First teppo in the collection - help needed with identification

[Rolland]

Hello everyone! I'm new here and I'm passionate about history and collecting antique firearms as well as shooting black powder weapons. Collecting antique firearms is not yet popular in my country, knowledge about Japanese guns - minimal and often misleading. I personally for a long time considered Japanese guns to be mere copies of Portuguese arquebuses. However, some time ago, a nice Japanese guy approached me for support regarding Minie rifles. Correspondence with him encouraged me to take a closer look at the Japanese matchlocks. I was very surprised by how different they turned out to be from their European counterparts.

 

I mainly collect European and American breech-loaders and revolvers, but I also love technological curiosities and milestones from different eras (up to percussion). I felt now that without at least one representative teppo my collection would be handicapped.

 

Looking around at various auctions I chose an item that looked modest, almost undecorated, minimalistic and probably that's why it was rather inexpensive (in case of a mishap, I preferred to limit the loss). However, it felt authentic to me, complete, and looked not like a parade weapon but a purely utility gun, which I prefer.

 

My knowledge of Japanese gun is basic - mainly books of Lidin, Perrin, Pettersson, Turnbull, Sugawa excerpts from Internet and especially this extremely competent forum. However, I like to know everything I can about my guns. Therefore, I humbly turn to my esteemed colleagues for help in identifying and an honest, unforgiving assessment, even if the item turned out to be worthless scrap.

 

To get more into the topic, I tried to use Japanese terminology. I prefer learning by doing, but I have no doubt that I have made a lot of mistakes, and I have probably drawn wrong conclusions from my observations. I apologize in advance for abusing the patience of the experts in this way and ask for your understanding for the novice.

 

I'll start with general view and basic information:

 

Total length: 116 cm (45.7")

Weight: 3.15 kg (6.94 lb)

Caliber: 13,51 mm (0.532") (4 monme?)

Bore length: 81 cm (31.9")

After receiving the gun, I did what I do with any antique gun. I took it apart, washed it and looked for rust on iron parts (there was some passive rust on the kanime). Here the set of elements and fittings:

 

Wood:

 

The dai was covered with transparent varnish on the entire internal surface and in the barrel channel. This coating roughly resembles shellac varnish, but I highly doubt that Japanese gunmakers used shellac. Does anyone know what varnish was used in Japan to cover the dai? Right-hand side:

Left-hand side:

The dai shows signs of small unprofessional repair. The split fragment (right side, in front of the hizara) was glued without attempt to fit it or press it properly during gluing. Moreover I detected two thin cracks going from the bisen cavity back to the inside of the dai. To prevent further cracking, I fixed them with a transparent, low-viscosity epoxy resin. Here the shiba-hikigane:

All the original mekugi were quite worn and split. The original mekugi went into the bag and I replaced them with fitting pins made of bamboo sticks. The dougane was a bit loose as the dai wood had apparently shrunk. I blocked the dougane by inserting a thin bamboo wedge between dougane and dai.

 

The karuka has a damaged tip, but its length seems to me to be adequate and would be sufficient for loading the weapon. Is karuka the correct term here? Maybe sakujo?

 

What puzzles me is the enigmatic "orphan" mekugi ana on the left side. It is empty and has no counterpart on the right. I've seen something similar in other teppo's photos. I found this mekugi ana very useful for removing the karakuri, but what was its real purpose?

 

Barrel

 

At first glance, the bore of the tsutsu looked tragic, but it was only clogged with a dense, greasy substance. After cleaning, it turned out to be in surprisingly good condition - no active rust, only minor pitting, in any case shootable. In this situation, I considered removing the bisen unnecessary. OK, I tried gentle methods, but as he did not want to move, I gave up. Having experience with unscrewing massive barrel plugs in European muzzleloaders, I had a bad feeling with a supposedly long, thin bisen made of a material with properties unknown to me. So I wiped the bore with a rotating brass brush, treated it with EDTA solution for 3 hours just in case, brushed again, washed it and finally protected with Brunox Lub & Cor.

 

The tsutsu is the only element of the weapon with any decorations. There are 7 engravings on the barrel - all depicting small animals. Shown below individually in order from chamber to muzzle:

The engravings are rather rough and finished with (I believe) silver. The red and orange decorations visible in the photos are most likely copper (at least it looks like copper).

