Early Dutch gun

[robinghewitt]

Actually you are wrong.

A tad brusque perhaps, but if you're sure I'm wrong I'd better shut up

 

[benvenuto]

I've never seen anything quite like that lock - thankyou for the explanation.
I was going to say I saw a bit of french style about the rest of the gun - very nice piece and just the period I'm most interested in too

 

[Okwaho]

Robin, I really meant no offence if I came across "a tad brusque".I should have said "respectfully" as I usually do in my lawyerese language.Please accept my humble apologies.
With kindest regards
Tom Patton

 

[robinghewitt]

I should have said "respectfully" as I usually do in my lawyerese language.Please accept my humble apologies.

Hi Tom

Don't worry about it, I have a hide like a rhinoceros. When I come over like I've been cruelly treated it's just a tactic to soften up the opposition. The chances of me actually shutting up about anything once I've started are kind of slim :grin:

You are probably right, I view gun evolution from a peculiarly English perspective, very little idea what the rest of Europe was up to. I do have a Dutch musket c1720-40 and a French flinter c1685 but beyond that I am a bit vague :hatsoff:

best regards

Squire Robin

 

[robinghewitt]

PS: The lock still looks wrong to me :blah:

 

[Okwaho]

Robin, I just sent you an Email off board but am not sure if it was really sent.Please advise if you got it.
Tom

 

[Mike Brooks]

Robin, I just sent you an Email off board but am not sure if it was really sent.Please advise if you got it.
Tom

You guys aren't secretly setting me up to get busted for molesting ducks or something are you? :shocked2: I'm soooo paranoid about those types of things..... :redface:

 

[Okwaho]

Is that why you're always talking about extremely long barrels. There are two guns in the Visser collection with longer barrels than this gun. They are 2,035 mm {80.11811 in.} in approx. .50 cal. and 2,501 mm {98.464566 in.} in approx. .66 cal. as well as a couple in the 70's in.range. They are categorized as "Duck" and "Goose" guns.[Emphasis added since both categories may appy here.]
Tom Patton

 

[gof]

I do have a Dutch musket c1720-40 and a French flinter c1685 but beyond that I am a bit vague

Now slow down just a minute... Could you post pictures of those darlings too?


GoF

 

[robinghewitt]

We've done them before, what you want to see is the picture Okwaho just sent me of Mike molesting a duck :rotf:

 

[tg]

I guess I should have quoted Lenk as the source that my conclusion was drawn from, I would not want to create the illusion that I actually know anything (VBG)

 

[Stophel]

The two late 17th century Dutch guns in "Colonial Frontier Guns" are good examples of this type of lock. Very particularly Dutch (or otherwise NW European) in style, with the kind of "stretched out and rared back" cocks and the abbreviated frizzen springs. Though these two locks do not show the same shape of the tail of the lockplate, I have seen other Dutch locks that have the same slope of the top edge of the rear of the plate as this one.

 

[Okwaho]

I think those two locks in Hamilton {PP.24-5}are indeed Dutch and are usually described as "bellied" locks. Puype in the Trade Gun Conference shows several of these commenting that they almost certainly originated in Holland during the 1620's and probably derived from the Dutch wheelock of the 1620's which was a merger of French and German styles.He further mentions that a relatively large number of bellied lock plates extant feature English locks but that the dominant theory holds that they were either copied from Dutch examples or imported into England from the low countries.Puype assigns a designation of Type II,1620-1650 to these bellied lock plates, "Proceedings of the 1984 Trade Gun Conference" Part I, P.21. I wondered if anyone would pick up on these bellied locks.Leave it to the Dutchman.
Tom Patton

 

[nagant]

torsten lenk? i have his flintlock history from the library. plates 20 and 24 show a peice with a similar lock plate but highly engraved. says french 1630-40

 

[Okwaho]

You have raised an interesting point.Yes Plates 20 and 24 are dated 1630-1640. Lenk wrote this book in 1939{translated 1965}and at the time tentatively believed that the true flintlock originated in France prior to 1620. Subsequent research has now led students to conclude that the flIntlock originated in France during the 1630's, Gusler and Lavin,"Decorated Firearms 1540-1870" PP.3-6. Thus many of the dates of guns of the early 17th century must of necessity be pushed foward about 10-12 years.Later dates have largely evolved into a more correct time parameter.If you start with Plate 20 and move forward you will notice a progression in all the aspects of the guns and especially the architecture and locks.Note how by the mid 17th century {Plates 44 and 45} that the stock architecture and lock profile have evolved into a fully developed style. This is especially true in Plate 45 although the lock profile will change again in the 1660-1670's period to the round faced type of lock which gradually became more banana shaped {plate 84} unti about the late 1690's at which time the locks became flat faced{Plates 85 and 86}.If you are interested in the flint lock and it's development then read Lenk starting at the beginning keeping in mind that in the early 17th century he attributes the date of origin for the flintlock some 10-12 years too early.Also remember Lenk is writing about the development of the flintlock primarily in France and the rest of Europe. The Eglish won't have a true flintlock until after about 1670.
Good Luck
Tom Patton

 

[nagant]

thats why i love this forum! i dont know the diference between snaphunse/ doglock /flintock,or the spelling. but its a great hobby and i love the history.

 

[Teleoceras]

Backwater:

thats why i love this forum! i dont know the diference between snaphunse/ doglock /flintock,or the spelling. but its a great hobby and i love the history.

If you want to see some drawings of the different lock types, you can see them at The Early Locks page.

Slowmatch Forever!
Teleoceras

 

[Maestro]

If you want to see some drawings of the different lock types, you can see them at The Early Locks page.
Teleoceras

Thanks for that great link! (never saw that one before) :hatsoff:

 

[Okwaho]

With all due respect to Mr. Teleoceras,I cannot agree with his categorization of certain early locks and their chronology.It seems to be based on "The Age of Firearms" by Robert Held which was was written in 1957 and revised{?} in 1970 and on "Arms and Armor in Colonial America" by Harold Peterson written in 1956.Both of these books reflect the thinking of half a century ago and a lot of water has passed over the dam since then.Current research and thinking has changed and will continue to change. One of the books I cited,"Decorated Firearms 1540-1870" by Wallace B. Gusler {formerly of Colonial Williamsburg} and James D. Lavin author of two monographs on European guns and written in 1976,reflects the continuing and ongoing research into the field of early firearms.Two others one of which I cited are the six volume set,"The Visser Collection,Arms of the Netherlands",from the vast collection of H.L.Visser edited by J.P.Puype{1996} and "Four Centuries of Liege Gunmaking" by Claude Gaire,Director of the Museum of Liege,Belgium{1986}.
Research into early firearms is and must remain vibrant and ongoing.To do otherwise is to remain static and trapped in a time warp. This is not to say,however, that earlier writers in the field such as Held,Peterson and others should be ignored rather they should be considered as building blocks which one uses to further our knowlege into the field of early firearms.

As I said, I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Teleoceras in some of his categorization and chronology of early European gun locks.I fully realize that some may disagree and that is fine. To Paraphrase the late Joe Kindig Jr. I don't mind one's disagreeing with me. Just do the study and the research to prove one of us wholly or partially correct.
Respectfully
Tom Patton