Pub Date : 2021-10-18DOI: 10.1080/17416124.2021.1982174
Wilfried E. Tittmann
From the Editor: Arms & Armour, Volume 17, No. 2, contained a review prepared by Jan Piet Puype, former Senior Curator of the Netherlands Army Museum (Legermuseum), Delft, of a major study by Dr Wilfried Tittmann of Nuremberg firearms; Die N€ urnberger Handfeuerwaffen vom Sp€atmittelalter bis zum Fr€ uhbarock: Der Beitrag N€ urnbergs zur Milit€arischen Revolution der fr€ uhen Neuzeit, Akademische Druckund Verlagsanstalt, Graz 2018. The review prompted a response from the author who has asked to submit a rebuttal to some of the comments made in it. The view of the editors of Arms & Armour is that it is only fair to the author that he is given an opportunity to make this response. The rebuttal: In Arms & Armour, Vol. 17, No. 2, November 2020, pp. 213-218, Jan Piet Puype wrote a review on my book – a dissertation in history of technology on the firearms of Nuremberg – nearly three years after receiving a copy of it. The article contained a dozen erroneous statements, which I wish to correct as follows: 1) P. 218: Mr. Puype signed as: Former Chief Curator of the Netherlands Army Museum, Soesterberg, Netherlands. See editor’s note above. 2) P. 213: The article stated that the title of my dissertation was: Wilfried Tittmann, Die N€ urnberger Handfeuerwaffen vom Sp€atmittelalter bis zum Fr€ uhbarock: Der Beitrag N€ urnbergs zur Milit€arischen Revlution [sic!] der fr€ uhen Neuzeit (1⁄4 The Portable [sic!] Firearms of Nuremberg from the Late Middle Ages to the Early Modern Age), Akademische Druckund Verlagsanstalt, Graz, 2018. The dissertation was published in year 2015, in 2 volumes... Correction: The dissertation was submitted and accepted in 2015. It was printed with the assistance of the VG WORT Science Promotion Fund in the spring of 2018. Author: Wilfried E. Tittmann (instead of just Wilfried Tittmann as commonly referenced). The subtitle ‘Der Beitrag N€ urnbergs...’ was not translated into English. 3) P. 213: The author chose the development of firearms from the city of Nuremberg from the 1300s until the middle of the 18th C as his subject because nearly all archival material on the aforementioned matters has survived the devastations of the Second World War. Correction: The period of study extends from 1377 (beginning of incompletely preserved city accounts) to 1632-34 (pandemic and ‘demographic catastrophe’, i.e. end of Nuremberg’s role as ‘arsenal of the Reich’). It is also incorrect to indicate the mid-18th century as the upper limit. A survey of Nuremberg firearms and their development is not possible even in this narrower time frame based on archival sources (one such study extending to 1550 by Dr. Willers, formerly a custos of the Germanic National Museum Nuremberg, already exists). The abovementioned statement by Mr. Puype also completely contradicts my three-dimensional, technohistorical approach, newly emerging questions and the range of sources comprising all the attainable evidence (which, moreover, was presented in detail). This marked
编者按：Arms&Armour，第17卷，第2期，收录了荷兰陆军博物馆（Legermuseum）前高级馆长Jan Piet Puype对Wilfried Tittmann博士关于纽伦堡枪支的一项重大研究的评论；2018年，德国格拉茨，德国新泽特，德国德鲁克和维拉格桑斯塔尔特。这篇评论引起了作者的回应，他要求对其中的一些评论进行反驳。《武器与装甲》的编辑们认为，只有给作者一个做出回应的机会，才对作者公平。反驳：在《武器与装甲》（Arms&Armour），第17卷，第2期，2020年11月，第213-218页，Jan Piet Puype在收到我的书近三年后，对我的书——一篇关于纽伦堡枪支的技术史论文——写了一篇评论。Puype署名：前荷兰陆军博物馆总馆长，荷兰索斯特贝格。参见上面的编者按。2） P.213：这篇文章说，我的论文的标题是：Wilfried Tittmann，Die N€urnberger Handfeuerwaffen vom Sp€atmitelalter bis zum Fr€uhbarock：Der Beitrag N€urnberg zur Milit€arischen Revolution[原文如此！]Der Fr€uhen Neuzeit，2018论文发表于2015年，共2卷。。。更正：论文已于2015年提交并接受。它是在VG WORT科学促进基金的帮助下于2018年春季印刷的。作者：Wilfried E.Tittmann（而不是通常提到的Wilfried Tittmann）。副标题“Der Beitrag N€urnbergs…”没有翻译成英文。3） P.213：作者选择了从13世纪到18世纪中期纽伦堡市的枪支发展作为他的主题，因为几乎所有关于上述问题的档案材料都在第二次世界大战的破坏中幸存下来。更正：研究时间从1377年（不完全保存的城市账户的开始）延长到1632-34年（大流行病和“人口灾难”，即纽伦堡作为“帝国军火库”的角色结束）。将18世纪中期作为上限也是不正确的。即使在这个基于档案来源的较窄时间框架内，也不可能对纽伦堡枪支及其发展进行调查（Willers博士的一项此类研究已存在，该研究可追溯到1550年，他曾是纽伦堡日耳曼国家博物馆的保管人）。Puype先生的上述发言也完全违背了我的三维技术历史方法、新出现的问题以及包括所有可获得证据的来源范围（此外，这些证据已详细介绍）。这标志着档案研究和房地产研究首次结合在一起。
