Dates or milestones for key black powder arms and advancements

[rickystl]

Here is what I believe is a mid-17th century English lock. Again we see the frizzen spring mounted internally. The vertical sear with both safety and full **** notches. Seems like the coffin-shaped frizzen was a popular styling cue for this period. And the **** and tumbler shaft being separate pieces. I inches closer in it's journey to the true French style flintlock.

Rick

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

Here is what I believe is a mid-17th century English lock.

'English' are far as for being from England or to mean a derivative of what was formerly the lock type of an 'English' lock?

To me, if English by Country, then it's an English version of what subsequently would become known as the flintlock, for which the French are given the credit for.

It's just me, and I'm no lock expert and didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn last night, LOL ... but without a sear nose projecting through the lock plate to hold the **** at full ****, and without a horizontal sear ... I don't see it as an English-type lock at all ...

 

[rickystl]

'English' are far as for being from England or to mean a derivative of what was formerly the lock type of an 'English' lock?

To me, if English by Country, then it's an English version of what subsequently would become known as the flintlock, for which the French are given the credit for.

It's just me, and I'm no lock expert and didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn last night, LOL ... but without a sear nose projecting through the lock plate to hold the **** at full ****, and without a horizontal sear ... I don't see it as an English-type lock at all ...

I should have said: 1650's style English flintlock. Sorry for the confusion. My bad. No relation to the term we use for "English" lock.
I believe the origin of the lock is English. The internal frizzen spring and the shape of the frizzen and lock plate lead me to believe this.

Although, here is a new made lock from original castings that the maker of the castings claims is a mid-17th century French lock. I don't discount the time frame, or that the original it was copied from is of French origin. But with the exception of the frizzen spring position, note the similarities to my original lock posted above. Interesting.

Rick

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

VERY cool! And thanks for being open-minded to what it may be! I agree with your info just posted ... what an A M A Z I N G collection you have!

 

[Brokennock]

And the **** and tumbler shaft being separate pieces

In your earlier post on the English Lock you mentioned production reasons for changing later to the single piece shafts. Was there any advantage to the separate shafts?

 

[rickystl]

VERY cool! And thanks for being open-minded to what it may be! I agree with your info just posted ... what an A M A Z I N G collection you have!

The Brits seem to have off and on continued to experiment with placing the frizzen spring inside the lock plate. Note the 1640 doglock pistol I posted earlier, and both the mid-17th century lock above, as well as the late 1835 lock above. Also the so-called Nock screwless lock. Funny how the Brits kept re-trying this idea over a couple hundred years. I've never seen any examples of this idea from any French or German locks. Which is why my guess for my original lock above being of British origin.

The builder of the castings for the replica lock above mentions the faint stamp on the outside of the lock plate translate to French origin.

Rick

 

[rickystl]

In your earlier post on the English Lock you mentioned production reasons for changing later to the single piece shafts. Was there any advantage to the separate shafts?

I can't see there being necessarily any operational advantage to the two-piece hammer and tumbler shaft, other than ease of manufacture. And of course, during this period we are dealing with forgings versus castings. So likely any simplification would be considered an advantage as long as the lock function was not compromised.
By this time we start to see the popular use of the vertical sear and the extra safety cut on the tumbler. And the hammer is re-designed so that in the un-cocked position it rests on the top edge of the lock plate. This eliminates the need for both the external hammer stop and the dog-style safety (per the snaphaunce, English lock, and doglocks). This would also allow the use of a smaller, more narrow lock plate as we can see.

Rick

 

[Brokennock]

I can't see there being necessarily any operational advantage to the two-piece hammer and tumbler shaft, other than ease of manufacture. And of course, during this period we are dealing with forgings versus castings. So likely any simplification would be considered an advantage as long as the lock function was not compromised.
By this time we start to see the popular use of the vertical sear and the extra safety cut on the tumbler. And the hammer is re-designed so that in the un-cocked position it rests on the top edge of the lock plate. This eliminates the need for both the external hammer stop and the dog-style safety (per the snaphaunce, English lock, and doglocks). This would also allow the use of a smaller, more narrow lock plate as we can see.

Rick

Thank you.

 

[rickystl]

During most of the period that the French style flintlock was being developed and refined, the Spanish were doing the same with their miquelet locks. Here is an original Spanish miquelet lock that I believe is from about the mid-17th century. There is another, almost identical lock (although better condition) in the Lavin collection. The Spanish generally thought the miquelet lock to be stronger than the flintlock. And miquelet locks generally, do tend to have stronger mainsprings. The mainspring being positioned on the outside of the lock plate allowed for less wood removal in the lock mortise area. The miquelet lock continued the use of the old horizontal sear, but with continued refinements through the years. The miquelet lock remained popular in Spain, Italy, and up and down the Mediterranean all the way to the percussion period. While the miquelet lock looks strange to many of us today, they seem to operate as well as the flintlocks. Just a different style lock to accomplish the same results.

Rick

 

[rickystl]

Southern Italy was controlled by Spain during this period. So many of their guns show up with miquelet locks reflecting Spanish design. Not surprising considering the influence.
But during the 17th century another variation of the miquelet lock was developed and remained popular in Central and Northern Italy. This lock is often referred to as the Naples or Roman lock. It differs from the Spanish lock in two ways: The mainspring operates on the TOE of the hammer (toe-lock) versus the HEEL of the hammer (heel-lock) as in the Spanish lock. And it uses a dual sear arrangement.
I believe this lock is from Central or Northern Italy, pre-1700, as it lacks the refinement of the 18th century locks. In fact, it's a bit on the crude side. LOL Notice the twin sears.