 

The juko traces of minor impacts, but they do not distort the barrel crown. The photo below also shows the damaged end of the karuka pushed all the way in:

 

Sights

 

The moto meate looks quite conventional, at least like most similar weapons. Saki meate, on the other hand, is a version that I have rarely seen. Instead of a protruding front sight, it has a groove and an additional hole, as if for attaching an insert. I've seen similar saki meate in photos of other teppo, but very rarely. In his book, Shideo Sugawa in his book shows a similar saki meate with a groove but without a hole in the middle. Here, respectively, the moto meate:

and the saki meate:

I estimated the relative position of the barrel axis and the sight line. For my purposes, I assumed that the aiming line runs through the bottoms of the grooves in the moto meate and saki meate. It turned out that this aiming line was practically parallel to the bore axis.

 

Gun mechanics:

 

The hibasami was slightly deformed and missed the hizara, but I bend it carefully into the correct position. The hajiki seems a bit flimsy - probably my subjective impression. I am used to the powerful springs of flintlock and percussion firearms. The simple design of the karakuri is illustrated in the photo below:

The karakuri works, but I am wondering about something noticed during tests with a simulated hinawa. The hinawa in hibasami reliably hits the centre of hizara, even if it is very short. He would undoubtedly ignite the priming powder. However, this is done only by the inertia of hibasami because it is in a static position the tip of the hibasami is approximately 18 mm (0.71") away from bottom of the hizara. Therefore after the ignition the hinawa is withdrawn from the hizara. This could eventually prevent the hinawa from being extinguished after firing. Is this correct behavior of the hibasami? The problem of match cord extinguishing is known from European weapons.

 

Is himichi the proper term for the touch hole? I estimated touch hole diameter at ~2.0 mm (0.08"). For an obviously heavily used weapon this would be a suspiciously low value. But examining the hizara, on the outer curve, opposite the touch hole, I discovered a thin brass circle. Presumably someone drilled a hole there (maybe conical) and then closed it with a brazed iron plug. The purpose could be to repair the burned-out touch hole by inserting a bushing with a smaller hole there. Were such repairs practiced by gunsmiths in Japan?

 

Signatures:

 

There is an inscription embossed on the left side of the dai:

There is (as I was told) registration information from 1872 on the stock: 'Jinshin' and 'Kisarazu Prefecture', where the 'Jinskin' means the 5th year of Meiji (= 1872). In the barrel channel on the dai there is an inscription written (I presume) in ink:

On the bottom of the hibuta is (as I was told) the Chinese symbol for 47. At the bottom of the chamber there is - I believe - an identical symbol. Besides, I didn't detect any other mei on the barrel.

I have already shown the signature on the inner jiita surface. I found quite similar symbols on the lower mounting surface of the yuojintetsu, on the inner surface of the dougane, on the hikigane and on the hibasami axle:

I couldn't find any other mei on the gun.

 

Judging by the caliber, crude ornaments, lack of zagane, simple workmanship, etc. I assume it was not the property of a proud samurai but rather a weapon of lowly ashigaru. Maybe it's a ban-zutsu, unless the 4 monme caliber is too small for a military weapon? Or is it a cheap hunting gun?

 

Above I wrote basically everything I know and what I think (or I think I think). I will be very grateful not only for all specific information but also for every educated guess!

 

 

 

[Brian]

Roland,
Haven't had a chance to read the entire post yet, but just wanted to compliment you on a superbly well presented and laid out post. I am sure our gun guys like @Bugyotsuji will be along shortly to assist.

Brian

[Bugyotsuji]

Generally a pretty good condition relatively small-bore military weapon, with some repairs. Part numbers do not all seem to coincide, so it may be an assembly of good parts.

 

To answer all your questions would take me around an hour, but I do not have so much time right now.

 

Anyone else feel free to address in the meantime!

 

Ah, Brian answered in the meantime. Agreed, a very well researched and well-presented post. 

 

PS I'll be back.........

[Rolland]

I just noticed an error in my post. I wrote: The dai was covered with transparent varnish on the entire internal surface [...]. Of course, this is about the external surface. Sorry!

Piers: Thank you very much for the initial, reassuring assessment that at least I didn't buy some fake...

[Bazza]

Rolland, a thoroughly absorbing and excellent read, thank you.  You wrote:

> What puzzles me is the enigmatic "orphan" mekugi ana on the left side. It is empty
> and has no counterpart on the right. I've seen something similar in other teppo's photos.
> I found this mekugi ana very useful for removing the karakuri, but what was its real purpose?

In my experience with the 6 teppou in my collection its real purpose is exactly what you used it for - gently removing the karakuri.

 

Best regards,

BaZZa.

[Bugyotsuji]

Just a quick update, but not yet complete as I am deep in another project. 

 

Q1. The stock/butt were usually covered in lacquer of some kind, most commonly a clear 'suki-urushi'. Always remember that guns sourced in the West may have had work done on them outside Japan, so without taking your gun in hand I cannot be sure of what surface covering that you are seeeing. (E.g. Shellac glistens more than suki-urushi, and may be thickly and unevenly applied.) 

