Snap vs sear type matchlocks

[Büchse]

I was wondering about pros and cons of snapping matchlocks compared to the sear/squeeze lever ones.
Seems like the snapping system was abandoned for later european matchlocks, but in japan for example persisted on all guns.
I've heared some claims that the snapping matchlock, while having a faster ignition, also tends to put out the match.

Also i was thinking about the placement of the serpentine.
Some guns have it on the left side of the lock while others on the right, does this make any difference?
My impression is that if the serpentine is facing you it's easier to palce the match in the jaws and keep an eye on it.

Let me know you guys thoughts.

 

[TobJohn]

Someone like @Pukka Bundook or @Flint62Smoothie could probably answer the practical shooting aspects. Japanese matchlocks evolved from 16th century European snapping matchlocks, which had the serpentine behind the pan. The front vs rear of European matchlocks is probably just ease of lock design for snapping vs lever locks. Most of the snapping locks have it behind, while almost all European lever locks have it in front. For European matchlocks, it should be noted that most of the snapping lock (serpentine behind the pan) used a bit of tinder, not a match chord.

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

I think TobJohn did a wonderful job of explaining the differences!

Yes a snapping lock can put out the slow match due to it smashing into the pan, but as he said they were designed to be ignited/shot with a tinder, think like a smoldering charcloth or tinder fungus.

Remember that Japan became a closed society and their ‘Tanegashima’ stayed with the forward throwing snap lock where the serpentine was hinged at the rear of the action … because that is all they knew, developed when they copied the Portuguese ‘Goa’.

In regards to speed of ignition, I cannot say nor support the claim that a snaplock is faster in ignition than a lever or trigger fired matchlock per se. If the lock time, just due to the lock type alone, may fall faster, I would argue that with the other types you can may be able to make a much more accurate shot, as the shot is less disturbed than by a falling serpentine powered by a spring.

With a rear facing serpentine you can see the match lowering down just above the fence, so you know the match is just hovering above the powder.

I will opine (but have not made one ‘yet’ to prove the claim), that a rifled matchlock of lever or trigger design would probably be the most accurate black powder arm, or at least have the fastest lock time because the speed of ignition is instant, as it is the speed of the black powder ’explosion’ itself. I believe the ignition/firing sequence of a matchlock to be even faster than percussion arms!

Due to the toggle and lever arrangement, most of them have a ‘trigger feel’ akin to a modern military 2-stage trigger (not a traditional black powder ‘double set’ trigger!). The 1st press or stage has the most movement and lowers the match, leaving it just above the pan and the slightest next 2nd press of the trigger, the second stage, drops it into the pan lightly.

My circa 1515 snap lock (58-cal) is a rifled carbine, but I’d love to see the accuracy potential of say a 54-cal rifled lever or trigger matchlock of at least 38” barrel, with a period peep sight like crossbows had used!

 

[Sam squanch]

Most target matchlocks- as opposed to ones for war- were snappers. And they were made and used into the 1700’s. Less of a jarring of the gun than with a flintlock. That Rudyard guy from NZ would know more.

 

[Pukka Bundook]

Flint,
I do not know what sort of a spring is in your snaplock, but it should be very light, so no jarring at all as the trigger is pressed.
If I were to build a target matchlock, it would definitely be a snaplock. (tinderlock,.. mushroom lock, all same!)
My trigger operated lock works well enough, but is as slow as the trigger pull of course! so from beginning to press the trigger, until match meets powder is of course much slower than the snaplock, where the match is in the pan nothing flat.

I can see a great challenge here! a cobbled up target arm with a lever or trigger set up, and a snaplock operated by trigger or button!!
and a shoot off!
We would have to agree on stock form to judge fairly though.

Then all we need is time to cobble and a steady arm!

I do have a 42" .50 cal rifled barrel in the eaves, plus a .58 cal 32" barrel. both unused but had years.

Edited to add;

It has been some idle speculation on my part, but many but by no means all, snap-locks send the serpent forward into the pan;

This makes me wonder if this was because a stiff piece of tinder in the jaws of the serpent, falling fast Towards the shooter, may fling some priming into the shooters eyes ?
Particularly if for some reason the priming did not ignite. (very remote chance!)
Again, mere speculation!

 

[Canute Rex]

Smoothie has a good point about the gradual nature of the lever matchlock. In fact, my friend Steve has a copy he made of a 1715 Germanic rifled matchlock with a gradual trigger lock. It's a tack driver. The Germans kept the matchlock for target use right into the flintlock era because of *zero lock time.*

My signature photo at left is of my Leonard Day caliver. When I shoot it I lower the match slowly into the pan. The glowing end of the match disappears behind the flash guard and...BOOM! The ball has left the barrel by the time I could flinch. It's a decided advantage which partially makes up for my lack of natural talent.

I don't see an advantage to a snap lock.

 

[hectorintca]

I think TobJohn did a wonderful job of explaining the differences!

Yes a snapping lock can put out the slow match due to it smashing into the pan, but as he said they were designed to be ignited/shot with a tinder, think like a smoldering charcloth or tinder fungus.

