- Joined
- May 24, 2005
- Messages
- 5,523
- Reaction score
- 5,371
Here's what else the owner of the gun had to say. It correlates with the deficiencies of early lock design:
"My guess would be somewhere around 1630-40. The lock is very transitional, with triangular wheellock style jaws, the lockplate contour with bulge, and the impossibly heavy wheellock-gauge mainspring. Overall it is a very inefficient lock - very hard to cock, and the mainspring is actually too powerful for the cock bridle to stabilize. The sear linkage does not disengage with a crisp let-off It has a semi-experimental, new-to-the-market feel to it.
Mechanically it has the same limitations as that ca.1645 Ripoll pistol I have, that's from the Lavin collection and is photographed in his book."
Rick
"My guess would be somewhere around 1630-40. The lock is very transitional, with triangular wheellock style jaws, the lockplate contour with bulge, and the impossibly heavy wheellock-gauge mainspring. Overall it is a very inefficient lock - very hard to cock, and the mainspring is actually too powerful for the cock bridle to stabilize. The sear linkage does not disengage with a crisp let-off It has a semi-experimental, new-to-the-market feel to it.
Mechanically it has the same limitations as that ca.1645 Ripoll pistol I have, that's from the Lavin collection and is photographed in his book."
Rick