{"title":"Book review: a rebuttal","authors":"Wilfried E. Tittmann","doi":"10.1080/17416124.2021.1982174","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17416124.2021.1982174","url":null,"abstract":"From the Editor: Arms & Armour, Volume 17, No. 2, contained a review prepared by Jan Piet Puype, former Senior Curator of the Netherlands Army Museum (Legermuseum), Delft, of a major study by Dr Wilfried Tittmann of Nuremberg firearms; Die N€ urnberger Handfeuerwaffen vom Sp€atmittelalter bis zum Fr€ uhbarock: Der Beitrag N€ urnbergs zur Milit€arischen Revolution der fr€ uhen Neuzeit, Akademische Druckund Verlagsanstalt, Graz 2018. The review prompted a response from the author who has asked to submit a rebuttal to some of the comments made in it. The view of the editors of Arms & Armour is that it is only fair to the author that he is given an opportunity to make this response. The rebuttal: In Arms & Armour, Vol. 17, No. 2, November 2020, pp. 213-218, Jan Piet Puype wrote a review on my book – a dissertation in history of technology on the firearms of Nuremberg – nearly three years after receiving a copy of it. The article contained a dozen erroneous statements, which I wish to correct as follows: 1) P. 218: Mr. Puype signed as: Former Chief Curator of the Netherlands Army Museum, Soesterberg, Netherlands. See editor’s note above. 2) P. 213: The article stated that the title of my dissertation was: Wilfried Tittmann, Die N€ urnberger Handfeuerwaffen vom Sp€atmittelalter bis zum Fr€ uhbarock: Der Beitrag N€ urnbergs zur Milit€arischen Revlution [sic!] der fr€ uhen Neuzeit (1⁄4 The Portable [sic!] Firearms of Nuremberg from the Late Middle Ages to the Early Modern Age), Akademische Druckund Verlagsanstalt, Graz, 2018. The dissertation was published in year 2015, in 2 volumes... Correction: The dissertation was submitted and accepted in 2015. It was printed with the assistance of the VG WORT Science Promotion Fund in the spring of 2018. Author: Wilfried E. Tittmann (instead of just Wilfried Tittmann as commonly referenced). The subtitle ‘Der Beitrag N€ urnbergs...’ was not translated into English. 3) P. 213: The author chose the development of firearms from the city of Nuremberg from the 1300s until the middle of the 18th C as his subject because nearly all archival material on the aforementioned matters has survived the devastations of the Second World War. Correction: The period of study extends from 1377 (beginning of incompletely preserved city accounts) to 1632-34 (pandemic and ‘demographic catastrophe’, i.e. end of Nuremberg’s role as ‘arsenal of the Reich’). It is also incorrect to indicate the mid-18th century as the upper limit. A survey of Nuremberg firearms and their development is not possible even in this narrower time frame based on archival sources (one such study extending to 1550 by Dr. Willers, formerly a custos of the Germanic National Museum Nuremberg, already exists). The abovementioned statement by Mr. Puype also completely contradicts my three-dimensional, technohistorical approach, newly emerging questions and the range of sources comprising all the attainable evidence (which, moreover, was presented in detail). This marked","PeriodicalId":40914,"journal":{"name":"Arms & Armour","volume":"18 1","pages":"259 - 262"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44597690","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-05DOI: 10.1080/17416124.2021.1979772
G. Wilson
When faced with a book of this magnitude the first recourse of a reviewer is often to turn to hyperbole and cliche. The book is ‘the culmination of a life’s work’ which is likely ‘long to remain th...
