding the staff under your arm). First is what is usually refered to as a "Cheek Stock" where in the shooter simply holds the arm to his cheek to aim, and the butt end never actually contacts the shoulder. Most Germanic rifles of the period 1500-1650 were of this style... and it lasted until the mid-18th Century in some areas as well. Recoil is absorbed by the mass of the rifle (most of these German Cheek Stocks were, in fact, rifles) the cheek and the arms. They're usually pretty heavy too, BTW. The brass button on the butt is both for protecting the buttplate (often of horn or some othe fragile material, far to fragile to be pounded on the ground) and sometimes for fixing a sling to as well. Why the Japanese adopted this style, from the Portuguese weapons that they received is a mystery to me, but perhaps some of our Eastern Arms admirers can answer that one. (I posted below a photo of a strange little "Carbine" with the cheek stock, so that folks would know what in the heck we're talking about)

The second style, holding it to your shoulder in the modern style, was in the 16th Century referred to as "Spanish Style". The guns themselves have a rather gentle curve from the breech of the barrel to the butt, so they are sometimes confused with petronels, but they are absolutely designed to be fired from the shoulder just like a modern rifle. The Spaniards pretty much get the credit for this one. However, the "Classic Matchlock" look that we often think of when someone says "Matchlock Musket" was a North-Western European design, either Dutch or German. The Spaniards stuck with their sloping style well into the 17th Century. At any rate, late 16th Century Military commentators often mention that full blown Muskets "Must be stocked in the Spanish style, else the sore recoil will hurt divers of them"

The third style, which we often refer to as a "petronel", was in the day called the "French Style" stock. Indeed, it was designed "to be held against the Right Pap when fired". They have an extreme drop in the stock, and form almost a "J" when looking at them, but once you get the hang of it, they aren't at all uncomfortable to fire... with a fairly small caliber, firing fairly light loads. Something of the nature of a .85" 15-pound monster would be something else again! Something about "Sore Recoil hurting divers of them" comes to mind.

Interestingly enough, the term "Petronel", which one would assume is rooted in the French for the breast, would mean anything fired in that manner, which of course it has sort of come to mean. But in the day, it referred to a light carbine that was carried on the horse, usually in a saddle scabbard on the pommel rather like a big pistol, but one that you could fire from either the hand or the "Shoulder" (really the chest). Interesting era of experimentations!

Here's a couple of good websites to check out, too, for nifty info on matchlocks:

http://www.matchlock.net/

http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Campground/8551/

And these guys, who have their own "Pre-Flintlock" forum!

http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?Cat=

I hope that this helps some,

Cheers,

Gordon

[Jean Thibodeau]

Thanks Gordon: It does answer a lot of questions, I sort of like the french petronel and would be tempted to look into getting something like it in matchlock for a very early version althought a wheelock ( Expensive ! ) would be very nice. I sort of appreciate the basic simplicity of a matchlock.

Probably in 20 gauge / .62 cal range would makes sense as this stock style would be painfull to shoot in .85 as you said.

Funny how most reference books written mostly by historians make so little mention of the way these were used but will go on and on about the art history aspects of these. ( A valid intererest obviously, but would be nice to not neglect how these were used. )

[Gordon Frye]

Jean;

An older book, "The Age of Firearms", 1957, by Robert Held actually gets into some of this stuff. Although more recent research has disproved a few of his claims, still it's a good handbook, with lots of nice quotes from period sources. I recommend it highly for anyone with a passing interest in the development of firearms. Good illustrations, too (sorry, no fold-outs of Muskets, you have to read it for the articles!)

20-bore (.62") or there abouts seems to have been a favorite caliber, well into the 17th Century. The English "Calivers" (so named probably because they were of a common calibre) were 20-bore, as were the Dutch "Arquebuses", a class of matchlock issued to the Skirmishers, and significantly smaller than Muskets, which were 10-bore (.77"). Believe me, there's a BIG difference in carrying, and shooting, a 20-bore compared with shooting a 10-bore, LOL! Not to mention the double cost of lead and powder...

BTW, carbines remained of around 20-bore until well into the 19th Century, due to the lighter weight of both the arm and the ammunition, and they seem to be perfectly serviceable in disabling the opposition.

