ALGERIAN KABYLE MUSKET for Comment

[corrado26]

The lock of a moukhala has details that give me reason to ask some questions:

When the battery is closed there is a remarkable gap between pan and the battery what is not explainable for me. As far as I know there have no parts of the lock been replaced so that I am convinced that the battery is the original one. But why this big gap? In my foto archive I have some more pictures of locks of the same type that show the same gap. Does anyone know the reason for this gap?

When the battery is closed one can see a small hole with a diameter of ca. 2mm and a depth down to the screw that fixes the battery. What is this hole made for?

[rickystl]

Hi Corrado.

That's a nice looking Algerian lock. I think I may be able to help. At least partially. I looked at all of my Algerian locks. And all have this hole, but with a tiny pin in the hole. I've never really noticed this until now. There is also a smaller hole on the bottom of the frizzen screw area opposite the hole on top.
Here is a "parts" lock I have. It appears what we call a frizzen "screw" is not really a screw. Even though the screw on the outside has a slot for a screwdriver, there are no threads in the hole where the frizzen screw seats on the inside of the lock.The one pic below explains it better. So for this conversation we will call the frizzen screw a frizzen "pin". LOL It appears that the tiny pin on yours is missing. Look close and see if there is a smaller hole on your lock below the frizzen pin area like the photo below. I'm guessing that if the frizzen pin is removed there would be another hole in the pin itself. Honestly, I've never taken on apart at this area to find out. That would be three holes total. My guess is that once the frizzen pin was inserted, a hole was drilled all the way through the top, pin, and lower area, and a tiny pin inserted what is now three holes, to keep the frizzen pin itself from working it's way out. So, if your tiny pin is missing, you can probably take a punch and small ball peen hammer and knock the frizzen pin out.
You would think it it would be much easier to simply thread the end of the frizzen pin and the hole in the lockplate, like the hammer screw. I can only speculate the reason for doing it in this matter. It seems they avoided making "threaded" screws or holes whenever possible, especially small screws. But the frizzen pin is not really small. Curious.
The last photo you posted, it does seem that the frizzen is sitting just a bit high in the cradle. Hmmm. Maybe the frizzen pin is slightly bent (?). This, possibly due to the tiny support pin missing (?).
If the tiny pin is missing, and the frizzen pin slightly bent, that could account for this gap between the frizzen cover and the pan. Actually, an easy fix - by the right gunsmith. All the frizzens on my Algerian locks close as normal. But they also all have the pin still in them.
Hope this helps. Let me know.

Rick

[rickystl]

Woops. Somehow the pics didn't post. We'll try again here........

[corrado26]

Hi rickystl,
your theory is quite good and I tried to get out the bolt that holds the battery but it was not possible. The "screw" is not turnable because of rust but I think it is as you said. There has been a pin that secured the bolt.
Best regards
corrado26

[Philip]

The little hole was indeed intended to receive a locking-pin ("fiel" , in Spanish) intended to keep both the pan-cover and cock pivot bolts secure once they were tightened during assembly. Alonzo Martínez de Espinar, in his 1644 treatise ARTE DE BALLESTERÍA Y MONTERÍA, wrote:
"Fieles...are similar to headless nails, that notwithstanding the fact that the threaded screw retains and adjusts the cock, and battery, to the [lock]plate, after being adjusted the screw is drilled through its very threads, and being in place... the fiel is inserted in order that it always remain secure, and adjusted."

James D. Lavin, in A HISTORY OF SPANISH FIREARMS (1965), notes that on early miquelets other screws were secured with fieles as well. The use of these pins began to disappear (in Europe) during the 18th cent., probably because of more precise thread-cutting on screws, and, as Lavin points out, the tremendous pressure of the mainspring against the cock was sufficient to prevent its screw from rotating or backing out. The lighter spring providing tension on the pan-cover/battery made the fiel more necessary and it was the last to disappear.

So, it would not be unusual to find the used of these retaining pins on Algerian locks, considering that they derive from 17th cent. Spanish (Catalan, to be more precise) antecedents. Their continued use on these locks probably speaks to technical conservatism and the relatively poor quality of thread-cutting often found in locks made in the Islamic world.

The complete lack of threads on the battery pivot-bolt of the lock under discussion is an interesting manufacturing shortcut. With a fiel holding it in place, there is no reason why it shouldn't perform as well as a threaded screw. Interesting to note that pre-modern cultures in the East have shown an aversion to threaded screws in mechanical assembly despite their generally high level of metalworking skills. Indian firearms in general don't tend to use them, and an extreme absence of screws is encountered in guns from Japan, Korea, and the Malay Archipelago -- everything is held together with mortises, unthreaded bolts retained by fieles, and by sheer friction. Firearms from China and Vietnam are an in-between, with the better examples containing screwed components as early as the 18th cent., but this may well be the result of Jesuit technical influence (Peking, 17th-18th cent.) and French and Portuguese expat artisans (Annam, 18th cent.).