Remember that Japan became a closed society and their ‘Tanegashima’ stayed with the forward throwing snap lock where the serpentine was hinged at the rear of the action … because that is all they knew, developed when they copied the Portuguese ‘Goa’.

In regards to speed of ignition, I cannot say nor support the claim that a snaplock is faster in ignition than a lever or trigger fired matchlock per se. If the lock time, just due to the lock type alone, may fall faster, I would argue that with the other types you can may be able to make a much more accurate shot, as the shot is less disturbed than by a falling serpentine powered by a spring.

With a rear facing serpentine you can see the match lowering down just above the fence, so you know the match is just hovering above the powder.

I will opine (but have not made one ‘yet’ to prove the claim), that a rifled matchlock of lever or trigger design would probably be the most accurate black powder arm, or at least have the fastest lock time because the speed of ignition is instant, as it is the speed of the black powder ’explosion’ itself. I believe the ignition/firing sequence of a matchlock to be even faster than percussion arms!

Due to the toggle and lever arrangement, most of them have a ‘trigger feel’ akin to a modern military 2-stage trigger (not a traditional black powder ‘double set’ trigger!). The 1st press or stage has the most movement and lowers the match, leaving it just above the pan and the slightest next 2nd press of the trigger, the second stage, drops it into the pan lightly.

My circa 1515 snap lock (58-cal) is a rifled carbine, but I’d love to see the accuracy potential of say a 54-cal rifled lever or trigger matchlock of at least 38” barrel, with a period peep sight like crossbows had used!

Sirs;
I wish I had the knowledge and experience to build a rifled matchlock. Sounds like you have a great time sending rounds downrange with them.
Hector

 

[Büchse]

Thanks for all the answers.
The comparison to modern triggers makes sense, but it's true that snapping locks were popular on target guns, so there might be something to it.
Also i had totally forgot about the mushroom tinder thing, which i assume needs to be replaced with each shot?

https://collections.royalarmouries.org/object/rac-object-219link is to a target matchlock from 1750

 

[TobJohn]

Thanks for all the answers.
The comparison to modern triggers makes sense, but it's true that snapping locks were popular on target guns, so there might be something to it.
Also i had totally forgot about the mushroom tinder thing, which i assume needs to be replaced with each shot?

https://collections.royalarmouries.org/object/rac-object-219link is to a target matchlock from 1750

I took this pretty bad photo of two of the Royal Armoury’s target matchlocks, but you can see how small the serpentines are. Not a whole lot of mass moving when shot, so probably has minimal impact on the shooters aim.

I have been wondering about replacing the tinder, too. I assume there has to be some method to easily light it between shots. There are paintings of arquebusiers with tinder lock guns and lit match chord wrapped around their arms, but that seems impractical.

 

[TobJohn]

Flint,
I do not know what sort of a spring is in your snaplock, but it should be very light, so no jarring at all as the trigger is pressed.
If I were to build a target matchlock, it would definitely be a snaplock. (tinderlock,.. mushroom lock, all same!)
My trigger operated lock works well enough, but is as slow as the trigger pull of course! so from beginning to press the trigger, until match meets powder is of course much slower than the snaplock, where the match is in the pan nothing flat.

I can see a great challenge here! a cobbled up target arm with a lever or trigger set up, and a snaplock operated by trigger or button!!
and a shoot off!
We would have to agree on stock form to judge fairly though.

Then all we need is time to cobble and a steady arm!

I do have a 42" .50 cal rifled barrel in the eaves, plus a .58 cal 32" barrel. both unused but had years.

Edited to add;

It has been some idle speculation on my part, but many but by no means all, snap-locks send the serpent forward into the pan;

This makes me wonder if this was because a stiff piece of tinder in the jaws of the serpent, falling fast Towards the shooter, may fling some priming into the shooters eyes ?
Particularly if for some reason the priming did not ignite. (very remote chance!)
Again, mere speculation!

You could build a rifle with these locks and then you have one gun to test both!

The original petronels that Michael posted (and I stole the photos of) may be some of my favorite muzzleloaders, but probably less practical for target shooting.

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

Flint, I do not know what sort of a spring is in your snaplock, but it should be very light, so no jarring at all as the trigger is pressed.

Yeah, it's not heavy at all so I may well be 'off' a bit in regards to the spring motion itself jarring the shot, but I know on my Tanegashima replica there is quite the snap, which again doesn't prove anything with it being a replica. It still is a mechanical interface that isn't controlled by the shooter.

I shoot my lever/trigger matchlocks like @Canute Rex does his and our friend Steve A does his. Lowering the match until just visible above the fence, then continue your well-aimed shot with a slight press of the trigger. In fact, it was Steve's matchlock that 1st captured my fancy for the pre-rock locks!

 

[Pukka Bundook]

Buchse,
Yes, the tinder was replaced for each shot.
TobJohn,
I too think that a petronel would be tough to master as a target arm!