Cheers,

Gordon

[Gordon Frye]

Jean;

I figured I might as well post a picture from a modern vendor of a Petronel for you... from Syke's Sutlery. The gun itself is made by John Buck, a good guy in Virginia. But if you do go this route, get an upgraded version, not the "reenactor grade" because they're kind of rough, in my estimation, and more of a club for smacking people in ECW events than a firearm. Here's the link:

http://sykesutler.home.att.net/musket1.htm


(Funny, posted the same link to the "17th Century Carbines" thread a minute ago... popular subject today!)

Cheers!

Gordon

[Jean Thibodeau]

Thanks Gordon that Petronel looks interesting if a little "spartan" in simplicity of the stock. Might want a few interesting bevels on the stock to lighten the look of it and if I ordered a custom job I would try within the limits of my budgets to get the nicest wood grain possible.

This one is about at 80% of what i would be looking for and a little more research on my part would influence the look of the whole thing.

Hmmmmm. A more complex barrel going from octagonal to circular with maybe a muzzle swell like an early "canon" style.
Anyway budget realities might change my mind and I would certainly like the one shown with maybe very minor changes to the stock. ( Maybe change the way the bottom of the stock is cut at a 90 degree angle: I think I would like the upper and lower curve of the stock to form only a single plane at the butt and not be cut of at the bottom parallel to the axis of the
bore. )

Oh, and thanks for posting this site as others may also find it interesting.

[Gordon Frye]

Oh, BTW, check out this site, the "Arquebus and Matchlock Site". He has some good illustrations of the stock types shown, including the "petronel" stock. Good basic information on the earlier forms of firearms.

http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Campground/8551/firearms.html

Oh, BTW, there WERE Wheellock Petronels, of course. Even a good painting of the Earl of Leicester on campaign in the Netherlands holding one (and he seems to be using it as a walking stick!) I'll see if there's a picture on-line of it. Just something to get you started, you know...

Cheers,

Gordon

[Gordon Frye]

Well then, after a short internet search, I found the painting of the Earl of Leicester holding his wheellock petronel rather like a walking stick or a golf club. Not entirely military to my way of thinking, but then, he WAS an English nobleman, so anything is possible, I suppose.

This particular example I would assume to be the true Petronel employed by horsemen, as it looks to be suited for firing from the saddle, and is to all intents and purposes a carbine.

The painting is from this website: http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/Bios/RobertDudley(1ELeicester).htm

Cheers,

Gordon

[Jean Thibodeau]

Thanks again Gordon;

That one the Earl of Leicester does have a rather extreme curve to the stock where the curved part would contact the chest.

I wonder if some of these Petronel were designed to be used this way even when there seems to be a flat butt plate at the end of the stock: Some of these do seem cut at an angle where using the curve against the chest would work better that the flat that would point the muzzle too low if used in the conventional ( For modern eyes ) way.

Lots of sites to research before I commit to a specific design!

[Jean Thibodeau]

Shamelesly bumping back up here: As in my previous post does it make sense that the part of the butt that is very curved might in some extreme example be the part of the stock shouldered rather than the flat butt plate that is at a strange angle?

[Gordon Frye]

[Jean Thibodeau]

Hmmmmmm, Gordon: A bit like the difference in a modern context of the Isoceles stance versus the Weaver stance in that the first is more square to the target as opposed to 45 degrees!

The flat butt close to middle of chest with the cheek maybe hugging the upper curved part and the curve of the stock bringing the eye close to level to where a rear sight would be if there was one or looking down the barrel.

Almost like giving the thing an affectionate bear hug ....... LOL.

My Highschool history is a little dim in my memory but I think Champlain got on the bad side of the Iroquois by taking the side of the Hurons in an early fight: I think he personally fired a musket at the Iroquois. The French did seem to ally themselves with a local tribe to get a foothold in their colonies: Maybe because the colonies were very small and needed local friends to survive. The French also tended to intermarry with the locals a lot.

Maybe if I re-read Québec history I might actually enjoy it now! Highschool history teachers rarery made the subject seem interesting: Take interesting history and read the school official textbooks and you have guarantied boredom .... LOL.

