Demonstration of a 1611 Matchlock Musket 

08:13 my girlfriend issues that command too from time to time

Extremely informative!!! Thank you for keeping the knowledge of these old ways alive and as authentic as you can. Very awesome. Great to watch

Even after 12 years, teaches me most detailed methods and tips about matchlock musket.

Thanks! As a "modern" soldier we still followed much of this manual of arms. Of course, it's more ceremonial/ administrative than functional now but it's fascinating to see where these drill commands originated. Semper Fi!

The hat is a great 17th century hat from DIRTY BILLY HATS in Gettysburg, PA. It goes for around $175 for a wool felted hat and up to $300 or so for fur. I highly recommend. John Pagano, Historical Interpretation Supervisor

I can see why he has armor on. He'd have 50 arrows in him before he could get a shot off.

Very nice to hear someone talking, who knows what was and is real. The Musket has a terrible reputation, as has it's user. And People rather believe the Myths of Soldiers not aiming, not training and Muskets not hitting a Barn at 5 feet Distance. When in reality Tests with replicas, originals and Tests done in the Period all suggest a fairly effective weapon. Which only was rendered much less effective in actual Combat by Soldiers under stress being bad shots. Same as today, I dare say.

Fascinating. It is good that history can be kept real in this way.

The natives in Virginia in our period rarely trumped organized bodies of English musketeers. The combination of armor and numbers with firepower was typically enough to intimidate moderate size war parties coming on behalf of Powhatan or his subalterns. The Indians were effective at hitting work details operating isoalted from the defenses. There were some noted hand to hand fights, sometimes going the native way and some the English...depending on motivation of the moment. John Pagano

An excellent and detailed description. For myself, I think it would work even better if after the detailed step-by-step, one then saw the process at a typical battle speed, so as to get a better feel for the pace of shooting the people of the town would expect of their soldiers. Some might get the false impression that all shooting was expected to take 5 minutes to perform.

It's worth noting that when the presenter refers to De Gheyn's Manual of Arms, the De Gheyn in question was Jacob De Gheyn II, who was responsible for providing the illustrations which were turned into printing plates for "The Exercise of Arms for Calivers, Muskets, and Pikes". After looking around a bit, I can't find any evidence that De Gheyn had military experience, since he seems to have been a lifelong artist, and it seems more likely in my estimation that the important information and the poses De Gheyn illustrated were provided either by Maurice of Orange, who commissioned the book, or by someone else with actual military knowledge who was involved in the effort. So, yes there was a book that taught you how to use weapons, yes De Gheyn was involved, but in my opinion to say stuff like De Gheyn thinks this and De Gheyn wants you to do that, is almost certainly misleading, since De Gheyn was just illustrating what he was paid to illustrate. Note that I am not a historian, and only did some basic research, but I think this is a small misconception on the part of the presenter.

Great job explaining the steps of the matchlock I really enjoyed the video and hope to see more from the time period ! thanks.

Great video! Love the infantry hanger aswell!

Excellent demonstration and explanation

Flintlock must have been a welcome change, so much buggering around with the match.

Excellent presentation. Thank you!

@thestarsandbars wheellocks followed matchlocks. They used flint in their mechanism. By the mid C17, wheellock pistols were seen alongside matchlock muskets, but were very rare as they were crazy expensive and a bit of a pain to make and maintain in combat (effectively like having a very sensitive watch mechanism on the side of your pistol). By the time wheel locks had been perfected,the dogjaw style flint lock was in use :)

I'm fairly certain that the paper cartridge is more than just 213 years old. It was in the early 1800s that the Baker Rifle seen widespread adoption. The main advantages of the Baker was first and foremost; rifling. Giving a spin to the musket ball improved accuracy. Second would be the shortened barrel I imagine. Smoothbore muskets often had 40"+ long barrels. The Baker had substantially less than that, around the length of an M91/30 or No.1 Lee Enfield. At the time, practically a carbine.

Nice presentation! I’d like to find more demonstrations of antique weapons

I can't wait to finish my own Matchlock Musket. I'm copying a nice early 1600s Piece from the Emden Armoury, with a nice Forquett.

Probably as many men killed by friendly fire setting the match. What a dangerous weapon to set up in a firefight.

