A 1548 Nuremberg Dagger-grip Over-and-Under Double Wheellock Pistol

[Matchlock]

Hi Raf,



You are really good, I must say!
Although I was a teacher, and some members called teaching what I am trying to achieve here, this was of course not a test. You would have passed brilliantly though!


From my practical experience testing early wheellocks and matchlocks, some of the latter being in my own collection, I can tell that once it has been screwed in, that wing nut will block the sear from working on a mid-16th c. Nuremberg detached tinderlock mechanism, as well as on another Nuremberg ca. 1550 combined match- and tinderlock mechanism.

As these two tinderlocks are both so remarkable, I decided to dedicate to them a thread of their own.


As you correctly said, the lateral push button on early Germanic wheellocks after ca. 1525 worked as a reinforcing means of pressing the nose of the sear into the respective recess in the wheel; so it's more or less a sort of safety mechanism to amend the contact between the sear (nose) and the wheel when the latter is spanned. In other words, this safety mechanism acted opposed to a set trigger system.

I recall when the sear on those wheellocks was disengaged/released, you had to press really hard and the sear would be released making an astonishingly loud and hard-clicking sound! Wheellocks of that construction were favoured especially in Styria, where they were made from ca. 1530 to 1550 but in the Landeszeughaus Graz many wheellock guns of the 1580's and well after 1600 still employed the same archaic safety mechanism.



Best,
Michael

[Raf]

Hullo Michael . Yes , I always thought it was interesting the way the deficiencies of a single locking bar ; a tendency not to engage fully with the wheel slot and drop out formed the idea behind the two part sear and prop. Having said that in practice its often quite difficult to get the primary sear to disengage from the wheel unless the sear nose and slot are exactly the right shape. Too sloppy and the wheel doesn't lock off in the right place and you get problems with the pan cover link not keeping the pan shut properly . I don't think people always appreciate how tricky it was to get these all these things right.
And yes ; single locking bars do need a lot of effort to get them to disengage , hence a long or very hard trigger pull . So the cam or wedge type release system illustrated by Leonardo but seen on other locks does have something to recommend it .

[Matchlock]

Hi Raf,



Enclosed please find photos from early wheellocks in the Landeszeughaus Graz, Styria, all employing the lateral push button.

Please note that the first, all aspects considered, is ca. 1540, while the lock and barrel (dated 1537, not 1527 as erroneously read by the Graz curators!) are Nuremberg, the stock was renewed in about 1580, and both the lock and barrel have undergone considerable later alterations ...!

For comparison, I attached images of a fine Nuremberg Landsknecht matchlock arquebus, the barrel featuring the same crossed arrows mark and dated 1539; the counterpart to m gun is preserved in the Germanisches Nationalmuseum Nürnberg, but in much worse condition than mine!

The last in row is dated 1568 on the Nuremberg barrel that was almost certainly made by Hans Mörl, whose hourglass mark we know from matchlock mechanisms.



Best,
Michael

[Matchlock]

Attachments of my fine Nuremberg Landsknecht matchlock arquebus, the barrel double-struck by the Master of the Crossed Arrows.
The exact counterpart, with identical marks and date, only much worse in condition and acid-cleaned, is preserved in the Germanisches Nationalmuseum Nürnberg.

I have record of a great number of fine cranequins, most of them dated, and a few arquebuses in the museums at Ingolstadt (Bavarian Army Museum) and Nuremberg, by this prolific and good Nuremberg workshop that was active from ca. the 1520's to ca. 1550; both cranequins and matchlock arquebus barrels are known that are struck with dates ranging from 1532 to 1545.


m

[Matchlock]

And a close-up of the marks and the date 1539 - cf. the way the cyphers on the Nuremberg barrel '1537' (now in Graz) are struck!

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...lock+harquebus



m

[Raf]

On lateral push buttons...
In case anyones confused by this esoteric conversation. With a 'normal ' 2 part sear and prop system two relatively light springs are used to push the release prop under the tail of the primary sear and push the primary sear into the wheel slot .Which is fine except that strength of the primary sear spring is a bit of a compromise . Two weak and it may not push the primary sear in far enough so the secondary prop wont engage . Two strong and it creates extra drag on the internal face of the wheel creating unnecessary friction and wear to the end of the primary sear. The push button allows the spring to be omitted since pressing the button while the wheel is being spanned ensures the sear is always going to fully enter the wheel slot so that the secondary prop will always engage. But will not drag on the face of the wheel when released. In some locks it looks as if the role of the sear spring may actually be reversed and is used to help the sear disengage from the wheel . But if i'm wrong I am sure Michael will correct me. Everybody clear ?
And Michael ; thanks for the brilliant photographs of locks one doesn,t normally get to see. However ; on another thread I suggested that the use of square bolts , (as on these locks ) rather than screws on the major components of some early locks was a distinctive feature that might be indicative of a geographic link or a guide to dateing . Do you have a view on this ?

[Matchlock]

Hi Raf,


I am afraid we have been stating some things completely wrong here as lateral push buttons on early wheellocks are concerned.

