Dates or milestones for key black powder arms and advancements

[Flint62Smoothie]

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!

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

Doglock with flintlock-type ‘vertical’ sear. Built from cast parts from The Rifle Shoppe by the late John Bosh. Yes indeedy, she’s a lefty …

I’ll post photos later of my English lock (also from TRS) and my original Snaphaunce lock.

 

[TobJohn]

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

The Merz sketches shows an actual lock in 1475, but its strange that it seemed to take another couple of decades to reach common use and the snap locks seemed to dominate before matchlocks in that style come back into wide use.

 

[64Springer]

Can the discussion extend past 1680?

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

Can the discussion extend past 1680?

Sure! We can include the British breech-loaded Ferguson flintlock, in 1770-something and the US Hall breech-loaded flintlock of patent date 1811. In fact, the Hall became the 1st ever issued percussion firearm.

 

[tenngun]

Can the discussion extend past 1680?

No new gun development was worth a darn after 1680

 

[oldwood]

For me , the most interesting historical happening concerning American m/l development , is the time between 1745 to 1760's. The American long rifle was in it's transition from eastern European Jaeger style rifles , to the long rifle . An example is the Edward Marshal rifle , or the 1738 , Indian Walk Rifle. I've built a couple of these robust rifles , copied from the original in a museum in Philadelphia. Another part of the American long rifle development came , when the Moravian Brotherhood saw a need for gunsmiths to be brought to America , sometime around 1760 , they settled at Christian Springs in Eastern Pa. . Hunters were bringing their imported Eastern European , short barreled , large caliber rifles in to Moravian gunsmiths for repairs , and told the gunsmiths they needed a rifle that would shoot further , smaller caliber , with greater accuracy,than the European rifles. Thus , the American long rifle was born. It had a barrel between , 38 " to 46 " , and of a caliber from .47 to .60. The longer sight radius of the longer barrel , extended the range a hunter had to work with. More folks could be fed , and hunters could feed their own families, and enjoy a better prosperity. By 1768 , gunsmiths around Lancaster , Pa. , were producing the new long barreled rifle..............This is an idea of how the Long rifle developed........oldwood

 

[rickystl]

Hi Flint

I think this could turn out to be an interesting Thread. Your event/year list looks pretty good to me. Of course, everyone can debate a decade or two. But I think you're close enough for general conversation for sure.

For lock development enthusiasts, an interesting period is from about 1550 to 1650. The long road I call the "experimental period" in flint ignition working it's way to the development of what we call the true French style flintlock. Back then, progress was slower then we see today. As with other wars, the English Civil Wars period brought about the use of most of the locks in existence at the time. Matchlocks, wheellocks. snaphaunce, early style doglocks were all used simultaneous during the wars. Basically, most anything available that could be made to shoot. LOL Meanwhile, at some point, the Spanish were developing their miquelet lock, and the Dutch/Scandinavians were experimenting with various forms of snaplocks. Interesting that after about 1650, for the most part, both the flintlock and miquelet locks were being developed and refined during the same time period. Both locks were the final winners.

Rick

 

[rickystl]

For me , the most interesting historical happening concerning American m/l development , is the time between 1745 to 1760's. The American long rifle was in it's transition from eastern European Jaeger style rifles , to the long rifle . An example is the Edward Marshal rifle , or the 1738 , Indian Walk Rifle. I've built a couple of these robust rifles , copied from the original in a museum in Philadelphia. Another part of the American long rifle development came , when the Moravian Brotherhood saw a need for gunsmiths to be brought to America , sometime around 1760 , they settled at Christian Springs in Eastern Pa. . Hunters were bringing their imported Eastern European , short barreled , large caliber rifles in to Moravian gunsmiths for repairs , and told the gunsmiths they needed a rifle that would shoot further , smaller caliber , with greater accuracy,than the European rifles. Thus , the American long rifle was born. It had a barrel between , 38 " to 46 " , and of a caliber from .47 to .60. The longer sight radius of the longer barrel , extended the range a hunter had to work with. More folks could be fed , and hunters could feed their own families, and enjoy a better prosperity. By 1768 , gunsmiths around Lancaster , Pa. , were producing the new long barreled rifle..............This is an idea of how the Long rifle developed........oldwood

Hi Oldwood

Great introduction ref the American long rifle. It seems, that after about 1800 the calibers of the long rifles tend to be smaller. Maybe .36 to .45 or so. Then, with the introduction of the so-called Plains style rifle with shorter, heavier barrels, the calibers went back up again to ,45-.55 or so, I assume to confront the larger, Western game in the U.S. Is my thinking on this roughly correct ? Thanks.