As far as the effectiveness and maximum elements of range. The expert shots in this period have nothing that spoils their craft of shooting, so, at ranges of 200 yards, they usually are guaging their shots in a way that our sniper schools teach fellows at ranges at or over 800-1200 yards, where wind, humidity, elevation, etc. all come into play. Average shots could hit stargets at two football fields distance, but much of that was done in siege lines where some men were in fixed positions. JP

"Effective range" means the distance at which you can assume to hit the target you are aiming at. Before miné balls, balls for muskets were sub-caliber so they would easily drop into the barrel. This means that when you fire, the ball goes bouncing down the lenght of the barrel and it's going to end up going not-exactly-where-you aim regardless of how good you are. This does limit your range because of the inherant inaccuracy. Massive volley firing may make up for it, but only as a group effort

beautiful demonstration bravo!

I think you're missing Eric's point. He's not saying that in combat NOBODY fights at more than 120 yds. He's saying that, on AVERAGE, modern soldiers engage at around 120 yds, which is more or less correct because the prevalence of MOUT engagements in the past decade has skewed the average down from the 200 yds of the previous decade. You gave an example that was OUT OF THE ORDINARY to a guy who was talking about the average engagement ranges.

The issue with smoothbores isn't the powder loading, it's the fact that there's no rifling. No spinning motion to keep the bullet stabilized there-by allowing it to stay on course as it flies. With no spin, the musket ball could go any which way. Because of this, one man with one musket is generally not much of a threat beyond 80m, a 100m hit on a man-sized target would be pure luck, 200m is nigh impossible. With a rifled musket, you can go a few hundred metres with a good powder loading/shooter

@DNchap1417 Strickly speaking "matches" did not exist...you had sulphur splints to transfer fire not start it. Keeping your match dry is a knack and you can vary the heat it burns with and so how well it burns in adverse conditions.

That exaggerated recoil gave me cancer

NormanMatchem, the Paper cartridge itself is way older than the Baker Rifle. But as far as I am aware using a patched ball stitched to the paper Cartridge was the innovation with the Use of the Baker. The Baker itself wasn't that extraordinairy either. Rifled Barrel, short Gun, these were all found in earlier Rifles, too.

@theend1011 He said the ball will travel 200 yards. He didn't say what the EFFECTIVE RANGE IS (i.e. how far out it will be accurate). But way to take what he said out of context.

There was a recent fight in Afghanistan or Iraq a couple years ago. Some US troops were pinned down by insurgent 'sniper' fire from 500m away or so, and were recieving hits. Later on they managed to get the shooters, who turned out to be armed with 70 year old Lee Enfields with irons. I don't care what the internet tells you, but modern FIREARMS have been used VERY accurately IN ACTUAL COMBAT beyond a measly 120m. As for muskets which would you rather, a dozen MAYBE hits or a dozen CERTAIN hits?

"Bouncing" might be an exaggeration, but balls could not be cast to a snug fit even if you wanted it, because powder fouling would cause balls with a diameter too close to that of the barrel to get stuck after a few shot. As you say, loosely fitting. I think we are referring to the same issue but using slightly different language. The loose fit and of course as you say, the difference in powder quality and weight for each shot is going to make the system inherently ill-suited for sharp shooting.

"200 yards my ass" - what does that mean? In an open fight, like some were in the Low Countries, it would take a trained shot a few rounds to get that distance, which for an individual target would not usually happen, but for an officer or ensign carrying a color, which are locked in straight linear movement, they could be had. It would take me persoanlly on 3-4 shots to get arc on the distance, which if I miss at 200 yards, I would have the target around 130-150. John Pagano

It wasn't until the turn of the century when the British adopted the Baker Rifle did they first try using rifled muskets. The fact that Americans welcomed this new type of firearm so quickly made a big difference in the revolutionary war, though I personally think the biggest obstruction by the British that lead to American Independence was the fact that it took several months for the old ship-o-the-lines to get from England to North America. Whether it be for troops, navy, or just news.

Excellent, well presented. I will post this on my blog. Regards, Keith. A Woodsrunner's Diary (blog).

Very nice demo. THANKS

I used to live by Henricus, great park to visit if you're in Central Virginia

So what? Rifled muskets allow you to choose your target, like a Sergeant, Lieutenant, or Officer and if you've got your sights lined up, a proper charge behind your ball, and not too hasty to pull the trigger, it's almost guaranteed. Smoothbores don't randomly shoot left or right, they go where they want, could be way over the line, or just hit dirt. Now to burst your bubble, I don't know where you get your stats, but modern rifles are accurate to bare minimum 400m, and that's including the AKM

@Thrawn6211 I believe that the term Cuirass would refer to just the breast plate, however breastplate was the more widely accepted synonym as Cuir in French is leather you can see the word stem. (maybe it was associated with leather forms of protection or is an C18th term) I do reenactment of 1645 and surrounding years and we call it a back and breast. Hope that helps.

