17th century flintlock

Evgeny_K · 25th February 2014, 04:37 PM

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

Matchlock · 25th February 2014, 07:15 PM

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 · 25th February 2014, 09:45 PM

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and a safety mechanism, should further have a lid that covered the bowl (pan) when the rake (Frizen) for security was withdrawn.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 · 27th February 2014, 11:34 AM

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 · 27th February 2014, 06:39 PM

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.

Quote:

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 · 27th February 2014, 07:10 PM

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.

25th February 2014, 04:37 PM	#1
Evgeny_K Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 208	17th century flintlock Second life of the excavated 17th century (Russian?) flintlock Attached Images

27th February 2014, 11:34 AM	#4
Raf Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 252	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. Attached Images Last edited by Raf; 27th February 2014 at 11:44 AM.

27th February 2014, 07:10 PM	#6
Raf Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 252	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. Attached Images

25th February 2014, 07:15 PM	#2
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	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

25th February 2014, 09:45 PM	#3
Fernando K Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 669	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)