Rick

 

[Some_Mook]

Some might enjoy having a look at this:

Firearms on the Frontier - Mackinac State Historic Parks

1715 -1781 era. Pictures and descriptions of items excavated in and around the fort at Mackinac, Michigan. Open the link and the publication can be viewed in your browser.

 

[oldwood]

In one of Francis Parkman's history books, sheds some light on one of their hunters , trying to kill a plains buffalo , with post 1812 smaller caliber longrifles. The caliber wasn't stated , but the hunter shot the beast near 20 times , until he ran out of balls and night intervened , and they didn't kill the critter.

 

[Brokennock]

after about 1650, for the most part, both the flintlock and miquelet locks were being developed and refined during the same time period. Both locks were the final winners.

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.

 

[rickystl]

Doglock with flintlock-type ‘vertical’ sear. Built from cast parts from The Rifle Shoppe by the late John Bosh. Yes indeedy, she’s a lefty …

I’ll post photos later of my English lock (also from TRS) and my original Snaphaunce lock.

View attachment 191606

View attachment 191607

Hi Flint

Very cool lock. Looks like it is crying out to have a gun built using it. LOL
This lock looks like the English style doglocks from about 1680 to about 1720 time frame. The long main and sear springs. The lock plate now beginning to look more like the true flintlock. The lack of a support arm between the pan and frizzen, and too early for a bridle on the tumbler. It appears on this lock, there is a secondary safety notch cut on the tumbler, making the dog catch a secondary safety feature. And now the use of the vertical sear becomes the accepted norm.

The earlier doglocks, around mid-17th century looked similar with the use of the vertical sear, but the **** and tumbler shaft were still made in one piece, and a hammer stop on the lock plate. A carry-over from the earlier snaphaunce and English locks. Here is a poor quality pic of a very early doglock:

Rick

 

[rickystl]

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.

"Both locks were final winners?"

Well, yes. It would depend on where you are standing in the World at the time. The two primary differences between the flintlock and the miquelet lock are the position of the mainspring, and the type of sear used. Unlike the flintlock, the miquelet lock positioned the mainspring on the outside of the lock plate versus inside. This allowed less wood removal from the lock mortise area, and allowed a wider, stronger mainspring to be used. The other difference is the miquelet lock continued the use of the horizontal sear - but much more refined as the years went by. By contrast, the flintlock being a bit simpler in overall design was likely easier to manufacture, assemble/disassemble than the miquelet lock. And it simply caught more favor in most of primary Europe and eventually North America.
Interesting that about 1750 the Spanish government actually adopted the use of the French style flintlock for their military muskets and pistols. But then, about 1790 reverted back to the miquelet lock, which thir military felt was stronger.

Here is a Mid-17th Century Spanish miquelet lock from The Rifle Shoppe:

Rick

The miquelet lock was more popular in Spain, Italy (Southern Italy being controlled by Spain during this time) and much of the Ottoman Empire.

 

[Brokennock]

"Both locks were final winners?"

Well, yes. It would depend on where you are standing in the World at the time. The two primary differences between the flintlock and the miquelet lock are the position of the mainspring, and the type of sear used. Unlike the flintlock, the miquelet lock positioned the mainspring on the outside of the lock plate versus inside. This allowed less wood removal from the lock mortise area, and allowed a wider, stronger mainspring to be used. The other difference is the miquelet lock continued the use of the horizontal sear - but much more refined as the years went by. By contrast, the flintlock being a bit simpler in overall design was likely easier to manufacture, assemble/disassemble than the miquelet lock. And it simply caught more favor in most of primary Europe and eventually North America.
Interesting that about 1750 the Spanish government actually adopted the use of the French style flintlock for their military muskets and pistols. But then, about 1790 reverted back to the miquelet lock, which thir military felt was stronger.

