Dates or milestones for key black powder arms and advancements

[rickystl]

I had a Hanoverian horse pistol from 1843 that had a cross bolt safety built through the tang of the hooked breech that would stick out on the lock to prevent the hammer from falling.

The in line striker for flint locks was built around 1700 and the in-line striker for a percussion system was patented about 1828. It was altered and became the Dreyse Needle gun.

Cartridges first existed, according to Greener in the 1300's in the form of what are called Thunder cups for breech loading artillery.- In the evolution of firearms, there is rarely anything completely new. Normally innovation is an adaptation of an older idea.. The fellow that built the revolving matchlock about 1580 got the idea somewhere, and improved on it. There were matchlock cartridge guns, flintlock cartridge guns and percussion cartridge guns., all breechloaders. Was there a swivel breech before that.? Was there a matchlock pepperbox before that? Remember the bizarre oddities that never caught on, like harmonica guns. How about this strange one:
View attachment 192236

LOL. Yes. Apparently, we had "geeks" even back in the period. And many things I thought were older, were newer. And newer things actually older.

Rick

 

[tenngun]

Both locks were final winners?
Until what time?

I'm not arguing, I don't know enough about the miquelet to do so. But that is also why I ask.
It would seem to me that if you asked someone with at least a little firearms and history knowledge about pre-caplock guns, they will know the flintlock but not the miquelet. It seems that more countries made flintlock guns than guns with miquelet locks, but I could be wrong on that. Maybe that was later?

Can you compare and contrast them for us please? What advantages and disadvantages did each have compared to the other?

Thank you for this discussion and your information in it.

Just an opinion but I think that except for us Ml nerds a snaphaunce, miquelet English Scottish doglocks and flintlocks would all look the sameB17, B24,B25, B26 lancasters, mosquitoes they all just ww2 bombers, oh yeah some have four engines and some two. Sailing frigates, sloops, snows, barques, brigs, all just sailing ships.
Stuff and nerds

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

Hi, my screen name is Flint62Smoothie and I’m an early lock muzzleloading nerd …

 

[Brokennock]

It is interesting to me that while manufacturing technology and ability progressed over time. Giving people the ability to make more refined and complex things.
These locks seem to have gotten simpler over time, with the "best," and longest lasting, version being what seems to me to be the simplest version. The pan cover and frizzen system of the snaphaunce seems overly complex, the early English lock seems more complex than the very similar miquelet.

 

[rickystl]

It is interesting to me that while manufacturing technology and ability progressed over time. Giving people the ability to make more refined and complex things.
These locks seem to have gotten simpler over time, with the "best," and longest lasting, version being what seems to me to be the simplest version. The pan cover and frizzen system of the snaphaunce seems overly complex, the early English lock seems more complex than the very similar miquelet.

Yes, seems like lock making back in the period went from simple, to more complicated, and back to simple again - but with continued refinment as you mention. The French style flintlock in it's initial and final forms lasting from about 1680 to about 1830. That's a long time.

Rick

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

The French style flintlock in it's initial and final forms lasting from about 1680 to about 1830. That's a long time.

Hey ... they're STILL making them even today, LOL!

But to be serious, not sure if they were just "made from all old parts", but the Belgians were prolific at exporting flintlock muzzleloaders throughout the African content through the early to mid 1900s.

 

[rickystl]

Hey ... they're STILL making them even today, LOL!

But to be serious, not sure if they were just "made from all old parts", but the Belgians were prolific at exporting flintlock muzzleloaders throughout the African content through the early to mid 1900s.

Hi Flint

I think Belgium started this practice even before the 20th Century. Private gun shops there would buy surplus guns/parts from governments/arsenals all over Europe. Then assemble the various parts into economical guns and sell them everywhere. It's amazing how long they continued to do this.

Rick

 

[rickystl]

Here is a 1640ish English Doglock pistol from The Rifle Shoppe. The oval shaped grip a carry-over from the wheellock period. Note the lack of a hammer screw. The hammer and tumbler shaft being one piece. And a three-screw lock plate.

