Yippee! Found a date for the early lever or trigger-type Matchlock mechanism!

[Flint62Smoothie]

I myself am going to refer to this generic design (not sure if a lever or a trigger ... or a developmental little of both) as a 'toggle' mechanism matchlock, but a 'sear' mechanism it most assuredly is not. The 'lever' functions to move an action bar that then pivots the serpentine down into the pan.

FWIW where I/we can, I've been trying to date the various actions, as compared to matchlocks that had a crude and large 'S'-shaped serpentine pinned to the side of the stock, where the bottom ~2/3rds or so of the 'S' hung down below the stock or pole arm, so the sheer weight of the lever pulled the match end of the serpentine up and away from the touch hole.

I found this date from perusing article from the American Society of Arms Collectors, a private society of which is invite only and they keep the membership to ~250 members world-wide. Yikes! While I caution other here not to pull dates from paintings or such, as sooooo much artistic license taken could lead us astray, note in this case the codex [akin to an early, early quasi-patent ... more like 'my idea!'] is referenced, as well as the dates of the gunsmith, so we can have more confidence in such dating.

UPDATE - Due to analysis originally done by the late Michael Tromner … that was brought to my attention … it appears this cannot date to any earlier than 1500 and is more likely after that date, but definitely prior to 1550!

 

[wulf1928]

Excellent research........good coverage.

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

Excellent research........good coverage.

Actually … via PM I have been informed that the late Michael Tromner already commented on both the drawing and the date that the codex refers to … and what I put above is also wrong!

A few worked on establishing a timeframe instead and the post was updated.

 

[Pukka Bundook]

So Flint,
When is this arrangement from?
We have seen this drawing for some time, but never got an actual date.
As the one we know as Michael's Tusco-Emilian piece was from the 1520's with a fully developed trigger, I feel this one is a good deal earlier, but am not in the position to do more than guess!

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

As the one we know as Michael's Tusco-Emilian piece was from the 1520's with a fully developed trigger, I feel this one is a good deal earlier, but am not in the position to do more than guess!

The drawing itself appears to be a mis-match of parts with various dates associated with them. Michael's analysis of the various parts depicted in the drawing range from 1500 to 1550, with the parts noted being the presence of the lock plate, modern-type screws, swiveling pan cover, and serpentine clamp.

 

[rickystl]

Many of you know way more on dating early matchlocks than I. But assuming the artist's sketch was accurate (maybe not ?) I would have guessed the 1473 date was too early. For the three primary reasons mentioned above. Maybe around 1500 (?)

Rick

 

[Sam squanch]

Maybe some gunsmith in a backwards province made a matchlock with a very early mechanism at a way later date? Hard to say.

 

[Pukka Bundook]

Flint and Rick,

For what it's worth,
I have never seen an example of a matchlock with this mechanism, have you?
If such a lock was found, it would make dating easier.
The very short stout plate looks like it should belong around 1500 as you say Rick..

 

[TobJohn]

Flint and Rick,

For what it's worth,
I have never seen an example of a matchlock with this mechanism, have you?
If such a lock was found, it would make dating easier.
The very short stout plate looks like it should belong around 1500 as you say Rick..

Michael stated that these are from roughly 1500, so that lines up.

The original lock from the Merz codex almost looks likes a later (by several decades) author was aware of old locks but illustrated them with “modern” locks as his reference, so the general idea matches with reality, but the details are completely off.

Here is another lock from around the same period:

I know you probably know this thread by heart, but for anyone else looking for a good reference:
A matchlock chronology, ca. 1520 to 1720 - Page 2 - Ethnographic Arms & Armour

 

[Pukka Bundook]

I recall that one now, Tob! Have you seen what sort of arm this lock was originally attached to? If I have I don't recall!

The other depictions show a tiller not directly attached to the lock as in the Merz, so feel you are right about the Merz diagram.

 

[TobJohn]

I recall that one now, Tob! Have you seen what sort of arm this lock was originally attached to? If I have I don't recall!

The other depictions show a tiller not directly attached to the lock as in the Merz, so feel you are right about the Merz diagram.

Coincidentally, you actually posted a link to one:

Zoomorphic muzzles on European guns.

 

[Pukka Bundook]

Duh!

Thank you for the reminder, Tob!

 

[TobJohn]

I wonder if these are actually snapping locks.

1. That system exists in 1500
2. It better fits the very limited space for the lever to move (still probably exaggerated by the artist)
3. It’s analogous to how a crossbow functions.

It’s always bothered me that snapping matchlocks never seemed to take any ergonomic inspiration from the trigger of a crossbow and then once crossbows are largely replaced and the next generation of matchlocks comes around, Suddenly the crossbow trigger reappears. If these are snapping matchlocks, they provide a missing link.

 

[Pukka Bundook]

So hard to say on an artists rendition Tob.

The lower one has the sliding collar on the serpent we see on some from the fist part of the 1500's.

I could be wrong, but 'feel' that the fist snap locks had the button instead of a trigger. Whether this was the first type all over Europe I do not know. The button could be on the lock like Michael shows, or ahead or behind the lock if said lock was not a complete unit.
You of course know all this, but I'm thinking aloud!

We see all sorts of strange depictions of guns in art of much more recent times, so at present, will guess that the artist above, had a hazy idea, and will leave it at that!

 

[TobJohn]

So hard to say on an artists rendition Tob.

The lower one has the sliding collar on the serpent we see on some from the fist part of the 1500's.

I could be wrong, but 'feel' that the fist snap locks had the button instead of a trigger. Whether this was the first type all over Europe I do not know. The button could be on the lock like Michael shows, or ahead or behind the lock if said lock was not a complete unit.
You of course know all this, but I'm thinking aloud!

We see all sorts of strange depictions of guns in art of much more recent times, so at present, will guess that the artist above, had a hazy idea, and will leave it at that!

Yeah, the button trigger ones are well attested to in art AND survivors.

I also realized the two guns have neither an external spring or a catch for the sear, so if the artist was making an honest depiction of the guns then either they are “normal” matchlocks, or a more convoluted snapping system then we currently know of. Definitely most likely the artist just took a more abstract approach, as you said.

 

[tom in nc]

I like it.

 

[TobJohn]

View attachment 284727
I like it.

You (or anyone else interested) should have a look through the original codex. The online version is a little clunky, but it’s a fascinating example of “no bad ideas is brainstorming” and all the whacky engineering ideas of the renaissance.
Digitale Bibliothek - Münchener Digitalisierungszentrum

 

[wulf1928]

Maybe this helps...... sorry, no date