As far as I know, a great innovation with the baker rifle was the use of paper cartridges with a stitched on patched ball. Prior to that: loooong reload, or no boost in accuracy.

Ah, I see. You're right, shooting en masse at a big group can provide more distance. They continued making sights that allowed long distance volley fire right up until WWII. SMLE (1907), M91/30 (1930), and Kar98k (1935) rifles had sights going from 100-2000m. Generally the farthest one EXPERT shooter can go with one of those is 800-1000m. Then SVT40 (1940) and M44 (1944) went 100-1500m, and SKS (1945) can go 100-1000m though one 7.62x39mm can't usually hit anything beyond 400-500m.

Smoothbore muskets are inaccurate no matter how accurate the loading, that's why it was necessary to perform volley fire to give the greatest chance of inflicting casualties on the enemy. Without rifling, one man with one musket is generally limited to 80m at best, might get the target at 100m if he's lucky, 200m is a dream. Without rifling, there's no twist to the bullet, which gives it the stability that prevents it from flying off God-knows-where.

shooting starts at 8:35

wouldn't his "back and breast armor" be called a Cuirass, or am I mistaken. Honest question.

Englishman and Cowboy mix gone wrong

Funny how 400 years later the loadout is similar for the modern military. Granted weapons and armor advance. But loadout is the same.

Accuracy of the early guns was actually not so bad. The ball wasn't as much 'bouncing' as they were very loosely fitting the bore. The real problem was the lack of standardization. Every ball and every batch of powder (and every load, actually) were a bit different. Not much but usually enough to sent every shot somewhere else. It's not so obvious with modern replicas and loads as they are made to much higher standards.

The shot can go 200 yards yeah, but good look hitting what you're aiming for. Smoothbore barrel, and a round shot do not make straight bullet paths. The ball rolls out of the barrel and can go literally ANY direction expect backwards.

@AlexPrestage Ah, thanks, I've heard the 18th century cavalry armor called a cuirass, as well as Alexandrian-era breastplates, so I'm sure people use it in a more broadened spectrum than was intended.

@runescape44411 The first English colony in North America was Roanoke Colony (also known as "The lost colony". Its location was in present day North Carolina and was established in 1585.

Rifles were at least 3 times more accurate than a smooth bore, potentially more so depending on the powder load and shooter. Speed wise, it doesn't take a whole lot longer to load a rifled musket given lots of practice and some strong arms. Baker Rifle 13 shots, 5 minutes (23 seconds per shot) /watch?v=Eqz7XLkyx8Y Brown Bess 3 shots, 46 seconds (15 seconds per shot) /watch?v=SJMbxZ1k9NQ Granted the Bess vid may have been using blanks, but it's not a HUGE difference. Like a Lee Enfield VS Mosin.

Yes, lack of rifling is another, very important factor. It was my mistake I didn't make myself clear, because I was referring to the typical situation of the era, i.e. shooting into a mass of troops, not targeting solitary human target (I agree, beyond ~60 meters hitting a man was more luck than skill). Load was of some importance because too big one could cause shooting over the target, so one could miss every single target in the unit.

Well, EVERY Weapon spreads it's Bullets on any of an unlimited Number of possible Trajectories. And whilst a smoothbore Musket is spreading it's shots far more than modern rifles, the musket is much much...MUUUCH more accurate than 99.5% of the people on this planet think.

Rifles weren't miracle weapons, there were cases where Redcoats managed to get in range of Riflemen and simply outshoot them because the rifles took ages to reload.

Great video! Thanks for sharing this.

Is this the origin of using the word "fire" to discharge a gun? With the original musket, you were literally touching a burning match to the gunpowder, like with a cannon.

Very educational video, thank you very much!

3:30 that background sounds, seems like the enemy is calling for an air strike.

