Arms and Armor of the Pilgrims, 1620-1692

by Harold L. Peterson

Soldier blowing on his match to make the coal glow well before firing.
From De Gheyn.

From this it may be seen that the matchlock was in many ways inferior to the Indian’s bow. Its chief advantage lay in the panic produced by the flash, smoke, smell and noise of the explosion of the charge. Also, a gun could be loaded with several bullets and wound a number of enemies at one time. The ball from a matchlock musket was superior to an arrow in the size of the hole it tore, the bones it smashed, and the amount of blood it spilled. The bow was superior in accuracy and rapidity of fire. Moreover, it was light and easy to carry while the gun was heavy and clumsy. The bow was constantly ready for use except perhaps during a long rain, while the slow-match required, in the best of weather, constant attention to keep it burning; and in dampness, rain, and wind, it was useless. The light from the match also prevented ambush at night, and the smell forestalled a surprise attack in the day time unless the foe happened to be up-wind.

Although matchlocks were the dominant type of weapon brought over on the Mayflower, there were also a few flint arms. Modern authorities differentiate between the true flintlock and its more primitive or regional forms, the snaphaunce, the English lock, the so-called “dog” lock, the Baltic lock, and the miquelet. These distinctions are purely modern, however. The contemporary writers called all firearms which ignited the powder by striking flint against steel “snaphances.” Thus it is impossible to determine at this date exactly what form of flint arm is referred to in a given instance, and so a generic term must be used.

Flint arms were much more efficient than matchlocks. They were faster, more dependable, and less cumbersome. The powder in the priming pan was ignited by striking a piece of flint held by the cock against a piece of steel, called the frizzen or battery. The frizzen was poised directly over the pan so that the sparks produced by the contact of the flint and steel would drop into the powder. Flint arms could function in ordinary dampness and even in a light rain. There was no match to light and keep free from ash in advance of any expected action. And since there was no match, there was no light or smell to betray an ambush.

It is difficult to determine exactly when flint arms superseded matchlocks as the standard military firearm at Plymouth. There were a few flint arms in the Mayflower in 1620, for flints are specifically mentioned among the military stores on board. Miles Standish, a professional soldier, naturally had the best weapon available. Edward Winslow, in describing the first encounter between the colonists and the Indians, noted that Standish with his “snaphance” and one or two other Pilgrims, who were apparently equipped with flint arms, fired at the Indians and held them at bay while a brand from the fire was carried to the others so they could light their matches.

For the first ten years the supremacy of the matchlock was probably not seriously threatened. From 1630 until the outbreak of King Philip’s War in 1675, however, the change is plainly visible. There are more references to matches than to flints in inventories and court records until the beginning of the Pequot War, but the tales of snap-shooting increase, and during the war the stories of ambushes and surprise attacks throughout New England indicate that flint arms were becoming more plentiful. In 1643 the Plymouth General Court ordered that every soldier should be supplied with either a matchlock or a “snaphance.” By 1645 Governor William Bradford could report that the Plymouth troops had been sent to a muster at Seacunk “well armed all with snaphance peeces.” In 1645, also, while matchlocks were allowed for private arms, the Plymouth General Court allowed only “snaphances” or “firelocks” for Town arms.

With the coming of King Philip’s War, the era of the matchlock at Plymouth was definitely past. The campaigns of that war, forays into the wilderness, night attacks, ambushes, battles in the rain, and encounters between individuals which required snap-shooting indicate clearly that the “snaphance” was the principal weapon. In 1677, towards the end of the war, the Plymouth General Court outlawed the matchlock completely as an acceptable weapon. In abandoning matchlocks at this time, Plymouth was years ahead of Europe where the clumsy firearm persisted until after 1700.

In addition to the matchlock and flint arms in general use, there were undoubtedly a few wheel lock arms in Plymouth. The wheel lock was the second ignition system chronologically, having been developed shortly after 1500. It was an efficient system, operating much like a modern cigarette lighter with the spark produced by holding a piece of pyrites against a revolving rough-edged wheel. The wheel lock, however, was an expensive weapon, costing twice as much as a matchlock and half as much again as a flint arm. This did not necessarily preclude its purchase by the Pilgrims since those colonists were not so apt to economize on something which affected their life expectancy as closely as did their firearms. There are no records which state positively that there were wheel locks at Plymouth, and no authentic wheel lock used there has survived. The term “firelock” which is used occasionally in the documents very often was used to denote a wheel lock, and in the case of the 1646 order mentioned above, it almost certainly had that meaning.