{"title":"From stonebow to bullet crossbow; and the evolution of the English crossbow","authors":"G. Wilson","doi":"10.1080/17416124.2021.1979772","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17416124.2021.1979772","url":null,"abstract":"When faced with a book of this magnitude the first recourse of a reviewer is often to turn to hyperbole and cliche. The book is ‘the culmination of a life’s work’ which is likely ‘long to remain th...","PeriodicalId":40914,"journal":{"name":"Arms & Armour","volume":"18 1","pages":"256 - 258"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47772523","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-30DOI: 10.1080/17416124.2021.1970923
M. Willemsen
This article gives an insight in some new aspects of Dutch military firearms and gunmaking. This information is mostly based on archival research, with the main focus on recently discovered contracts of gunmakers in the city of Utrecht in the period 1650–1750. It deals with aspects like the transition from matchlock to flintlock muskets, and the reglementary use of muskets with double locks, the introduction of the rifled musket in the late seventeenth century and the introduction of the bayonet. Besides this, the article focusses on some contracts of British officers with gunmakers in the city of Utrecht that were found during the research of these contracts.
{"title":"Dutch Muskets, Aspects of Eighteenth Century Firearms and Gunmaking in The Netherlands","authors":"M. Willemsen","doi":"10.1080/17416124.2021.1970923","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17416124.2021.1970923","url":null,"abstract":"This article gives an insight in some new aspects of Dutch military firearms and gunmaking. This information is mostly based on archival research, with the main focus on recently discovered contracts of gunmakers in the city of Utrecht in the period 1650–1750. It deals with aspects like the transition from matchlock to flintlock muskets, and the reglementary use of muskets with double locks, the introduction of the rifled musket in the late seventeenth century and the introduction of the bayonet. Besides this, the article focusses on some contracts of British officers with gunmakers in the city of Utrecht that were found during the research of these contracts.","PeriodicalId":40914,"journal":{"name":"Arms & Armour","volume":"18 1","pages":"184 - 207"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44862921","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-30DOI: 10.1080/17416124.2021.1981639
Zahra Kouzehgari
The Hasanlu gold bowl was discovered in 1958 by Robert H. Dyson, Jr. Since the bowl was discovered in a milieu without text, its origin and the ethnological context of its manufacture have been long discussed. Most of these studies are concentrated on the description of the figures and scenes depicted on the bowl. Among these images, there are representations of weapons depicted separately or in the hands of the persons in the scenes. These weapons are the only images on the bowl with actual examples that have been discovered in archaeological excavations in different geographical regions in Iran and its adjacent areas. Their study could provide reliable clues concerning the origin of the makers and users of the bowl as well as its chronology. The present paper is the summary of the results of the study on the weapons depicted on the bowl, as well as the iconography, and chronological remarks on the bowl based on the parallel examples from archaeological excavations.