[Philip]

This seems to be an anomaly, the space is pretty big, it almost negates the purpose of the pan-cover as a means of retaining the fine-grained priming powder in the pan!

Like Rick, I've handled my share of Algerian locks, varying from masterful to crude, and on all of them, the pan cover fit was adequate. Could it be that the problem here might be a pivot bolt (or its corresponding hole in the pan-cover) having suffered excessive wear so that the upward pressure of the battery-spring would tend to lift it clear of the pan? If you applied pressure to the pan-cover when the unit was closed, and it moved downward to meet the pan, that might be the problem.

In general, I find that the overall fit and finish of these Algerian agujetas is pretty darned good. At least when you compare their build quality to most of the Moroccan snaphaunces. The mechanical failings of the agujeta seem to be more a matter of engineering and perhaps premature wear from dicey heat treating. The criticisms of 17th cent. Spanish writers (mentioned in a prior post) point to a problem with the design that was apparent centuries ago.

[rickystl]

Originally Posted by corrado26

Hi rickystl,
your theory is quite good and I tried to get out the bolt that holds the battery but it was not possible. The "screw" is not turnable because of rust but I think it is as you said. There has been a pin that secured the bolt.
Best regards
corrado26

Hi Corrado.

Your lock appears in otherwise good condition. So I don't think it is a case of rust. It seems at some point the fiel (thanks Philip) broke. While the upper half of the fiel is missing, the lower half may still be intact. This, combined with the frizzen pin itself being slightly bent is probably why the pin won't remove. Hmmm. You could take a tiny 1/16" (1.5875mm) drill bit and try drilling where the existing hole is and see if if will drill all the way through. Then you may be able to remove the frizzen pin (?).
Meantime, I'll try this myself on one of my parts locks. Would be interesting to see what the end of the frizzen pin looks like. LOL

Rick

[rickystl]

Hi Philip.

Thanks so much for the information and insight. I always learn something from your comments. LOL
Yes, it's interesting the Eastern gunmakers aversion to using threads whenever possible. The Indian and Japanese matchlocks come to mind. The entire gun was built without using a single screw. And when you do find threads, they are not done as well as their European counterparts. As you mention, it's curious considering their otherwise high level of skill in metal working.
And as you mention, the Algerian locks seem to have design cues from the mid-17th Century. Unless marked, the lock could have been made in 1650 or 1850. LOL Hard to believe they were still being made and used for this long.
And the Moroccan snaphaunce design dates from the late 16th to early 17th Century. Change came very slowly in this part of the World.

Algerian Lock: I believe the screwdriver slot on the frizzen pin is so the three holes could be re-aligned should the frizzen need replaced or other maintenance to the lock.

Rick

[Philip]

Originally Posted by rickystl

Hi Philip.

Change came very slowly in this part of the World.

.

Rick

So true. Consider the use of the Indo-Portuguese snap matchlock in China and Japan as one example. Introduced in the first half of the 16th cent, still being made as late as the 1870s. A colleague who is an expert on historical archery (both research and shooting) pointed out that those Oriental cultures with highly developed composite-recurved bows in their shooting culture were understandably slow in making a total commitment to firearms because their bows could outshoot just about any smoothbore musket in terms of:
1. rate of fire
2. effective range (a strong Turkish bow can cast an arrow in excess of 800 yd)
3. projectile speed (arrows shot from Korean flight bows have been clocked at around 1000 fps)
4. projectile energy (an arrow weighing about 800 g shot from a Manchu bow of about 100# pull weight (medium for one of these) or more could penetrate most chain mail.
5. field accuracy -- LtGen Wm Warre, observing Portuguese and French cavalry skirmishing during the Peninsular War, wrote: "...Our people and theirs were constantly within 30 yd of one another firing with no effect, ...neither party had any idea of fear." The weapons of course were flintlock carbines and pistols. Officer candidates in the Chinese military exams were expected to hit targets at a gallop within that range with their bows. Up to 20-25 yards, it apparently made little difference in accuracy if you were using a smoothbore, or a strong bow if you're shooting from a moving horse.

The big strikes against archery were
1. Bows of this performance level, and arrows of sufficient quality, were expensive to produce and not amenable to mechanized production.
2. An inordinate amount of training was needed for proficiency -- in these cultures, archers learned in childhood and practiced through their teens in order to be ready for military service in the mounted units. Recruits in basic training can be taught to use a smoothbore flintlock to the limits of its performance capability in a week or so.

As breechloading rifles and revolvers spread via trade and colonization in the 19th cent., and new national armies built of conscription became more important than a hereditary military caste (or slave-soldiers as in the case of the Mamluks and Janissaries), only then did the armies of the East fall into line with Western equipment and training standards.