Talk:Matchlock

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: I don't think this pistol is intended to be used by a mounted samurai despite this being claimed at the museum. Compare with this image , which is an actual pistol used by samurai. Note the much simpler construction. I think the pistol in this image is actually a working, but non-combat-use gift piece. Also note the Mon (crest) on the barrel. It's a Nanatsu-boshi (seven stars) Mon and this Mon had been used by many clan including a branch of Matsudaira clan. So, it's quite likely to be an Edo era gift. --Revth (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Japanese pistol" image 

message: It seems someone keeps removing the same content over and over again without explanation. Either give a proper reason or stop. Cold Season (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent content removal 

message: The sources referenced for this claim ( [7], 
[8] ) seem a bit dubious. I can't attribute an author to either one of them, and  these pages don't seem to cite any sources for their claims. 
Darthshak (talk) 05:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Improved versions of the musket were transported to India by Babur in 1526" 

message: Firearms were already widely used in North Africa before the Ethiopian-Adal War (1529-1543). I don't know the earliest instance but one such example is the Battle of Ridaniya on 24 January 1517 outside Cairo. Both sides (the Ottomans and the Mamluks) extensively used fire arms and cannons in that battle. You might want to revise this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sndilek (talk • contribs) 11:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  First use of fire arms in Africa 

message: @Revth
now where is the Bajozutsu revolver for reference?!
@Cold Season
content removal?! agree completely
"The Bajozutsu revolver was a Japanese three shot pistole of the Edo period and possibly invented at the same time, before the Americans and Europeans were in search of multi shot firearms."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.223.119 (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  a comment 

message: "Most matchlock mechanisms mounted the serpentine forward of the flash pan. The serpentine dipped backward, toward the firer, to ignite the priming. This is the reverse of the familiar forward-dipping hammer of the flintlock and later firearms.[citation needed]"
It would be good to know if there is enough evidence to state historically that it was "most" matchlocks (at what place, at what time) which had the lever come down from in front of the pan, it was certainly some, by contrast with later designs where that essentially never happened. The reason for this is somewhat obvious. If you look at where the sparks fly with a flintlock, with the hammer rear of the pan and springing forward on firing, the sparks are mostly going forward and not towards the face of the shooter. Reversing the direction would be dangerous to the operator. With a matchlock, you're not using friction to generate sparks, so it doesn't matter if the "hammer" equivalent (the match) levers down from the front. 
I did find a secondary source which says that in the case of dual-ignition matchlocks, i.e. where there is a matchlock method of ignition as a secondary source of ignition if a primary method fails, that the serpentine (i.e. the lever with the match) is usually mounted forward of the pan. That's described in the second main block of text I'm quoting below (after ...):
"The military matchlock musket and, in particular, the musket where a matchlock is
used in combination with another lock mechanism to form a dual-ignition lock,
although almost always being included in overviews of the firearms and arms
and armour fields, have received relatively little focused systematic study by arms
scholars. Important contributions on matchlocks are those of Hoff, Wilson, Gooding,1
the works by Darling published in the 1970s,2 the recent catalogue of a selection
of matchlocks from the Royal Armouries prepared for an international exhibition
in Oman,3 and recent work on Asian matchlock mechanisms.4
This brief review examines matchlock long arms with a lock mechanism permitting dual (two) forms
of ignition — i.e. those with a back-up or reserve ignition system — these are to be
distinguished from similar mechanisms permitting superimposed charge ignition.5
...
Triggers can be of three variants — lever and trigger or double triggers21 or single
trigger.22 When a lever is used it is inevitably used to actuate a sear matchlock, this 
has the advantage that the dual mechanism is easy to lay out with the lock actions
one behind the other in a series configuration as the primary matchlock serpentine
usually falls towards the shooter  The sear lever action also allows a precise
‘touch-off’ of the powder. Single trigger actions are particularly innovative.23"
Williams, D., & Godwin, B. (2014). Dual-Ignition Musket Locks Including a Matchlock — a Note on their Design and Utility. Arms & Armour, 11(1), 4–16. doi:10.1179/1741612414z.00000000028 
I'm not including this as a citation since it's in reference specifically to dual-ignition matchlocks and not just "matchlocks." These are distinct concepts.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by YouAreNotASecondarySource (talk • contribs) 18:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation absent for claim about the lever being mounted forward of the flash pan