Leonardo's snap lock. The missing link ?

[Fernando K]

Hello, Raf:

I think the key (lock) has broken the shortest branch mainspring: the square hole in the plate (plate) seems to prove it. Also that the bowl (pan) in the ball and seems to be drawing the battery dock.

I think any key (lock) could depend on the inertia of a rake (Frizen) heavy, without spring, because any sudden movement would that moved out of position. There is, in any museum or collection, a gun (or its remnants) with this feature.

Affectionately. Fernando K

[Raf]

Hullo Fernando.
I did find a different example of a Mongolian lock. Sorry cant post it , so you will have to trust me on this one . It also appeared to have a single leaf mainspring and no frizen spring. But what was interesting is that it had a decorative fence to the end of the flashpan very similar to the one illustrated below; 17C Russian. Appears to be missing from the example above. See also the rearward projection on the steel as in Lenks primitive snaplock. So I think we can assume that the origin of these Mongolian locks are a version of Russian snaplocks and that the primitive release mechanism is an example of reverse engineering adapted to local manufacturing skills , or lack of them !
I know claiming a snaplock without a frizen spring will work is eccentric but I have tested it on Dutch snaphaunces with the spring removed and they do still spark up .