History of the Gun - Part 2: The Matchlock

The "History of the Gun" online video series produced by Ruger is a unique look at the progression of firearms technology throughout the years, hosted by Senior Editor of Guns & Ammo Garry James. Part 2 examines the Matchlock.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Historical Firearms
• History of the Gun
• History of the Gun Part 2
• Garry James
• Matchlock
• Ruger

[thegangvault2]

Great stuff! Sad that we have reached a time when history is told mainly through TV.....lol call me a bookworm. But here we have some accurate and entertaining TV that is historical in nature!

[XxXTommo69]

so to clear things up....?

This was around in the 1500's and was basically the first 'rifle', followed by the flintlock in the 1600's? Can anybody confirm/correct me???

[ERASER1091988]

@XxXTommo69 There was wheelock after matchlock

[dekool88]

@XxXTommo69 No this would be the first smooth-bore musket, and the rifle was invented in the mid 1500's when they gave the musket rifled barrels, hence calling them rifles

The flintlock was in the 1600's then the percussion cap in 1700's, continuing to the metallic all-in-one (because it had primer, charge and bullet) cartridge in the late 1800's

[gamebro100]

Not this type of Matchlock of course.

[gamebro100]

The first matchlock were made with a bamboo tube.

[theirlivesagain]

is this the same as an arquebus?

[TACTICALboom]

@XxXTommo69 Its a musket, it lacks a rifled barrel, therefore not a "rifle"

[supersmash43]

Actually matchlocks were developed in the 15th century and not the 16th century as this video stated.

[cvuser11]

@snakeeyes119 By the way, the matchlock did not completely replace bows and crossbows, because it was used in a completely different role: instead of long range sniping like with the crossbow, the matchlock arquebuses were used as a close range support for pike formations (see tercio), and at those ranges accuracy was not an issue against tightly packed formations.

[cvuser11]

@snakeeyes119 Being able to shoot an arrow with a bow and using it effectively are completely different. You don't just want the arrow to touch your target, but to actually inflict damage. For this you need both strength and skill, and even in that case it's stopped by shields and is hard to pierce late medieval and early modern armors. First firearms were more closer to crossbows than bows, as they were slower but deadlier.

[snakeeyes119]

I kinda find it hard to believe bows were THAT hard to learn to use effectively. The basic priciple of the bow is far easier to grasp than the crude old guns and while they were difficult to make and use properly, I still feel life it would be easier to fight with a bow in actual combat