Rick

 

[Brokennock]

Thank you @Flint62Smoothie and @rickystl for a great topic thread and all this excellent information.
Please, continue.

 

[rickystl]

Yes, hopefully Flint62Smoothie and others will post something on the development of the wheellock and matchlock - lever operated versus the introduction of the snapping mechanism, etc. This Thread seems to be going back in time versus forward. LOL !!!

Rick

 

[TobJohn]

Yes, hopefully Flint62Smoothie and others will post something on the development of the wheellock and matchlock - lever operated versus the introduction of the snapping mechanism, etc. This Thread seems to be going back in time versus forward. LOL !!!

Rick

If only we had a member that spoke mandarin and could start us at the beginning, with fire lances.

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

Yes, hopefully Flint62Smoothie and others will post something on the development of the wheellock and matchlock - lever operated versus the introduction of the snapping mechanism, etc. This Thread seems to be going back in time versus forward. LOL !!!

Rick

Matchlock Development - From ones without any serpentine [pre-1411], from button (snaplock) to lever to a trigger operated serpentine-equipped arms was all about a more reliable means to 'fire' the arm (the 'triggering' mechanism) , and not to 'ignite' the arm (by tinder, punk or matchcord, etc.).

Wheellock - I think it would be tough to cover all that this already does, so I'll just post the link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheellock
BP Arms - But remember ... the "journey of black powdah arms throughout the centuries was always one of:

... reliable firing (later handgonnes to arquebus to matchlocks), to

... better aiming/ergonomics (stock size/shape and sights, etc.), to

... self-contained for ignition (wheellocks [ignited by pyrite], to snaphaunce, miquelets, English locks, doglocks and ultimately the French-style flintlock (all ignited by flint), to

... faster loading (breech-loading flintlocks like the late 1700s Ferguson Rifle and then the early 1800s [patent date 1811] Hall Rifle issued to the US Army troops, to

... percussion ignition (which was the Hall Rifle changed out to ignition by percussion caps in 1830-something, the 1st percussion arm issued anywhere world-wide to a standing army).

Quite the journey, no?

And of course there are many "one of" examples out there of of WILD ideas like 'superposed' muskets with multiple rounds stacked in the bore (to fire off like a roman candle), to the revolving 6-shot matchlock rifle built for the French King, to flintlocks that had reservoirs of balls, powder and priming powder that would load the next shot by a mere revolution of a lever on the left side of the action. And there are many MORE oddities that I can't even begin to mention ... or I'll be here all day!

 

[rickystl]

Thanks Flint. Great response.

Rick

 

[ResearchPress]

A while back I was given a transcription of about 240 5”x3” Index Cards compiled by the late Tony Taylerson (author of the three volume study of ‘The Revolver’) as a Chronological Reference System, assembled from many sources over the years. These are the author’s notes made while working on his trilogy, and although not in themselves originally intended for publication, they contain a wealth of information on the English, European and American arms trade. With permission from Mrs. Taylerson I have commenced uploading the data, to date covering the period 1637 - 1853. I have about another 20 years of data to add. The information can be found here - Historical Time Line.

David

 

[TobJohn]

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

View attachment 193036View attachment 193037View attachment 193038View attachment 193039View attachment 193040View attachment 193041

While looking for Swedish snaplocks, I noticed that the single main and frizzed spring may actually be the norm for the region, which is very interesting.

Full gun because it is neat:

Search: text:"snapplås"
Beginning of the 17th century:

End of the 17th century:

 

[rickystl]

Hi John

Thanks for posting these photos.

First photo from the top: The fishtail butt stock. Notice the two-piece frizzen/pan cover assembly with the swing-away frizzen safety. Similar to the lock I posted above.

Second photo: A great looking transition lock. Notice the one-piece frizzen and pan cover to be lowered in place before firing. But still also retaining it's swing-away pan cover from the matchlock. Very cool.

Third photo: Notice the lock plate and frizzen/pan coordination starting to look a bit like some French influence. I think this lock could be from Central or Northern Italy.

Rick

 

[TobJohn]

Hi John

Thanks for posting these photos.

First photo from the top: The fishtail butt stock. Notice the two-piece frizzen/pan cover assembly with the swing-away frizzen safety. Similar to the lock I posted above.

Second photo: A great looking transition lock. Notice the one-piece frizzen and pan cover to be lowered in place before firing. But still also retaining it's swing-away pan cover from the matchlock. Very cool.

Third photo: Notice the lock plate and frizzen/pan coordination starting to look a bit like some French influence. I think this lock could be from Central or Northern Italy.

Rick

Is there any practical benefit to a rotating pan cover and while also having one connected to the frizzen?

The google translate on the last lock called it a "Spanish half-buckle lock" for a m/1680 musket. Given Spain's control of Milan and some possible lost in translation details, Italy makes a lot of sense.

 

[TobJohn]

I could not find any example of the exact m/1680 musket, but here is the following model. Google translate sometimes struggles with Swedish.
Musköt m/1688