Introducing myself and some thoughts on wheel/tinder locks

[batjka]

Gentlemen,

I would like to thank everyone on this forum for providing a wealth of information on development of Arms and Armor. I have been lurking here for a couple of months reading various threads and gaining knowledge on subjects that are extremely interesting to anyone who cares about history.

I don't have an amazing collection like some folks here. In fact, I have no gun earlier than 1888 in my modest possession. Maybe some day when the kids are grown and I am old and decrepit I will blow my savings on several 15th century wheel locks. In the mean time, I am here to learn and appreciate others' experience and knowledge.

Now, some thoughts on combination wheel lock/tinder lock weapons. It had been suggested in various sources that the reason snap locks were combined with wheel locks is for "insurance" purposes. Meaning that the wheel locks were fragile and prone to breaking and thus a second means of ignition was added (a tinder lock) in case the main lock breaks. After thinking about it, I came to a conclusion that it is not so.

A wheel lock takes a lot more time to get to readiness - it has to be spun first, "hammer" lowered etc. In a combat situation it is much faster to use a tinder lock - just cock, load, prime and pull the trigger. So in my opinion the tinder lock is the main combat lock on these combination guns. The wheel lock is there to make the first shot only. The rest of the shots are made using the second lock. A wheel lock could also be used to ignite the tinder or a match cord for subsequent use after the first shot.

Opinions?

[Matchlock]

Hi,


First of all I wish to emphasize the fact there never was such a thing as '15th century wheellocks'. The earliest known datable and primitive wheellocks seem to have been made in the 16th century, which is the late 1520's:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...rossbow+munich

and the earliest known dated wheellock is an arquebus (a small and short gun), made by Bartholome Marquart of Augsburg for the Emperor Charles V, and now preserved in the Real Armería Madrid, inv.no. K32. It is dated 1530 (top four attachments) on the barrel.

Thus we may assume that the earliest humble origins of the wheellock may have been as early as the late 15th c. but there is not the tiniest existing relic of such a mechanism, and no actually existing real gun (combination weapons excluded) in private hands is older than the 1540's. The oldest vague mentions in written documents seem to originate from the first and second decade of the 16th c.
A sample of the earliest known piece of that kind of ignition is in my collection: a detached North Italian wheellock mechanism of ca. 1535-40, from a combination weapon, most probably a war hammer or axe combined with a wheellock gun:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=7094

Only a mere handful of pre-1560 guns are known to exist in private collections, so any collector should call himself a lucky guy if he is given the chance to acquire a pistol, arquebus or long gun from the 1560's.


This settled, I should put it straight that the tinderlock doubtlessly was the earliest mechanical ignititing mechanism on any firearm. We have records of period artwork as early as 1411, from Johann Hartlieb's illuminated manuscript on war techniques, Austrian National Library (ÖNB), Vienna, cod.vind. 3069 (attachments #5 and 6).
Please also see my thread on the oldest known existing complete tinderlock gun in my collection:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=7077



The tinderlock, mostly used in a snapping version by the early 16th c. - a fine detached mechanism of ca. 1510-15 with lateral push-button trigger is in my collection, see attachments #7 and 8) - , stayed in use at least until the early Thirty Years War in the 1620's but is [B]often found in combination with a wheellock mechanism from 1532 (a dated arquebus in the Musée d'Armes, Liège, attachments at bottom):


I gather from your post that it was that latter wheellock-tinderlock (or matchlock) combination that you were interested in.

In my collection there are 4 military wheellock muskets (dating of ca. 1590, 1600, 1640 and 1652-3 respectively), 2 combined wheel- and snap-tinderlock muskets (Suhl, dated 1602 and ca. 1660-70 respectively, overview photo attached), plus a number of fine detached wheellock and combined wheel- and snap-tinderlock mechanisms (top attachment, see next follower post).
About 20 years ago, I carried out a working test with an original detached wheellock mechanism, Northern Italy, ca. 1600, that was preserved in pristine, near mint condition. I put it tightly in a jaw vise, fixed a pyrite in its lead lining between the jaws of the wheellock dog, spanned the wheel using an original 400 year-old spanner, applied priming powder on the pan, closed the pan cover and pulled the trigger mechanism allowing the wheel to rotate back and generate sparks of the pyrite that immediately ignited the priming powder - just the way it was meant to do 400 years ago.
With this action repeated for about only 8 to 10 times, the first symptoms of fatigue appeared: a massive powder fouling had been produced and interfered with the wheel, slowing down its rotation and resulting in ignition failures. Shortly afterwards, after spanning and triggering the wheel for about 10-12 times, the sear nose as well as the notch in the wheel, lost their crispness and the sear failed to hold the wheel in the spanned position. This of course would have meant that the wheellock gun did not work any more and had to be put aside to be repaired in the arsenal.

