The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1897-10-13
GUNS OF THE PURlTANS,
Not the Blunderbusscs Usually Rep-csent-
ed }sy Artists.

Not the BIunderbusses Usually Rep-csent-
ed }ay Artists.
One Of the mast remarkable facts
to the investigator of our American
antiquities is the almost total igno-
rance which prevails among even
those who are otherwise well in
formed as to the weapons, more es-
pecially the firearms, with which
our Puritan ancestors fought their
wars with the Indians. One of the
notions which seems firmly estab-
hshed is that the early settlers gen
orally used the bell muzzle blunder-
brss. Almost every artist who
draws Thanksgiving or Christmas
picture of Puritan going to meet
ing gives him a gun with muzzle
like the end of q trumpet t'HNow, the
fact is that the bell mouth frearm
was never a military arm among
English speaking people at all, nor
was such weapon ever common
either in this country or in England
until about tine middle of the last
century, when it came into use for
the defense of houses against bur
glars, for stagecoach guards and
similar purposes. The blunderbusses
which are common enough in the
curiosity shops are almost without
exception later than 1850, and many
of them date only from the early
part of this century.
A large, bell mouthed gun was in
use somewhat earlier on board of
naval and other armed ships, but
this was a heavy piece mounted 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 sea on this
point. One New England writer,
whom will not name for fear of
seeming disrespectful to a man de-
serving of honor, wrote some time
ago III a magazine article that some
soldier in King Philips war might
have invented the fintlock by find
ing that an Indian flint arrowhead
would make fire if inserted into the
cock of his matchbox. Now, the
soldier of 1875 was given match
lock, not because the military au-
thorities; were ignorant of guns
which could make their own fire
(wheel locks and snaphaunces were
in common use), but because the
matchbox was considered better for
ordinary, use. More than this, if he
had thought of it, he'would have
known that his matchbox would
not make fire with flint. The flint
lock with which our war of inde-
pendence was fought requires a
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 a way as to
make this possible.
At the time of King Philips war
and for long time afterward the
ordinary fresrm for infantry was
thesmatchlock musket. These are
plenty in European collections, but
very rare in America. I have never
seen one in any collection il this
country. At the same time the snap
haunce, a primitive form OF the
hintlock, was quite extensively used
by hunters, and probably by the In
dams, who would naturally object
to the match, which if kept lighted
would betray it's presence, especial
~ atnight. Wheel locks were prob
ably used to some extent by the
: earliest settlers, but it was always
an exceptional arm and too costlyt to
be generally used. By the time of
King Philips war it was rather old
fashioned and not likely to have fig
ured much. In Springfield is a fine
bronze statue of one of the early
settlers, who is represented with a
wheel lock blunderbuss. This is, Of
course, possible anything is posi-
BILE. But if any wheel lock blunder-
buss can be found in any collection
of Europe or this country would
like to see it.-Boston Transcript.