Why are Miquelets relegated to pre-flintlock?

[Clark Badgett]

From what I can find, they seem to have had a similar timeframe trajectory (+/-) as the French lock style.

 

[russellshaffer]

A good question. After all, they are pretty much just an inside out flintlock and they work the same way. I personally like to see all of the moving parts.

 

[Sam squanch]

Let’s ask Rudyard…..

 

[cyten]

AFAIK, the true French Flintlock we know was developed in the early 17th century. The Miquelet has been around since the mid 16th century. So, it was before the Flintlock.

 

[Clark Badgett]

AFAIK, the true French Flintlock we know was developed in the early 17th century. The Miquelet has been around since the mid 16th century. So, it was before the Flintlock.

Actually the Miquelet was a type of flintlock, along with the snaphance, French lock and dog lock if one was to be technical. In that respect the padilla belongs in flintlock discussions since it may, or may not be the start of the system. No one really seems to be exactly sure just when they came about.

 

[Colonial Boy]

A good question. After all, they are pretty much just an inside out flintlock and they work the same way. I personally like to see all of the moving parts.

Same here and they make for a stronger stock.

 

[FlinterNick]

From what I can find, they seem to have had a similar timeframe trajectory (+/-) as the French lock style.

A lot of times writers in magazines lump the miquelete into a separate category because there were much earlier lock designs in other countries like Sweden, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire that are not inherently miquelete but are similar. While they were not all the same or as advanced as the Spanish style, they shared a similar concept and miquelete are often mistaken as an upgrade of a much earlier style lock For example a causack / Tatar snaplock really should be in its own category, but collectors and writers often lump them together segregated from Flintlocks as pre-true flintlock era locks.

 

[Clark Badgett]

A lot of times writers in magazines lump the miquelete into a separate category because there were much earlier lock designs in other countries like Sweden, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire that are not inherently miquelete but are similar. While they were not all the same or as advanced as the Spanish style, they shared a similar concept and miquelete are often mistaken as an upgrade of a much earlier style lock For example a causack / Tatar snaplock really should be in its own category, but collectors and writers often lump them together segregated from Flintlocks as pre-true flintlock era locks.

Good points.

 

[rickystl]

It gets a bit complicated. LOL While miquelet lock guns are not relegated to only the Pre-Flintlock section of the Forum, they somehow end up being posted there, for the most part. Possibly due to early postings discussing guns in use from areas of the Ottoman Empire where the miquelet lock usage was early on. And that seemed to spur comments on miquelet locks in general.
I concur with the points Nick posted above. As a general talking point, the miquelet lock did continue it's development and refinement along side the flintlock till a more final version of what we call the true French-style flintlock from about 1650 became the general acceptance at that time, with it's internal mainspring and vertical sear assembly. The miquelet lock continued with it's external mainspring and a horizonal sear arrangement.
The miquelet lock continued with refinement during the snaphaunce period and later locks (dog locks English lock, various Scandinavian snap locks, etc.) I've always thought the miquelet lock began development in the late 1500's. But there is some evidence it was in the mid-1500's. No one's absolutely sure.

Rick

 

[Rudyard]

Let’s ask Rudyard…..

I think Rick & Cyten sum it up ,I do have Thorsden Lenks' The flintlock its origin & Development' Ile look him up but I think its now clear there where a lot of" Enigma variations on a popular theme by Mendleson ." aspects. ' Or chicken & eggs ' angles Quite enough to confuse me .
Rudyards view