[Jason Daub]

Jean-
A little off topic, but.... It was on 30 July 1609, when Champlain and a party of allied Hurons, after spending the previous night swapping insults with a war party of Mohawks, met for a sunrise battle. Champlain promised to kill the three opposing chiefs to impress his now wavering allies, stepped forward and fired one shot from a range of about 30 yards, killing two and wounding the third.
Needless to say the now understandably upset Mohawks quit the field; Champlain was said to have explained "I had put four bullets in my arquebus".
-Jason

[Gordon Frye]

Jean;

One interesting point that is shown in the de Bry engraving is that the shooters all have their RIGHT foot forward. There are some other illustrations of the era that show the same thing, which I find rather interesting. I believe that the best explanation is that it is meant to show that the shooters are advancing, i.e. "skirmishing" with their firearms, rather than simply standing there like lumps... or like later Musketeers would do with much heavier weapons. Seems as though that tradition stuck, too, and later generations pretty much avoided skirmishing until the late 18th Century.

Per the Hurons, Iroqouis etc; in many ways, Europeans showing up and taking sides in a local dispute was the standard method of making a toe-hold in the area. Spaniards certainly did it (Cortez never could have taken Tenochtitlan without the help of the 25 THOUSAND Tlaxcalan allies, and the Pizzaro Brothers used the civil war in the Quecheua Empire to further their own conquest of Peru), and of course the English did the same in India on many, many occasions. "Sure, we'll help you slaughter your enemies with our powerful weapons, for a small consideration, you understand..." Hey, it works! Julius Caesar did it in Gaul!

Turns out that some of Champlain's men were in fact Swiss, too... which opens up lots of interesting speculation as to the arms that they may have brought with them.

Cheers!

Gordon

[Jean Thibodeau]

Jason;

Very on topic in an off topic sort of way for me ........ Thanks, for that bit of interesting history, very usefull, and it brings in the sub-topic of double loading or in this case quadripal loading an arquebus or musket.


Gordon;

I vaguely remember reading about musketers being given the order to load with buck & ball. ( Washington in the Revolutionary War maybe ? )

I would assume that loading with 4 musket balls would increase pressure considerably and reduce velocity also.

Now, also increasing the powder charge at the same time as using multiple ball ( Full caliber balls ) should make the recoil excessive and blowing up the gun a good possibility.

Oh, weren't muskets generally proofed at double weight of charge of powder and maybe double the projectile load as well?

I would guess using a good half dozen of .45 cal pistol ball in an .85 ( 8 bore ? ) musket would turn it into a very powerful shootgun.

Wouldn't this have been an obvious thing to do when things got to spitting distance ? It's just that I haven't read about this being a standard tactic used in a systematic way ? Well except for blunderbuss.

[Gordon Frye]

Jean;

From my understanding it was quite common to use multiple projectiles throughout the muzzle-loading period in smoothbore pieces. The US Army as a general rule issued out "Buck and Ball" loads for it's Infantry (though it also issued plenty of "Ball" and "Buck" cartridges, respectively, as well). I recall one instance where-in a rather unpopular officer of Volunteers during the Mexican-American War was determined to have been shot by his own men due to the finding of buckshot in the wound, since the Mexican forces only issued Ball cartridges for their muskets. But there are many other references to using two or more balls in a musket... as I recall, Wolfe's men were ordered to place a second ball in their muskets for the first volley on the Plains of Abraham to ensure it's effectiveness. "Doubling" Grape or Cannister, sometimes even solid shot was pretty common in artillery too.

But you're absolutely right about the dangers of this sort of thing. For many years, the standard "proof" was either the double charge and a single ball, or a standard charge and a double ball load. If the barrel withstood this, then it was considered to be safe for general use. Dropping four tight fitting balls down the barrel of his musket was a rather danagerous thing for Champlain to do... of course they might well have been loose fitting, too. But the flip side of that coin is the consideration that if you're going into combat, which is more dangerous: firing a piece that might blow up, or missing the target that then might bash in your brains? One of those trade-offs, I guess!

I was recently corresponding with a gentleman in Switzerland about the Graz Museum Tests of 1988 with the original firearms. He pointed out to me that in order to conduct the tests, the weapons had to be "proofed" by the government, and two of the 14 that they had chosen "failed the proof", i.e. blew up under the rigours of testing their strength. I also am given to understand, however, that they were using the equivelent of our "ffffg" or "4F" granulation powder: VERY fine priming power that no one in his right might uses as a propelant! The pressures just spike too rapidly. So it's amazing, and a tribute to the abilities of the makers, that the ones that DID survive, survived at all.

Cheers,

Gordon