admin | 
07 6th, 2009| 
MUSKET AND PIKE
An attempt to produce some order in the manufacture of firearms had an odd terminological result. In the army of Piedmont, before the battle of Moncontour in 1569, there were so many sizes of bore amongst the arquebuses that ammunition supply became a difficult problem. To overcome this 7000 arquebuses were ordered of one calibre, and referred to as ‘harquebuze de calibre de Monsieur le Prince’. The type of arquebus which was made to comply with this order had a bore of 10 or 11, weighed 12 pounds and had a barrel length of 42 inches. It became so popular that its use on the Continent became very widespread, and it appeared in England during the last quarter of the sixteenth century.. The original cumbersome reference had been contracted by the soldiers to `Calibre du Prince’, and later simply to ‘Calibre’. This became anglicized as ‘Caliver’, and in 1578 the Tower of London had 7000 of them in store. They were matchlocks, rather. heavier than the previous pattern of arquebus, and about four feet ten inches in overall length. Eventually the term came to mean any firearm which was light enough to be fired without a rest. ‘Arquebus’ was then frequently applied to cavalry wheel-lock arms.
In 1595 the Trained Bands were ordered to exchange their bows for calivers and muskets, and by this time calivers formed part of the armament of every English infantry unit. In fact, in a levy for Ireland of the following year, the ’shot accounted for half the infantry, and of these three-quarters were armed with calivers and only one-quarter with muskets. The days of the caliver, however, were numbered; for, unlike the musket, its shot was too light to pierce heavy armour.
The musket was actually earlier in origin than the caliver, having been invented in about 1546, though its adoption in England was somewhat slow. It was, essentially, an improved form of matchlock arquebus, with a greater g rane and accuracy and firing a heavier
rang
It had a barrel 4 feet long, a bore of 8 or io, and was designed to penetrate the heaviest protective armour. Its weight was 2o pounds, and it was consequently necessary to support the barrel on a forked rest. The first type of musket seems to have been too cumbersome to use for anything except siege warfare, and the Duke of Alva has been stated to have been the first to adapt it for use in the field, in his campaign in the Netherlands in
1567. By the time of the Civil War the musket had been considerably lightened, and it was possible to use it without a rest.
In one respect the musket was destined to achieve undying
FIG. 41. A MATCH-BOX.
fame; for its name came to denote any shoulder firearm, and even ‘rifle’ is merely a shortened form of ‘rifled musket’.
One of the disadvantages of the matchlock was the match. In very wet weather it was liable to be extinguished. To give some protection a ‘match-box’ was introduced. This was a tube of pewter, latten or tin, about a foot long, with holes in the side to let in aif.
It was this difficulty with the .match which was responsible for the development of spark ignition. The first substance to be employed for this purpose was pyrites; a mineral which included a combination of iron and sulphur. The mechanism in which it was used was known as the ‘wheel-lock’, and was invented in Nuremberg about 1517. A fragment of pyrites was held in contact with a steel wheel which had a serrated
FIG, 42. WHEEL- LOCKS.
Top: A Wheel-lock Carbine, Elizabeth I. Bottom: A Wheel-lock Dag, Edward VI.
edge. The wheel was rotated by the release of a powerful V-spring attached to the lock plate. The resulting stream of parks was directed at the priming powder.
The spindle of the wheel had a square end, and the lock was set by fitting a key, or spanner, to the spindle and winding it in a clockwise direction. This pulled a short chain of about three links round the spindle, and tautened the spring. After a three-quarter turn a scear (spring catch), which was fixed on the inside of the lock plate, engaged a slot on the wheel.
The flash-pan was then primed and closed. The bottom of the pan, however, was pierced to admit the top of the wheel. The piece of pyrites, which was held in a clamp at the head of the cock, was next lowered on to the top of the pan cover. Assuming it to have been loaded, the weapon was now ready for firing.
Pressure on the trigger drew back the scear and released the spring, causing the wheel to revolve. An ingenious device then caused the pan cover to open. A cam attached to the wheel spindle struck an arm which was connected to the pan cover. This opened the latter, permitting the pyrites to fall on the wheel. The pan cover was then held open by a spring catch.
The wheel-lock was, as may be imagined, an extremely
FIG. 43. WHEEL-LOCK DAGS.
expensive firearm to make, particularly when compared with the simple matchlock. Its adoption in England was consequently slow, and it never became a general issue to the infantry. It was a very useful lock, however, for a horseman. The management of a matchlock on horseback was a difficult feat, for the match had to be kept alight and any adjustments made to it with one hand.
The first single-handed firearms were intended for the horse soldier. These were the dags or tacks, the forerunners of pistols. The first dags were, in appearance, small arquebuses with wheel-locks. In 1544 they were introduced into England as a cavalry weapon.
The wheel-lock, also known as a firelock, suffered from two disadvantages; the first was the expense, and the second the weakness of the pyrites, which was liable to break into pieces. The demand for a sound and inexpensive method of spark transmission led to the introduction of the flintlock. The name originally given to this new mechanism was ’snaphaunce’. This was derived from the Dutch snaphaan, meaning a pecking fowl, and referred to the pecking motion of the cock.
The sparks in the flintlock were produced by striking a piece of flint against a case-hardened steel plate, with serrated ridges on its face. The flint was held in- a clamp at the top of the cock. The ’steel’, against which the flint was struck, worked on an arm which was hinged to the lock plate and held in position by a V-spring. To fire the weapon the cock -was drawn back, thereby compressing the main spring, which in turn actuated an internal tumbler connected to the cock. The scear engaged the tumbler and held the cock in the fully open position. The steel was then lowered towards the rear of the piece and on to the lip of the flash-pan; bringing it within range of the cock. Pulling the trigger drew back the scear, thereby releasing the cock; with the result that the flint struck the steel, directing a stream of sparks into the pan. This last was uncovered, during the forward movement of the cock, through a tumbler actuating a steel link which thrust against the lower part of the pan cover.