I have had a long talk with a friend of mine. His name is Armin König, and be builds the best firing gun replicas by far, the best I ever saw!!! He builds them so exactly after the best originals in big museums and from my own collection that they are exactly identical to the originals - down to the last milllimeter and to one or two grams in weight!!! We have often examined guns together, be it in famous museums or at the viewings of big auction sales houses; it usually takes him four to five hours to completely dismantle a gun, draw a plan and take all the single measurements and weights of each tiny part!!! Nobody is allowed to get near him during that time of utmost concentration. He builds everything with his own hands, not with the help of an engine-lathe. He is as devoted to his work as I am to mine - mine basically is the forum. He is a walking phenomenon and what he builds is pure perfection. Our minds think alike. And he, just like me, loves cats.

He categorically does not do any restorations to antique objects. When some tiny part is missing from a pistol in a museum or in some private collection he calls it a pity but would never touch and replace any part of an original piece. The reason being that he builds everything strictly after an original piece; never would he change the slightest detail or/and build what he and I both call 'fantasy pieces'. As nobody can tell for sure how exactly a missing piece looked he leaves damaged weapons alone. When a ramrod on a piece he has set his mind on rebuilding seems to be a replacement or is missing, he will build the piece with a ramrod that anybody would call 'replaced'.




As some people have presented the 'works' of their favorite gun constructors here, please let me show a few things of the best of them all.

Please allow me to link him here, he is an absolute idealist and a great person:
http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/.../Firearms.html
http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/...ockmusket.html
http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/...s/Caliver.html
http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/...ockmusket.html
http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/...ockpistol.html
http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/...ockpuffer.html
http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/...lehackbut.html
http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/...Bandolier.html
http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/...Wheellock.html


Well, Armin read our discussion on the forum. At first he was d'accord, but a few hours later he got back with me and told me the truth. I used to teach him many of the things he knows today and I still am his sole 'authority' as to dating objects. But I am proud as a peacock and thankful that he taught me in this aspect. What more can a dedicated teacher expect than his best-ever student surpassing him?!


Now here are the mere facts, and I stated them as short and precise as I could:

Most of the earliest Germanic wheellock mechanisms had only a sear spring that acted so that it prevented the nose of the sear from resting in the notch of the wheel. 'Earliest' meaning from the beginning, which certainly must have happened during the second half of the 15th century, until at least the mid-16th c., in many cases well after 1600, though.
In order to force that nose to safely rest in the notch of the wheel when the wheel chain was spanned, all locks of such an early Germanic type of construction - this neutral formulation helps avoiding regional or dating problems - needed a lateral push button outside the lock plate that had to be pressed. When you press that button you can feel the force of the sear spring counteracting. Only when that push button 'clicks' into its assigned position the nose of the sear has safe contact with the depth of the wheel notch.

So that's all there really is to that push button discussion. May I advise you to closely study Robert Brooker, Landeszeughaus Graz, Austria: Radschloss-Sammlung/Wheellock Collection, Hong Kong 2007, ISBN 978-0-9795532-0-2.

On p. 77, four views of the North-Italian type of lock (Robert thinks that the lock is ca. 1520, but actually it should be correctly dated 'ca. 1540') of RG 3 are represented; in the bottom view you will see the tiny sear spring, cf. also the second view on the following page.
Let's go to p. 80, RG 4: the barrel dated 1558 and the lock contemporary. In view 4 of the Germanic-type lock, you can see the same spring principle, this time combined with a lateral push button to force the nose of the sear into the notch of the wheel.
As the 16th c. proceeded, Styria contiuned holding on to the archaic type of push button as it promised maximum safety. On p. 92ff, there are images of a heavy wall gun, FRG 285: the barrel and lock are Styria, ca. 1560, the stock was renewed in ca. 1700! Views 3 and 4 on p. 93 clearly demonstrate that the push button on this lock now has its own spring on which it acts.

Robert's book is basically very good work and worth buying; you literally get thousands of images although the Chinese printing greatly quality varies from page to page. When Robert attended me and my collection a few years ago, I explained to him my criticism as to dating many guns and pieces of accouterment, and he accepted it.

I wish to tell the following in no uncertain terms: even for museum standard people (!), the competency of the present Graz staff is horribly low!

E.g., they misread the date struck on the Nuremberg barrel of the arquebus RG 2 as '1527' though it really is 1537. They did not even know the mere facts that the barrel was of Nuremberg make and that complete arquebuses existed with barrels bearing the same characteristic type of arrow marks and dated of 1537 and 1539; they are preserved in the Bavarian Army Museum Ingolstadt, the Germanisches Nationalmuseum Nürnberg, and in my collection. Please see post 23f. in this thread above.
Misled by that wrong type and the archaic impact of the North Italian type of lock, Robert misdated the lock and barrel as '1527'; what he correctly remarked though is that the gun was restocked at the end of the 16th c.



Now finally here are some impressions of earliest firearms that my friend Armin König rebuilt - enjoy!


Best,
Michael