Inspired by this experience, I closely examined the locks of all my wheellock muskets. The result was that those that were preserved in perfectly original condition all had severe mechanical failures that only allowed one conclusion: they were put aside due to failures 350 to 400 years ago but never actually saw repair. Nevertheless they were kept in the town arsenals, thus becoming museum pieces - an observation I found confirmed over the decades by dismantling many wheellock muskets in the reserve collections of various museums.

My conclusion is that many wheellock weapons could not stand hard 'military' service. Their mechanism comprised between 30 and 50 parts, and they were ordered by the town councils for their arsenals because they represented period 'high tech' and were expensive. In many old arsenal orders of the late 16th century, however, e.g. that of the famous Styrian Landeszeughaus (arsenal) in Graz/Austria, we also read that an additional snap-tinderlock mechanism was explicitly required because its simple construction had proved to be much more reliable and its external mechanism was easy to repair as well.
Please see an unusually fine Suhl specimen dated 1602 in my collection (attachments #2 and 3 in next follower post).


Even as late as ca. 1660-70, the wheellock as the sole ignition system was little trusted and it was combined with a matchlock mechanism activated by the same single trigger and using the same ignition pan and touch hole:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...lock+matchlock

Also the first military flintlocks of ca. 1655-70 were little trusted, and they too were combined with the well-established matchlock mechanism.
I think that says it all (attachments #4 and 5 in next follower post).


By the way, a wheellock dog is neither a cock nor a 'hammer' as it is not cocked and does not strike. Actually it is lowered manually to and placed on the wheel so that its jaws press the pyrites against the revolving wheel in the midst of the ignition pan, and against the tension of the dog spring.



Best,
Michael

[fernando]

Amen

[batjka]

Thank you very much for the lesson. It's always great to hear from someone with a firsthand experience.

It's really amazing that the wheel locks were only good for 10-15 shots and then had to be rearsenalled. But I guess the average engagement of the time did not require firing more shots than that - thus the 12-shot bandoleers worn by the soldiers. Still, the expense of maintaining these guns must have been tremendous!

But the fragility and expense of wheel locks only plays to confirm my theory that they were only meant to fire the first shot on the combination guns. The rest of the firing would be done by 2nd means of ignition.

The only real advantage of a wheel lock is that it could be kept loaded and ready to fire at moment's notice, while a match lock or a tinder lock had to be ignited first. So those people ordering wheel lock weapons might have been doing it not because of their fascination with technology, but rather to have an ability to shoot in unexpected encounters.

And of course it's a "dog", not a hammer. I was looking for the correct word at the time and it didn't come to me. Terminology is very important and I appreciate you correcting my mistakes.

Thanks again for your reply. It is thanks to enthusiasts like yourself that the knowledge gets passed on. I am really looking forward to reading more of your posts.

[Matchlock]

Here is the rest of the attachments to post #1.

m

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by batjka

Thank you very much for the lesson. It's always great to hear from someone with a firsthand experience.

It's really amazing that the wheel locks were only good for 10-15 shots and then had to be rearsenalled. But I guess the average engagement of the time did not require firing more shots than that - thus the 12-shot bandoleers worn by the soldiers. Still, the expense of maintaining these guns must have been tremendous!

But the fragility and expense of wheel locks only plays to confirm my theory that they were only meant to fire the first shot on the combination guns. The rest of the firing would be done by 2nd means of ignition.

The only real advantage of a wheel lock is that it could be kept loaded and ready to fire at moment's notice, while a match lock or a tinder lock had to be ignited first. So those people ordering wheel lock weapons might have been doing it not because of their fascination with technology, but rather to have an ability to shoot in unexpected encounters.

And of course it's a "dog", not a hammer. I was looking for the correct word at the time and it didn't come to me. Terminology is very important and I appreciate you correcting my mistakes.

Thanks again for your reply. It is thanks to enthusiasts like yourself that the knowledge gets passed on. I am really looking forward to reading more of your posts.

Hi,


Now it is my turn to say 'thank you' for the compliments!

I fully agree with your theory on the actual relevance of the wheellock. Btw, most musketeers bandeliers only held an average of 6-10 powder measures/ receptacles:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ght=bandeliers

In search of more of my threads, just click my user name 'Matchlock' and choose 'find all threads started by M.'
Have fun!


Best,
Michael