This type of flintlock was complicated and still fairly expensive. It was little used in England, though some of the troops ordered to Ireland in i58o are said to have been armed with it. On the Continent, however, it was in common use for a long time. In England it was superseded in the first quarter of the seventeenth century by the so-called ‘English lock’ flintlock. This was a much better and simpler weapon than the original snaphaunce, and the mechanism remained basically the same for all future flintlock firearms.
In the English lock the steel and pan cover were combined in a single piece which was called the ‘hammer’. This consisted of a hinged pan cover which worked upon a screw set in the lock plate and held in either the open or closed positions by a V-spring. The steel, or striking surface, rose approximately at right angles in a curve from the free end of the cover. When the cock was released the flint hit the steel, causing a shower of sparks, and at the same time pushed the whole member back on the hinge, so uncovering the priming powder to the sparks. The firing mechanism was practically the same as that of the snaphaunce, but the weapon could be put at safety by raising the cock half-way and leaving the pan
FIG. 44. AN ARQUEBUS WITH SNAPHAUNCE LOCK.
closed. This “half-cock’ position was achieved by providing a notch on the tumbler in which the scear engaged.
On some English locks there was an additional safety device. This was a catch on the outside of the lock plate which engaged in a notch on the cock when it was in the `half-cock’ position. This type of safety-catch was called a dog-catch and locks so fitted were known as doglocks.
Although the term `snaphaunce’ seems to have been applied originally to those flintlocks with separate pan covers and steels, it appears to have been soon used, in the early seventeenth century, to denote all flintlocks.
The difficulty of managing a matchlock on horseback has already been mentioned. Nevertheless in about I 53o a modification of the arquebus was produced for this purpose. It was called a ‘Petronel’ or ‘poitrinal’, names derived from the French and signifying that the weapon was intended to be fired from the chest. It was shorter than the arquebus but of a large calibre, and, on account of its weight, was carried on a broad shoulder belt. As a matchlock it was a fairly impracticable weapon, and later -versions were fitted with wheel-locks.
Another horseman’s firearm was the dragon. This was something between a petronel and a pistol. Traditionally it had a. dragon’s head at its muzzle, and it is supposed to have given its name to the French Dragons (Dragoons), first raised by Charles de Cosse, Marechal de Brissac, in 1600. Of the later and similar English troops, Markham, in his Souldier’s
FiG. 45- PETRONELS.
Acidence of 1645, says: ‘The last sort of which our horse troopes are composed are called dragoons, which are a kind of footmen on horsebacks, and do now indeed succeed the light horsemen, and are of singular use in all actions of warre. The armes defensive are an open head piece with cheeks, and a good buffs coat, with deeps skirts; and for offensive armes they have a faire dragon fitted with. an iron works, to be carried in a belt of leather, which is buckled over the right shoulder and under the left arms, having a turnill of iron work with a ring, through which the piece runnes up and downs; and these dragons are short pieces of sixteen inches the barrell, and full musquet bore, with firelocks or snaphaunces, also a belt with a flaske, pryming box, key, and bullet bag, and a good sword.’
In the heavy horse petronel and dag were succeeded in due course by carbine and pistol. The difference between a pistol and a dag is, however, not very clear. Weapons which we should normally call pistols were often called dags in England and tacks in Scotland in the early seventeenth, and, in the case of the latter, eighteenth centuries. Owing to their small size,. and consequent popularity as a personal weapon; pistols from very early days seem to have expressed tastes in design and decoration of different gunsmiths. In addition, there have
FIG. 46. A DRAGON.
frequently .been fashions in pistol design which gunsmiths have met in their own particular style: To describe all the pistols which have been used in war would, therefore, be quite beyond the scope of the present work. Nevertheless there are two special types which must be mentioned. The first of these is the screw-barrel pistol. This had a cannon-shaped barrel ‘which screwed off so that the charge could be loaded direct into the breech piece. These enjoyed a great vogue during the reign of Charles I and for some time afterwards. The second is -one of the most famous pistols, or rather -family of pistols, ever made.. This was the Scottish all-metal pistol, which, as far as is known, was first made towards the end of the sixteenth century. The earliest one on record was manufactured byAlison of Dundee. The principal difference between the Scottish pistol and others was that the stock was made of steel or brass instead of wood. The butts of the earliest models had a fish-tailed end, and they were sometimes made of wood encased in, or mounted with, brass or silver.
The early seventeenth-century carbine, according to a 1630 book on cavalry by Captain Cruso, was the same length as an arquebus but had a smaller bore. It was a flintlock, and it was slung from a shoulder belt by a swivel.
There were two disastrous expeditions during the reign of Charles 1, the failure of which was to some extent due to defective firearms. In the force sent to Cadiz, in fact, the majority of the firearms are said to have been either defective or useless. As a result of these deficiencies a special Commission under the Privy Seal appointed a select committee of gunmakers, arniourcrs, pikemakers and bandolier makers, `being the skillfullest and prime workmen of this land’, to undertake an investigation into the arms of the national militia and Trained Bands and to rectify any deficiencies. The London gunmakers mentioned as being on the Commission were Henry Rowland, Richard Burrowe, Thomas Addis, John Norcott, William Dawstin, John Watson and William Graves. These gunmaker members were temporarily vested with powers of proving and testing firearms.