A carry-over from the snaphaunce and English lock. The use of the two-notch tumbler and vertical sear now in use. But in this case, the lock builder decided to position the frizzen spring inside the lock plate. A good example of why I call this the "experimental" period in lock making. LOL

Rick

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

VERY interesting ... I added the emphasis ...

"A substantial number of early gunlock parts are contained in the Jamestown Collection, including all of the major ignition systems in use in the seventeenth century: wheellocks, miquelet locks, snaphaunces, matchlocks, English locks, and flintlocks. Once I started cataloging the firearms assemblage I noticed that many parts previously had been misinterpreted, providing a false picture of the type of weaponry in use. This is especially true of snaphaunces, most of which are represented by nothing more than lockplates which had formerly been recorded as wheellocks. The classification errors of the Jamestown locks led Harold Peterson to state in his much read and cited Arms and Armor of Colonial America " . . . there are (at Jamestown) fewer remnants of snaphaunces than any other firearm used in colonial America.” (Peterson 1965:27).

To the contrary, my cataloging project revealed that there are more fragments of snaphaunce firearms at Jamestown than any other type."

........... and it continues pages later .......

"Firearms that have survived in museum collections usually owe that survival to the fact that they are atypical in some way. Uncommon arms can be exquisite works of art constructed for a king or "state of the art" fowling pieces designed for wealthy recreational huntsmen. Or they can be just the opposite — groups of weapons stored away on dusty shelves, considered unworthy of refurbishing or modernization and enduring from their perceived insignificance; but, usually, these 'worn-out and obsolete guns were like old shoes ... thrown away' (Mayer: 5). The value of archaeology as a source to an unbiased view to the past has been largely overlooked by firearms historians and collectors."

Source = Early English Firearms: A Re-examination of the Evidence, by Beverly Ann Straube, 1990

 

[rickystl]

The Scandinavians seemed to have experimented with a variety of "snaplocks" during the first half of the 17th century. Here is a Swedish snaplock from about 1600 from The Rifle Shoppe. A large lock obviously built with simplicity in mind. A simple variation of the horizontal sear operating similar to the snaphaunce. But in this case, the sliding pan cover has to be manually opened before firing. Somewhat of a carry-over from the matchlock. The only safety being leaving the frizzen forward out of the way. Still, progress over the burning coal of a matchlock.

Rick

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

I’m bummed … as nobody noticed!

There are 2 features of note in that dog lock that I had posted to start out this thread. I was thinking that some other sharp-eyed early arm/lock ‘nerd’ would have noticed … but you disappointed me, LOL!

1) It is left-handed. And a big lock she is, measuring 7-1/4 ” long.

2) Note that it has both a dog catch for an external safety, plus a half **** notch. As shown it is at rest, **** fully down.

RickStl - Was that a common feature? This is a TRS kit lock built by the famed early arms builder John Bosh (now deceased).

Of other interest, the main spring is incredibly powerful, harder to **** than some of my original snaphaunce locks, if not more!

 

[rickystl]

I’m bummed … as nobody noticed!

There are 2 features of note in that dog lock that I had posted to start out this thread. I was thinking that some other sharp-eyed early arm/lock ‘nerd’ would have noticed … but you disappointed me, LOL!

1) It is left-handed. And a big lock she is, measuring 7-1/4 ” long.

2) Note that it has both a dog catch for an external safety, plus a half **** notch. As shown it is at rest, **** fully down.

RickStl - Was that a common feature? This is a TRS kit lock built by the famed early arms builder John Bosh (now deceased).

Of other interest, the main spring is incredibly powerful, harder to **** than some of my original snaphaunce locks, if not more!

View attachment 192569

Hi Flint

I noticed. LOL!!

It appears that many of the locks from these very early times were made large. It was probably easier to make large versus small parts with hand-made technology then. Look at the lock plate on the Swedish snaplock above. It's wheellock size. LOL

With the introduction of the vertical sear, at some point, someone came up with the idea of cutting a second notch on the tumbler for the safety. But maybe the lock builders were still not 100% enough to eliminate the dog-catch safety yet (?) On the doglock pistol I posted above, it also has both the safety notch on the tumbler and the external dog-style safety like your's. But your lock was made with separate hammer and tumbler shaft. Thus the external hammer screw. The pistol's lock still retains the one-piece hammer and tumbler shaft (like the snaphaunce and English locks). The lock on the pistol might pre-date your lock by maybe a couple decades. It seems at sometime around the mid-17th century they decided it was easier and less expensive to make the hammer and tumbler shaft in separate pieces.