Here is a Mid-17th Century Spanish miquelet lock from The Rifle Shoppe:

RickView attachment 192032View attachment 192033

The miquelet lock was more popular in Spain, Italy (Southern Italy being controlled by Spain during this time) and much of the Ottoman Empire.

Thank you.
To my eye the miquelet lock always looks like it has terrible geometry regarding the angle between flint and frizzen.
How reliable are they and do they smash flints badly in comparison to the French design flintlock?

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

To my eye the miquelet lock always looks like it has terrible geometry regarding the angle between flint and frizzen. How reliable are they and do they smash flints badly in comparison to the French design flintlock?

They do appear that way, don't they? I only have a sample of '1', but my miquelet lock from The Rifle Shoppe parts is flawless, yet to have a failure and flint life is typical of flintlocks.

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

Next up for discussion ... an English Lock, pre-dating the doglock in development. It carries over the external '**** stop', a **** forged together as part of or one piece with the tumbler, and a lateral sear from the shaphaunce, where the sear nose projects through the lockplate to hold the **** @ full ****.

Like shaphaunces, this lock too has one heck of an exceptionally strong spring! This lock has a loooooong **** throw, but ironically, this is one of my most accurate smoothbores. I printed a group of 5 the other day, the size of a raquetball, offhand @ 25-yards, while working up a ‘Winter’ load. My Summer paper cartridge load, wouldn’t load after 2-shots when it was only 34-degrees out … so I am developing an accurate mink oil load, trying to find the ‘node’ she likes.

Key notes - See that the tumbler notch provides a 1/2-**** position, but otherwise the tumbler is not involved with full **** at all, less the **** is attached to it and they rotate together due to the V-spring power.

Full **** is achieved by the sear nose projecting through the lockplate and trapping or catching the release ‘ledge’ on the ****.

... me thinks perhaps we should have added a detailed expose of a snaphaunce lock 1st, huh?

 

[rickystl]

Thank you.
To my eye the miquelet lock always looks like it has terrible geometry regarding the angle between flint and frizzen.
How reliable are they and do they smash flints badly in comparison to the French design flintlock?

Miquelet locks do tend to have stronger mainsprings. But for the most part it's pretty much as Flint mentions above. The functioning and reliability for both is typically equal. Just a different lock design to accomplish the same performance.

The one exception would be the miquelet locks from the Ottoman Turks and other Eastern market areas. The mainsprings tend to be stronger yet than their European miquelet counterparts. Sometimes it seems even ridiculously strong. One theory for this is that the flint mined from these Eastern regions was of lesser quality than the English black or French amber.

Here are two more original miquelet locks. One is a Spanish lock signed and dated 1779. Functions flawlessly. The other is a typical Ottoman/Turkish lock, probably from the early to mid 19th century. While they look different, they both function the same.

Rick

 

[zimmerstutzen]

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:

 

[rickystl]

Flint: Thanks for the great Post and detail of the English lock. Sometimes refereed to as the Jacobian lock. Essentially, a snaphaunce lock, but now with a one-piece frizzen and pan cover and a simple safety notch integral with the sear lever. The one-piece pan/frizzen cover being a major refinement for the period.

The predecessor to this English lock, as mentioned, being the snaphaunce. Here is an English snaphaunce lock from The Rifle Shoppe.
The frizzen and pan cover are separate pieces. The sliding pan cover being a carry-over from the wheellock period. And the lateral sear being in use. There was only one notch on the tumbler for full ****. Typically, the safety would be to simply leave the frizzen in the forward position so the flint could not reach the frizzen face in case of accidental trigger pull. But this lock has an interesting safety feature at the rear of the lock plate. Guess you could consider it a secondary safety feature.

Rick