哈三鹿金碗是1958年由小罗伯特·戴森(Robert H. Dyson, Jr.)发现的。由于该碗是在没有文字的环境中被发现的，它的起源和制造它的民族学背景一直被讨论。这些研究大多集中在描绘碗上的人物和场景的描述上。在这些图像中，有单独描绘的武器或场景中人物手中的武器。这些武器是在伊朗及其邻近地区不同地理区域的考古发掘中发现的唯一带有实际例子的碗上的图像。他们的研究可以为这个碗的制造者和使用者的起源以及它的年代提供可靠的线索。本文根据考古发掘的平行实例，总结了对碗上描绘的武器的研究结果，以及对碗的肖像学和时间顺序的评论。
{"title":"A new approach to the Hasanlu gold bowl: interpreting its weapons depictions","authors":"Zahra Kouzehgari","doi":"10.1080/17416124.2021.1981639","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17416124.2021.1981639","url":null,"abstract":"The Hasanlu gold bowl was discovered in 1958 by Robert H. Dyson, Jr. Since the bowl was discovered in a milieu without text, its origin and the ethnological context of its manufacture have been long discussed. Most of these studies are concentrated on the description of the figures and scenes depicted on the bowl. Among these images, there are representations of weapons depicted separately or in the hands of the persons in the scenes. These weapons are the only images on the bowl with actual examples that have been discovered in archaeological excavations in different geographical regions in Iran and its adjacent areas. Their study could provide reliable clues concerning the origin of the makers and users of the bowl as well as its chronology. The present paper is the summary of the results of the study on the weapons depicted on the bowl, as well as the iconography, and chronological remarks on the bowl based on the parallel examples from archaeological excavations.","PeriodicalId":40914,"journal":{"name":"Arms & Armour","volume":"18 1","pages":"143 - 162"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41953253","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-30DOI: 10.1080/17416124.2021.1927578
D. Bellwood, O. Bellwood, Thomas Ilming
Black and white or fleur-de-lis high comb morions are distinctive helmets of the late 16th century and early 17th century. We constructed a typology of black and white high comb morions, identifying 52 forms and seven major types. We then used cladistic analyses to explore the potential relationships between forms. The analyses suggested that morion forms evolved rapidly in the late sixteenth century (c.1570-80s), with three major phases, each characterized by different constructional features (especially in brim rosette washers) and patterns of ornamentation. The phases appear to be chronological rather than geographic, with Nuremberg probably being the primary location for their manufacture throughout this period. Produced between approximately 1570 and 1610, black and white morions are commonly associated with town or castle guards or city militia. Although some forms can be linked with specific locations, e.g. Hochosterwitz castle, the various forms were probably spread widely across Germany, with extensive intermixing.
{"title":"The Evolution of Black and White or Fleur-de-lis High Comb Morions","authors":"D. Bellwood, O. Bellwood, Thomas Ilming","doi":"10.1080/17416124.2021.1927578","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17416124.2021.1927578","url":null,"abstract":"Black and white or fleur-de-lis high comb morions are distinctive helmets of the late 16th century and early 17th century. We constructed a typology of black and white high comb morions, identifying 52 forms and seven major types. We then used cladistic analyses to explore the potential relationships between forms. The analyses suggested that morion forms evolved rapidly in the late sixteenth century (c.1570-80s), with three major phases, each characterized by different constructional features (especially in brim rosette washers) and patterns of ornamentation. The phases appear to be chronological rather than geographic, with Nuremberg probably being the primary location for their manufacture throughout this period. Produced between approximately 1570 and 1610, black and white morions are commonly associated with town or castle guards or city militia. Although some forms can be linked with specific locations, e.g. Hochosterwitz castle, the various forms were probably spread widely across Germany, with extensive intermixing.","PeriodicalId":40914,"journal":{"name":"Arms & Armour","volume":"18 1","pages":"163 - 183"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41529307","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-20DOI: 10.1080/17416124.2021.1973779
J. Elstob
To many with an interest in British military swords the name of Pillin will be very familiar. Yet, for a firm which traded for at least 65 years there is little information available about its activities beyond a few bare dates and addresses often quoted from the same sources. The original source of much of this information is unclear and some of this now appears questionable. In writing this article my intention is to provide a more comprehensive account of the Pillin dynasty. By examining what new evidence may be available I hope to evaluate and revise contemporary wisdom regarding Pillin’s operations. In conducting this research during a global Covid-19 pandemic, amid national and local lockdowns, I am restricted in source material but have relied heavily on sources available online. Such methodology carries its own risks, there are gaps in the available datasets and frustratingly, transcription errors can both hamper searches and offer false positive matches. Nevertheless, with the rise in popularity of ancestry research, new data sources are constantly being made available. In today’s world of social media and online resources we have ready access to data of which researchers even 15 years ago could only have dreamed. Information regarding sword cutlers, such as their trading dates and addresses, is of particular interest as it can help to correctly date a sword. This in turn can assist with identifying an original owner. In the case of British blades, etched with the owner’s initials or a family crest, cross referencing with the Army lists will often provide multiple possible candidates over the lifetime of a sword pattern. Accurately identifying the year of manufacture can significantly assist in narrowing the field of potential matches against any one set of initials. A desire to identify the original owners of some of my own collected swords, and to assist others to do the same, provided the seed of motivation for my research into the Pillin dynasty. I hope this article provides a useful platform for additional research.