Canute Rex,
Its a case of horses for courses, whichever you prefer for target work.
I will stay with my snaplock, as the trigger is set up as light and tight as a set trigger, but as we know, target arms also used a scear bar or lever and trigger lever, and yes, when shooting my trigger lever, I pull slowly until the serpent is just about to disappear behind the fence, then give it a little snap and off she goes!

 

[rickystl]

Great Thread guys. While I'm mostly a novice shooting matchlocks, I also found the same differences shooting the India Torador, lever style matchlock versus the Japanese Tanegashima snaplock style.
The one thing I found with the Jap matchlock that requires some extra caution: Even in the cocked position, the serpentine sits very close to the pan (at least with mine). Close enough that it would be easy for a stray coal to fall into the pan making the gun go off accidentally when you don't expect it. I found it best to have the gun shouldered and pointed down range before sliding the pan cover open.

Rick

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

I found it best to have the gun shouldered and pointed down range before sliding the pan cover open.

That should be the standard course of firing sequence for any matchlock ... also blowing any prime (before loading the punk/tinder/match) by blowing 'across' the barrel/lock.

 

[rickystl]

That should be the standard course of firing sequence for any matchlock ... also blowing any prime (before loading the punk/tinder/match) by blowing 'across' the barrel/lock.

With the Jap matchlock, I should have said "cheeked" rather than shouldered. LOL

Rick

 

[Irishmusket]

The number one first thing is learning how to safely handle burning match and gun powder with muskets especially in the field hunting or in mass formations in public displays or at the range .You can blow your self up or set your clothes on fire with serious or fatal injuries to your self or bystanders .Learning how to **** your match is essential to reliable function and major cause of misfires and unintentional discharge .

 

[russellshaffer]

Good points here. I had a few unintentional discharges while learning how to manage my first matchlock. Almost singed my eyebrows once. Just expect a possible discharge at any time once the pan cover is opened. And maybe even if it's closed. Fire and powder in proximity after all.

 

[Irishmusket]

I have a long history with matchlocks Decades never blew my self up but had some close calls before using a matchlock do a safety check First thing is make sure it is not loaded 2 check lock for function make sure pan cover is present and will reasonably seal priming and stay secure until opened manually by you when ready to fire Never use a musket with out a pan cover or a lose or poorly fitted pan cover this very dangerous condition.Avoid the use r4ff powder fine grain powder especially 4 ff is for hand grenades not muskets .2ff is fine for primming and charging the musket .I use 80 to 85 gains 1f musket powder and prime with 3 ff powder an once and 1/4 of no 4shot or a 690 ball no patch with wad on top of ball these loads are traditional for these muskets and are very effective for the purpose 40+strides with shot 100 strides with ball .My muskets are all in the kings gauge 12 shot s to pound of lead between 74 and 75 cal. a 690 ball is 12 shot to pound of lead you would not think that would work all that good but it dose at 75 yards it pass though 2and &half inches of oak with out a problem groups 2 to 3 inches at 40 yards is typical for musket and effective given the size and weight of the ball not as accurate as a rifle but effective and far more destructive than 45 to 58 cal rifle.Priming a matchlock avoid using 4ff for priming it is to fine for job it is almost like powder dust the fine grains are challenging to safety and should never be used .Use 2ff or 3ff to prime never 4 ff never never load a main charge 3 ff or 4 ffin a musket. before loading a musket make sure it is not infact loaded this has been ruin of some I had a customer that blew up a TC Hawken 50 cal rifle by loading powder and patched ball in a loaded barrel resulting catastrophic barrel burst which destroyed the rifle and he has several less fingers Now.

 

[Pukka Bundook]

Irish,
I have and will continue to prime with 4F in a matchlock.
I use 2 F to prime with flint, but not match.
Ic an see no reason for Not priming with 4 F. It works best for me and a Very fine prime was used back in the day.

I have also been using a matchlock many years now, and never even had a surprise ignition, never mind not blowing myself up. I Did once pick up a flat tin of powder, forgetting that hand still held the slow match! That was a fair burn, but aloe overcame it Very quickly.

All the best,
Richard.

 

[Rudyard]

Smoothie has a good point about the gradual nature of the lever matchlock. In fact, my friend Steve has a copy he made of a 1715 Germanic rifled matchlock with a gradual trigger lock. It's a tack driver. The Germans kept the matchlock for target use right into the flintlock era because of *zero lock time.*

My signature photo at left is of my Leonard Day caliver. When I shoot it I lower the match slowly into the pan. The glowing end of the match disappears behind the flash guard and...BOOM! The ball has left the barrel by the time I could flinch. It's a decided advantage which partially makes up for my lack of natural talent.

I don't see an advantage to a snap lock.

Well that's good you don't need the snap lock .Ime easy but use both making no claim to advance either, But much depends on knowing your gun & practice choose which you have .I just sent pics of two of my pet M locks the common & the Snap sort .Pukka is right its not ideal to have too strong a spring in your Snap lock . I may be a 'Guru' but' Pukka is a' Sadou ' .Viz ' Teacher ' &' Holy man
'Respectively That should amuse him.
Regard Rudyard