What was the range of a firearm like that? I mean how far could it fire

First, a good man can load in 30 seconds. He was slow because he was demonstrating and explaining. Second, he's carrying a sword as a backup weapon. Third, there is usually a metal plate on the butt of the musket making it a big war club in a pinch. Fourth, in European battles he would not normally operate alone but in large units. Another man would shoot you, or a rank of pikeman would be there to provide protection. An officer would have a pistol as a backup for such occasions.

That's ridiculous. 60 yards is nothing. A 200 yard effective range was typical of smoothbore muskets. The supposed inaccuracy of muskets is greatly exaggerated. The shot could travel much farther than 200 yards, but at that distance it gets hard to even see the guy you're aiming at.

Where could I buy an outfit almost exactly like that?

But how fast can you do all that during an actual fight?

very good

@DNchap1417 You reload, you shoot one shot and then reload. Just the one shot to each loading.

I noticed that it is difficult to find modern reproductions of a matchlock musket anywhere. It is probably for good, legal, liability reasons. The matchlock musket, although reliable and functional, would always be hazardous to use because of its lit, burning match which needed to stay lit during combat operations. I can see where the loss of any concentration and carelessness would result in injury or death to the operator.

At least soldiers back then had days off from the war when it rained.

No mention here of the fact that the bandolier of powder charges was referred to as "the Twelve Apostles"

Is he the guy from Lionheart FIlmworks?

Stupid question but what kind of hat is that and where can I get one?

@Soothfish: You can reigniteit with a lighter or a pack of matchsticks which soldiers always had just in case.

@thestarsandbars I'm pretty sure match-lock came first...just look at the aquebus and 'hand cannons' Wheel locks were a later development after doglock/flintlock/firelock and required 'spanning' so were mainly used for pistol mechanisms, also fired better if tilted on its side...making wheel lock muskets a little more prone to mis-firing that pistols of the same mechanism.

2:06 swore he said left tit lollmao

Couldn't you just light a match and set it on the grapple? Would take a second to shoot although reloading is a different story. Grabbing a decent plasma rifle at hand would be more convenient though. Those conqestadores...

Wrong type of priming powder container, when you open the top you leave a large amount of powder exposed, they had a small nipple to let out a small amount of primer, a safer version had a spring loaded closure device inside a tube, so you could only expose enought powder to fill the priming pan, also there is a "blow of lose powder" order required.

Why weren't they using paper cartridges?

So gunpowder goes in the bowl and in the top?

@1x93cm I think 32, but that might be the one used as standard in the English Civil War.

How usual is it to historical time period reenactors to cast their own projectiles and make gunpowders following that periods recipes and manufacturing processes?

is the match cord a one-shot trigger mechanism or can it be be reused to fire subsequent rounds/musket balls?

No1 Has Been Able To Answer Me This Yet, How Would They Make A Match? Please Answer Thanks :)

I like the garb.

Mostly the Soldiers are to blame. Humans tend to be terrible marksmen in actual combat.

Patrick H- About 200yd. Ref. 2'28"

Great info! Where did you get the Caliver?

@roopr True...Idiot-Proof Step-by-Step Instructions for the Training, and simplified, more rapid procedures for the actual Fighting.

1607 was jamestown!! the first english colony!! ohh yea!!! I didn't even have to look that up!!

At 120 yards, any modern firearm can be used accurately and efficiently. Even a rusted out old AK47 that's been kicking around in the desert or jungles since 1953. Hell, a .22lr could be used accurately at that distance. In the end, rifles are superior over smoothbores. Even when talking about muzzle loaders. They might not be quite as easy to load, but I would rather 1 or 2 accurate shots in a minute over 3 or 4 inaccurate shots in a minute. If talking about modern day, 120 yards is nothing.

Very good demonstration, but I would rather defend myself with a longbow.

Must of been nervewrecking to fight with such slow loading weapons against Native American tribes. I always wondered how they managed to actually win. Did they have certain tactics? Outnumbering?

Why does he fake the recoil?

With weapons this slow its easier to understand why it took so long to conquer the Indians.

man this is not with fire and sword.. They can hit greater distance in real life.

8:37 wow thats alot of recoil lol cx

Wait... So we must turn on and off match 🔥 in every single shot???? 😱

@Metaldude1945: They probably fired in turns with one group firing while another reloaded.

So this is what John Smith(explorer) fought with when he founded Jamestown....mmm did you know he was born in Willoughby, Lincolnshire in England ^_^

The british used rifles much earlier.

that thing had like 20 steps just to shoot it

Original or repo