{"title":"Pillin: A Family of Sword Cutlers","authors":"J. Elstob","doi":"10.1080/17416124.2021.1973779","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17416124.2021.1973779","url":null,"abstract":"To many with an interest in British military swords the name of Pillin will be very familiar. Yet, for a firm which traded for at least 65 years there is little information available about its activities beyond a few bare dates and addresses often quoted from the same sources. The original source of much of this information is unclear and some of this now appears questionable. In writing this article my intention is to provide a more comprehensive account of the Pillin dynasty. By examining what new evidence may be available I hope to evaluate and revise contemporary wisdom regarding Pillin’s operations. In conducting this research during a global Covid-19 pandemic, amid national and local lockdowns, I am restricted in source material but have relied heavily on sources available online. Such methodology carries its own risks, there are gaps in the available datasets and frustratingly, transcription errors can both hamper searches and offer false positive matches. Nevertheless, with the rise in popularity of ancestry research, new data sources are constantly being made available. In today’s world of social media and online resources we have ready access to data of which researchers even 15 years ago could only have dreamed. Information regarding sword cutlers, such as their trading dates and addresses, is of particular interest as it can help to correctly date a sword. This in turn can assist with identifying an original owner. In the case of British blades, etched with the owner’s initials or a family crest, cross referencing with the Army lists will often provide multiple possible candidates over the lifetime of a sword pattern. Accurately identifying the year of manufacture can significantly assist in narrowing the field of potential matches against any one set of initials. A desire to identify the original owners of some of my own collected swords, and to assist others to do the same, provided the seed of motivation for my research into the Pillin dynasty. I hope this article provides a useful platform for additional research.","PeriodicalId":40914,"journal":{"name":"Arms & Armour","volume":"18 1","pages":"208 - 223"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44464181","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17416124.2021.1882752
D. Michael, N. Jenzen-Jones
This article examines the ‘Alphabet’ series of prototype rifles which were developed at Winchester between 1912 and 1934, ultimately culminating in the Models 54 and 70. Drawing upon original research conducted in the Winchester archive at the Cody Firearms Museum and through physical examination of extant ‘Alphabet’ rifles, the authors have been able to more fully map the lineage of the influential Model 70 and its predecessors and, in particular, clearly articulate the connection this American icon shares with the famous Mauser rifles of 1871—1898.
{"title":"The path to an American sporting Mauser: Examining the Winchester ‘Alphabet’ series rifles","authors":"D. Michael, N. Jenzen-Jones","doi":"10.1080/17416124.2021.1882752","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17416124.2021.1882752","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the ‘Alphabet’ series of prototype rifles which were developed at Winchester between 1912 and 1934, ultimately culminating in the Models 54 and 70. Drawing upon original research conducted in the Winchester archive at the Cody Firearms Museum and through physical examination of extant ‘Alphabet’ rifles, the authors have been able to more fully map the lineage of the influential Model 70 and its predecessors and, in particular, clearly articulate the connection this American icon shares with the famous Mauser rifles of 1871—1898.","PeriodicalId":40914,"journal":{"name":"Arms & Armour","volume":"18 1","pages":"118 - 139"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17416124.2021.1882752","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43626369","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17416124.2021.1883915
David Williams, P. Abbott, D. Harding
A Select Committee Report of 1817 states that the New Land Pattern Musket has ‘a lock so tallying in all its parts, that any part of one lock may fit another’. This is the earliest claim of interchangeability to have been found for Board of Ordnance firearms. It has focussed the authors’ attention on understanding the British efforts in the interchangeable manufacturing of firearms in the early 19th century, and more specifically on the manufacture of the lock of the New Land Pattern Muskets. This has also necessitated and included some work to unravel the story of the development of the New Land Pattern Musket and its variants, and to appreciate the contemporary use of lock jiggers by the East India Company (EIC) and others. Our approach has blended multiple iterations of archival research, object study, analysis of musket lock ‘Types’, and experimental evaluations of interchangeability. The methods used have allowed a comparison with contemporary American achievements at the Springfield and Harpers Ferry National Armories. This paper reports our results, including those of a close study of 35 New Land Pattern Muskets; the