Yes, many of these earlier locks tend to have very strong mainsprings. I've often wondered one of the reasons for this being that the knowledge of spring tempering in 1650 was not as refined as it was by say 1780.

Rick

 

[rickystl]

Speaking of snaplocks. Here is a very unusual Scandanavin style snaplock. It's in new, unused condition. And very high quality. I have no idea when this lock was made. There are no stamps or other forms of identification. The use of a very early form of horizontal sear leads me to mid-17th century or earlier. But it's unusual features, and the fact it's in new condition make me think this may be just a styling exercise from some lock maker pre-1700 (?) It's a mystery.
Note that one long spring is used for both mainspring and frizzen spring. The safety feature is that the face of the frizzen and pan cover are two pieces - but connected together with a screw and spring assembly which allows the frizzen face to be positioned away from the gun in case of an accidental release of the ****.
Yes, a pretty strange set up. LOL But it does show another variety of experimentation with flint ignition during the period. I bought this at a German auction. Heavy on the photos of this lock so you can see the details.

Rick

 

[rickystl]

MORE PICS...

 

[rickystl]

LAST TWO...

 

[Mcat]

Let's see if we can have great discussion, but a debate-free discourse ... !

If you 've some of my posts, then you know I like the older arms and I'm presently assembling a shootable collection of one of each type. Anyways, what are your thoughts about these dates? Some are from Gun Wiki and others from other historical sites, i.e., like the 1st written or recorded use of the term.

I know that there's probably no one real answer, but thought that this could be an enjoyable topic to discuss. If you have pictures to show - have at it - like I'm sure RickyStL could show us pictures of horizontal sears on English locks and how they differ from that of doglocks with verticle sear bars. Please add them to illustrate a point. Cheers!

View attachment 191561

Here is an interesting list from Tim Owen of Cablesfarm.co.uk

 

[tenngun]

Hi Flint

I think Belgium started this practice even before the 20th Century. Private gun shops there would buy surplus guns/parts from governments/arsenals all over Europe. Then assemble the various parts into economical guns and sell them everywhere. It's amazing how long they continued to do this.

Rick

Yes Belgium makers were making NWG for American and Rocky Mountain Fur during the rendezvous period. Even had the English proof stamps

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

Here is an interesting list from Tim Owen of Cablesfarm.co.uk

Cool list!

I like the one about Gunsmiths adding a build# to their arm, but not starting at '1'! When I was in the medical laser bizness, we never did that either. Each model had a different serialization scheme, and starting 1st number, albeit incremental. This was intentional ... one reason being so that our competitors had no idea just how many lasers we actually had in service.

 

[rickystl]

Yes Belgium makers were making NWG for American and Rocky Mountain Fur during the rendezvous period. Even had the English proof stamps

Hi Tenngun

I own one of those rare Belgium made copies of the NWTG's. On the lock plate is stamped with the so-called fox in the coffin versus fox in the circle. And the fox is pointing in the opposite direction. Probably so as not to invade any copyright laws during the period.

Rick

 

[rickystl]

Here is an original flintlock that was made for the British Pattern 1833 Manton Carbine. The last official flintlock of the British Army. The lock is dated 1835. It incorporates many of the features thought to be an advantage at the time. The positioning of the frizzen spring inside the lock plate (which we now know was an idea that came about 200 years earlier), a semi-water proof pan/cover, an advanced bridle, and a secondary sliding safety. The lock is built robust, but operates smoothly.
While this lock needs a simple cleaning, it is in new, un-fired condition. No sign it was ever mounted to a gun. But you can find many of these same locks today in this new condition. By this time, the British (as well as others) were in the process of changing over to the percussion period. Thus, many of these late period flintlocks became immediate surplus.

Rick