17th century flintlock

[Evgeny_K]

Second life of the excavated 17th century (Russian?) flintlock

[Matchlock]

Hi Evgeny,


Actually this is the Russian variant of a snaphaunce lock, early 17th century, and most probably originally belonging to a musket.

And it still is in working order striking sparks - you proved it!


Best,
Michael

[Fernando K]

Hello everyone:

For me, it is a key (lock) spark (flintlock) because cubrecazoleta (pan-cover) is attached to the rake (Frizen) and the fact that their screw is very advanced and has an arm like snapahunce not is a snapahunce.

Moreover, as no media mounted (half-cock) and a safety mechanism, should further have a lid that covered the bowl (pan) when the rake (Frizen) for security was withdrawn. This cover should revolve around the pole is seen in the ce end the bowl (pan) and should have lost.

It has much resemblance to what is known as key lace (lace lock), but lacks the safety hook: spring to the outside deck, acting up-down, the spring and rake up a single sheet, flange (bridge) trigger (cock) the trigger system.

Affectionately. Fernando

(Sorry for the translator)

[Raf]

Hello Evegny
Some time ago I tried to start a debate about the early origins of the flintlock.
( Leonardos snaplock, the missing link ? ) The theory being that the earliest self firing locks may have been proto- flintlocks with external springs and and a frizzen with base to keep powder in the pan when the thing was cocked . And a separate manual cover to retain the powder when it wasn't .Which is of course perfectly illustrated in your excavated example .

These locks were contemporary with , or developed into snaphaunces using self opening pans borrowed from the wheelock and later evolved into the true flintlock with the development of the half cock position. Michael is right in as far as some Russian locks use this system but one important example ( Kremlin 6783) was actually given to the Tsar Michael Romanoff by the English agent Fabian Smith in 1625. The implication being that it was either english or Dutch. Excavated examples have also been found in Norway ( see Lenk, the flintlock its origins and development ) and are still in use in Tibet !

In my opinion your lock is an extremely rare and important example of a type of lock from which all snapping type locks may have evolved. Once probably common , we don't see any collected examples simply because their simplicity and cheapness made them expendable . Which leads to the all important question of where it was discovered and wether their was anything by way of an archaeological context to suggest a date ? Since the sidenails are present this suggests it was a complete gun at the point at which it was lost or buried.

Self igniting locks changed the nature of early firearms from a weapon of intention , the matchlock best suited to defensive or organised military operations to a weapon of opportunity that could be deployed immediately the need arose. So it would not surprise me if locks of this type were actually contemporary with the earliest wheelocks.

[Evgeny_K]

Thank you, colleagues!
I'm no expert on the issue of the history of flintlocks, so I'm very grateful to you for the opinions expressed.

Originally Posted by Raf

...Which leads to the all important question of where it was discovered and wether their was anything by way of an archaeological context to suggest a date ?

This lock was excavated in southern part of Russia - Belgorodskaya oblast.
I'll try to collect more information about the location of the find and associated findings.

Regards

[Raf]

Unfortunately the Russian location of the find make it difficult to draw any conclusions . Below is an almost identical lock recently liberated from active service in Tibet. You can ignore the eccentric trigger release mechanism as this appears to be a local fix for defective sears on locks which are evidently much older. How much older is simply a guess. Stylistically you could argue that they are rustic variations on known seventeenth century Russian lock type or you could argue that these locks originated in the Mediterranean and were distributed through Portuguese trading . Their similarity to mediteranean toe locks ; Algerian , Iberian or Italian is difficult to ignore.

[Fernando K]

Hello:

Raf said, "and a separate Manual cover was not ... perfectily rescated illustrated in your example."

However, in the excavated specimen is clearly sees the pole over turned the manual cover. Nor do we see that media had mounted (half-cock) or a snap hook. I'm sure it is a threaded screw and the cover was a simple thin film that has been lost, eaten by corrosion. The security method, as in all snaphaunce is to keep the rake (frizzen) despondent.