generation of a typology identifying three distinct variants of New Land Pattern Musket locks and a chronology of key aspects of their design, manufacture and supply; a five-lock component exchange experiment with 20 potential interchanges and other supplementary interchange tests; and an experimental evaluation of the use of two surviving EIC lock jiggers (i.e. gauges). These demonstrate that Great Britain had made significant strides in the interchangeable manufacturing of musket locks by 1817, but that these achievements, based upon the use of gauges and other similar tooling, were limited by their use of manual methods, chiefly filing by hand. They also show that Henry Nock, Ezekiel Baker and others contributed to the design of the variants of the musket, the lock and the tooling. The work also indicates that Britain was attempting interchangeable lock manufacturing in more than one geographical location, at the workshops of key suppliers in Birmingham and the Black Country (the metal working district to the West and North West of Birmingham), the London trade and the new Royal Manufactory in Lewisham. This multiple site approach would have been particularly challenging, and it is also important to note that much of this work was carried out in time of war. These British innovations may have influenced others through the transfer of technology by former Ordnance artificers, including at the Imperial Manufactory at Tula in Russia via John Jones, father and son. The experimental comparison with contemporary American achievements shows that the British were realising levels of interchangeability at least equivalent to those at US National Armories, but that whilst the dimensional control sought in Britain may have been less demanding it was being attempted at many more sites.
{"title":"‘A lock so tallying in all its parts, that any part of one lock may fit another’: exploring the standardisation and interchangeable manufacturing of New Land Pattern Musket Locks","authors":"David Williams, P. Abbott, D. Harding","doi":"10.1080/17416124.2021.1883915","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17416124.2021.1883915","url":null,"abstract":"A Select Committee Report of 1817 states that the New Land Pattern Musket has ‘a lock so tallying in all its parts, that any part of one lock may fit another’. This is the earliest claim of interchangeability to have been found for Board of Ordnance firearms. It has focussed the authors’ attention on understanding the British efforts in the interchangeable manufacturing of firearms in the early 19th century, and more specifically on the manufacture of the lock of the New Land Pattern Muskets. This has also necessitated and included some work to unravel the story of the development of the New Land Pattern Musket and its variants, and to appreciate the contemporary use of lock jiggers by the East India Company (EIC) and others. Our approach has blended multiple iterations of archival research, object study, analysis of musket lock ‘Types’, and experimental evaluations of interchangeability. The methods used have allowed a comparison with contemporary American achievements at the Springfield and Harpers Ferry National Armories. This paper reports our results, including those of a close study of 35 New Land Pattern Muskets; the generation of a typology identifying three distinct variants of New Land Pattern Musket locks and a chronology of key aspects of their design, manufacture and supply; a five-lock component exchange experiment with 20 potential interchanges and other supplementary interchange tests; and an experimental evaluation of the use of two surviving EIC lock jiggers (i.e. gauges). These demonstrate that Great Britain had made significant strides in the interchangeable manufacturing of musket locks by 1817, but that these achievements, based upon the use of gauges and other similar tooling, were limited by their use of manual methods, chiefly filing by hand. They also show that Henry Nock, Ezekiel Baker and others contributed to the design of the variants of the musket, the lock and the tooling. The work also indicates that Britain was attempting interchangeable lock manufacturing in more than one geographical location, at the workshops of key suppliers in Birmingham and the Black Country (the metal working district to the West and North West of Birmingham), the London trade and the new Royal Manufactory in Lewisham. This multiple site approach would have been particularly challenging, and it is also important to note that much of this work was carried out in time of war. These British innovations may have influenced others through the transfer of technology by former Ordnance artificers, including at the Imperial Manufactory at Tula in Russia via John Jones, father and son. The experimental comparison with contemporary American achievements shows that the British were realising levels of interchangeability at least equivalent to those at US National Armories, but that whilst the dimensional control sought in Britain may have been less demanding it was being attempted at many more sites.","PeriodicalId":40914,"journal":{"name":"Arms & Armour","volume":"18 1","pages":"1 - 50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17416124.2021.1883915","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43160697","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：