[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.