Precisely, in his thread "Leonardo s snaplock, etc.." In his post # 4, last image, one of these keys (locks) it sees, with rake (frizzen) dejected, and the cover on the bowl (pan) although the spring (mainspring) acts from the bottom up.

In the last image of this post a key (lock) sees no cover, because it has safety hook.

Fernando K

Sorry for the translator

[Raf]

Sorry Fernando . The lock I meant to post was the Romanof / Smyth lock which does have a separate manual pancover , like Evigneys lock evidently had . Although it is missing we can still see the post it hinged on. Therefore neither a half cock position or a doglock is required. Its a simple solution to the problem of how you keep a flashpan primed while the gun is not cocked . The gun is made ready to fire simply by cocking it and moving the flashpan cover out of the way .

[Raf]

There is one important thing we perhaps can learn from Evignies lock that might justify my assertion that it was an important find . That is , in the method used to arrest the fall of the cock. In most European snaphaunces this is done by an external buffer acting on the front face of the cock. Or in the case of Mediterranean toe locks the lower jaw of the cock simply hitting the edge of the pancover. In Evgneys lock it appears that the tail end of the frizzen spring is turned upward to form an upstanding buffer to arrest the fall of the cock. And since this is sprung steel presumably acts as a kind of shock absorber. Which if you think about it is very sensible. And one of the only other examples of this I can think of is on an Italian combined snaplock and wheelock in Turin. Only in this instance the buffer is formed by an upstand on the tail end of the mainspring. The only other place I have seen this feature is on some early Cingalese locks. Also note the shape of the bridle used to support the cock pivot which is missing on the Turin lock but looks as if it might have been very similar.

On a previous thread I tried to argue ( on the evidence of the wheelock ) that the Turin lock could be considerably earier than the late sixteenth century date normally ascribed to it . However regardless of this it does seem to relate Evgneys lock to one of the earliest examples of a lock where the flashpan and frizzen are combined as a single unit . That is , a flintlock , not a snaphauce. It doesn't prove that Evgneys lock is sixteenth century , although there is no obvious reason why it couldn't be . But it does seem to argue that this feature might be distinctive to Mediterranean locks of an early date. So if anybody knows any other examples of this it would be good to know.

[Fernando K]

Hello Raf

Precisely, the double lock (lock) of Turin, according to the Italian expert Marco Morin. is Portuguese or Iberian peninsula.

Fold the lower lamina of the mainspring, appears to have had any function other than as a buffer. In key (lock) Ceylan, LAVIN page 172 in the end of the mainspring gets under the pan (for additional reinforcement?) And the same goes for the oldest "fecho Anselmo" as "Espingarda Perfeyta", page 451 . Do not forget that where the edge of the plate has a projection in front of the bread, used to stop the cock in his fall and to support the end of the mainspring. Do not forget that Ceylan was a Portuguese colony, influenced by the Portuguese gunsmiths

affectionately. Fernando K

Sorry for the translator

[Matchlock]

From Dr. Torsten Lenk, Flintl°aset, 1939: snaphaunces from the mid-16th to the early 17th c.

m

[Raf]

Yup . Got all those. Apart from the German one they are not snaphaunces.

[Raf]

Numbers 1 to 4 would I think have to be classified as flintlocks since , as in Evigneys lock an extension to the base of the steel is used to keep powder in the pan. Therefore pancover and steel are combined which has to be the basic definition of a flintlock. Number 5 is an early snaphaunce because the steel and pancover are separate. The pancover is a wheelock type sliding pancover which is opened by a plunger attached to the cock operating on the pancover link arm. As in a conventional snaphaunce only in this instance the linking mechanism is external.
Lenk seems to have regarded the flintlock as a distinct invention therefore does not classify these early locks as flintlocks. However I think a modern view would be that the classic flintlock was an evolutionary development which occurred as a result of a simplification or compromise between the variety of solutions to the snapping lock problem that had developed by the early seventeenth century.