Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-01-17
THE GUNS OF THE PURITANs.
Not the DIunderbusses Usually Rep
resented by Artists.
Boston Evening Transcript.)

CBoston Evening Transcript
One OF the most remarkable facts to
the investigator of our American antiqui-
ties is the almost total ignorance which
prevails among even those who are other
wise well-informed as TO the weapons,
more especially the firearms, with which
our Puritan ancestors fought their wars
with the Indians. One OF the notions,
which seems firmly established, is that
the early settlers generally used the
bell-muzzle blunderbuss. Almost every
artist who draws a Thanksgiving or
Christmas picture OF a Puritan going To
meeting gives him a gun with a muzzle
like the end of a trumpet. Now, the
fact is, the bell-mouthed frearm was
never a military arm among English
speaking people. at all; nor was such
weapon ever common, either in this coun-
try or I'm England, until about the mid
die Of the last century, when It came into
use for the defence of houses against
burglars, for stage-coach guards, and
similar purposes. The blunderbusses,
which were common enough in the curl
osty-shops, are almost without exception
later than 100. and many Of them date
from early in this century.
A large. bell-mouthed gun was in use
somewhat earlier on board naval and
other armed ships. but this was a heavy
piece, on a swivel, and used very much
as the howitzer was later.
Then, as to the locks. Even some OF our
most distinguished writer's seem TO be
completely at seat on this point. One
New England writer whom [ will not
name, for fear OF seeming disrespectful
TO a man deserving of honor, wrote some
time ago In q magazine article that some
soldier I'm King Philips war might have
invented the fintlCck by finding that an
Indian flint arrow head would make fire
inserted into the cock OF the matchbox.
Now, the soldier of 1915 was given q
matchbox, not because the military au-
thorities were ignorant of the guns which
would make their own fire (wheellocks
and snaphaunces were in common use),
but because the matchbox was con-
sdered better for ordinary use. More
than this, If he thought of It, he would
have known that his matchbox would
not make fire with hint. The flintlock
with which our war Of independence was
fought, requires powerful blow to make
the flint strike fire from the steel This
the matchbox did not have, nor did the
pan cover open in such way as to
make this possible.
At the time of King Philips war and
for a long time afterward, the ordinary
frearm for infantry was the matchbox
musket. These are plenty In European
collections, but very rare in America. /
have ever seen one in any collection In
this country. At the same time the snap
haunce. a primitive form OF the fiintlock,
was quite extensively used by hunters
and. probably, by the Indians, who would
naturally object to the match, which, If
kept lighted. would betray their presence,
toll ,nfrx lCf-o
probably used TO some extent by the
earliest settlers. but it was always an
exceptional arm and too costly to be
generally used. By the time Of King
Philips war it was rather old-fashioned,
and not likely to have figured much. In
Springfield is a fine bronze statue OF one
Of the early settlers. who is represented
with a wheellock blunderbuss. This IT,
OF course. possible-anything is possible
but If any wheellock blunderbuss can be
found In any collection of Europe or this
country, I would like TO see It,