 

Q2. Cracking in the Dai in the places that you mention is sadly quite common. It sounds as if you have arrested the movement successfully. Often you will find a small brass plate at the top of the dai-kabu butt to cover just such cracking. Repairs around the pan and panlid are also common especially if parts of the lock have been changed or replaced for some reason.

 

Q3. Mekugi can be thought of as easily lost, remade, i.e. disposable. Susu-dake (smoked bamboo) is thought to be the best material. Loose dogane are also common. A shim sounds like a good fix.

 

Q4. In an ideal world, the karuka should have one flat face for ramming the charge. The other end usually, but not always, has a hole in it for threading a cleaning cloth through it. (The word Sakujo or Shakujo is also sometimes used, but it seems to be a nickname taken from a type of Buddhist staff, the action of loading imitating the 'ramming' banging on the ground and ringing of the bells as you walk along. Early guns were used by armed monks as in Negoro-Ji temple. Perhas a religious connotation has a nice 'ring' to it!?!?. The word Karuka is more practical, and prosaic, said to be a natural word progression from the original Portuguese.) If there is any way of keeping (reshaping?) the original karuka, great, but like mekugi they were often broken, so replacements were carried. I have made about twenty or thirty in my lifetime of gunnery in Japan. 

 

Q5. The copper and silver (yes) zogan inlay has been over-polished and lost its patina. It would be nice to darken it down a little if possible. Gunners did not like a shiny barrel surface to aim along. I like the straight undecorated muzzle. The 'valley' sights are a nice feature. The holes are said to be for small upright pieces of stick incense to help align the sights in the dark.

 

Q6. Notice 三十五 35 and 四十七 47 on the parts. Your pan lid may have been changed, but it is a nice shape and a good job. Even the hollow pin is correct.

 

Q7. Interestingly it was registered in 'Kisarazu' Prefecture, which only lasted under that name from 1871 for a short while until it became absorbed under Chiba Prefecture in 1873. There is a good chance that your gun was made in the same area.

木更津県 - Wikipedia

 

In a hurry. Apologies.

 

 

[Rolland]

Piers,

 

I am extremely grateful for such a comprehensive and comprehensive answer. Thank you very much for your time and effort. You shed light on and explained many issues that I had no idea about before. As you can see, your help was necessary because my unskilled eye cannot even distinguish seemingly similar symbols.

 

It is very important to me to confirm that weapons must have actually existed around 1872. Can you make any assumptions about its probable period of production?

 

The advice on darkening silver is very valuable. I have a silver blackening agent in my workshop, so I will try carefully and in small steps to give the silver a patinated appearance.

 

Barry,

 

Thank you very much for your answer, confirming my suspicions about the empty mekugi ana. I am always pleasantly surprised when the most logical solution turns out to be correct one (this never happens to me when dealing with any authorities...)..

[Bugyotsuji]

R: ”It is very important to me to confirm that weapons must have actually existed around 1872. Can you make any assumptions about its probable period of production?”

 

Yes, there was a huge national roundup of weapons conducted, by prefecture, in 1872 ... which was the year of Jinshin 壬申 (as it says on your dai-kabu). This means that the gun is older than that.

 

Your gun does not have many typical geographical or ryu-ha gun school characteristics, making it more of a generic weapon for light military use on a battlefiled anywhere, a typical Tanegashima-style gun produced throughout the Edo Period. I am guessing that the zogan barrel decorations were added at a later period to increase its sale value, probably Meiji or later when plenty of artisans were still alive and available to do the work. Use of matchlocks began to die out around the 1840s and 1850s as they were being gradually replaced by influxes of versions of Western guns. 

Without a Mei and without closer study I would hesitate to narrow that down any further than 'Edo Period, likely any time between 1600-1840'.

 

(Three things do hint to me that it could be earlier within that period, i.e. the wide 'za' pin surrounds, the narrow-waisted pan, and the square shape of the sights.)

[Rolland]

Piers,

 

Your explanations satisfy me very much. The age of the weapon was essential because under our law any non-cartridge firearm manufactured before 1885 is free. Although the seller wrote "Edo period" on the invoice, I do not trust the actual competences of European auction houses when it comes to Japanese weapons.

 

The fact that you consider it a "generic weapon for light military use on a battlefield anywhere, a typical Tanegashima-style gun produced throughout the Edo Period" also suits me very well. I was counting on my first teppo to be a demonstrator of typical firearms technology from the Edo period. If so, it turned out to be a good purchase and its exact production date is no more of importance.

Thank you very much once again!