"19th century Matchlocks VS muskets " Topic

I have read that Indian matchlocks in the 19th century had longer ranges and were more accurate than flintlock muskets despite both being smoothbores. Is this the case? Was this simply because of the length of the barrel?

I have read that Indian matchlocks in the 19th century had longer ranges and were more accurate than flintlock muskets despite both being smoothbores. Is this the case? Was this simply because of the length of the barrel?

The method of ignition cannot affect the accuracy of a weapon. The quality of the barrel and the care taken in loading are more likely to be the cause of greater accuracy at range, if it was so.

I learned something new. I didn't even know Indians were still using matchlocks in the 19th Century (1800s).

Tom

Many of the jezails used by the Pushtun warriors in Afghanistan against the British were matchlocks.

Jim

Many first-person accounts of the Indian Mutiny mention large numbers of Indian matchlock-men.

I learned something new. I didn't even know Indians were still using matchlocks in the 19th Century (1800s).

Far more matchlocks than flintlocks during the "real" struggle for India, i.e. 1800-1860. Excepting the Sikh Khalsa, one only occasionally finds small flintlock armed units in princely forces. These would typically be standing forces drilled in the European style.

The method of ignition cannot affect the accuracy of a weapon.

Sure it can. both matchlock and flintlock pretty much require you to close your eyes (or get blinded when the pan lights up!), and the matchlock takes longer to fire than a flintlock does (comparison is that a matchlock fires about like a hangfire on a flintlock).

Though that would tend towards the flintlocks being more accurate than the matchlocks, unless the troops were so drilled that they could aim, close their eyes, take a breath or two, and still be on target when they opened their eyes.

Longer barrel can matter, though the variable is really powder charge. The faster the projectile flies, the less critical range estimation is.

Aiming any low velocity smoothbore is not precise enough for your argument to hold water in mass combat but it may be so in individual 'sniping'. I'd be fairly comfortable with describing Afghan tribesmen as marksmen though, so skilled in the use of their weapon.

Long barrel only improves accuracy up to a point, provided the pressure is still accelerating the ball on exit you'd be OK; beyond that point the extra length isn't helping.

The problem is mostly that the ball doesn't run smoothly up the barrel but 'bounces' in the bore so a well fitting ball will be more accurate (and will have less windage, making a longer barrel work for you).

I missed the boat completely. With my frame of reference I thought it was American Indians. Sorry.

Having said that, I didn't know Asiatic Indians were still using matchlocks either. By the Indian Mutiny, they would have been two ignition systems behind! Yikes!

In comparison, the American Indians were pretty technologically advanced. :)

Tom

Pedantic anorak warning. First of all I'm not claiming to be a real expert on black powder weapons as obviously I have never used one in combat. I do have 40+ years of experience in firing, repairing and generally using them. Now most percussion locks will 'seem' faster than a flintlock but that is simple because the pan/frizzen movement isn't well timed. If well timed, the sparks will start as soon as the flint reaches the top of the frizzen igniting the powder charge. Same goes for a matchlock. There are roughly two types of matchlock ignition. The most simple one slowly lowers the smouldering match into the priming pan. Another type is spring-loaded and is much, much faster. About those Indian jezails. Yes, most had long barrels and yes, most of the men using them were very well trained in their use. The long barrels were mostly a necessity because of the inferior powder they used – you simply needed that long a barrel to burn off all that powder. Now again, I have to admit that I have only on a few occasions handled an Indian or Middle Eastern jezail. None of these were so accurate as to make a lasting impression on me. On a par with say a Brown Bess musket in accuracy but much easier to handle and it was claimed by the owners that they did have a longer range. Since I never acquired the proficiency that their original owners must have possessed I can't make any comments about their efficiency. OTOH I also had the pleasure of firing Japanese matchlocks ( replicas and original) and these consistently beat any European -military- smooth-bore and rifled muskets by a wide margin. In at least one shooting match I was able to keep 5 aprox. .55 calibre bullets in a 5 cm target at 100 meters. All five bullet holes touched one-another. From a smoothbore matchlock that's simply indecent! Alas, there was no possibility to try them out at a longer range.

The only two guns I have ever been able to do such a thing consistently with, were a semi-custom made percussion Wesson rifle which isn't a military rifle by any stretch of the imagination( Weighs nearly 22 pounds!)and a replica Whitworth rifle. Conclusion. yes, at least some of these matchlocks COULD have been deadly at long range and certainly way better than the contemporary military rifle or rifled musket.

In an old WI article about the 16th century Portuguese conquest of the Indian Ocean Chris Peers claimed that Asian firearms were generally decidedly inferior to European firearms in terms of range and accuracy, mostly due to poor quality powder. Unless there had been significant technical improvements in the quality of Asian firearms and/or powder in the intervening centuries it's hard to imagine how the firepower balance could have shifted in favour of Asia by the 19th century. In fact it seems more likely that, with European technological advances, the gap would only have widened.