![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 252
|
![]()
Hullo Fernando. Thank you for helping to keep this thread alive.
I’m sorry your comments didn’t translate very well, and if I have misinterpreted them apologies. I will try and answer them as clearly as I can. Bolts rather than screws. –" Of no significance." If we see similar stylistic or technical features (the bolts) that are shared by other locks it is reasonable to suggest that they might form a group, and that they might belong to the same geographic area or be of similar date. If these locks also have some early features and we don’t see the bolts on later locks it is reasonable to suggest these bolts might be a characteristic to some early locks that was later abandoned. Unless we are prepared to make these kind of comparisons we couldn’t research or try to date anything. The wheel release mechanism with no prop. "Just different." Sorry. No. The second prop is a fundamental stage in the development of Wheelock design and seems to happen quite early. It was found; probably through bitter experience that the single locking bar, (which was occasionally simply a flat spring) could, if the nose of the sear was worn, or more likely the hole in the wheel was blocked with dirt, appear to lock the wheel, but in reality it was just hanging on the edge of the hole. Thus a knock could dislodge it and the gun would fire by accident. The second prop ensures that the wheel will only ‘ lock off ‘ when the sear fully enters the hole in the wheel. Its perfectly reasonable to conclude that wheelock’s with a single locking bar are, at least in evolutionary terms, earlier than those with the double locking system because experience had shown this system was in practice unsafe. The pan cover opening mechanism. I’m not sure what your point is. All I can say is that I haven’t seen a similar system before but if someone else has it would be nice to know. It seemed reasonable to suggest that this slightly convoluted arrangement might be an early stage in trying to work out the best way to open a sliding pan cover The Portuguese lock "has the characteristics of a late model." I don’t know anything about Portuguese locks. Are you saying the date 1550 is wrong? I thought there was a suggestion that it might be of Italian manufacture? I assume it has a one piece hooked type combined arm and flash pan cover as seen on some early German wheelock’s prior to the introduction of the sliding pan cover. This is shown in the dismantled wheelock attached; German C 1540. (The Met; New York) Notice also that despite its early date it does have a secondary prop for the wheel-locking bar. The release mechanism for the flintlock. There seem to be some missing bits in this area. The pivot for the cock looks inadequate. One would expect it to be supported by a bridle as in an aqujeta and I assumed that was what the holes were for. Its difficult to imagine how a spring to release the dog catch (as on the aqujeta) might work as the hook on the catch doesn’t seem big enough to hold. Last edited by Raf; 4th December 2013 at 01:53 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 672
|
![]()
Hello:
I am sorry that the language is an issue for dialogue. Affectionately. Fernando K |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 252
|
![]()
Hullo again Fernando . Just found this image in an old post of yours . It looks relevant so I am re posting it . You obviously know about Portuguese firearms so where in the sixteenth century would you place it ? The stock looks early
and the lock has some similarities with the Spanish aqujeta but with an internal mainspring . Since it hasn't got a half cock dog do you think it has an additional separate flashpan cover? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 672
|
![]()
Hello, Raf.
No. This is a key (lock) called "molinhas todays date". The average riding (half cock) is achieved with the piece that sees before the cat foot) cock) moving manually to engage the tooth can also be seen in the front of the foot cat (cock). In turn, to reach its maximum position (full cock) a projecting part of the shoe (cock) on the bottom hook removed in (dog) and keeps out the tooth. It is a variant of the mediterranean keys. http://www.invaluable.com/auction-lo...pistol-carbine Fernando K |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 535
|
![]()
Just a picture,
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 252
|
![]()
Hullo Fernando. Interesting . Does the release sear work directly on the cock or on the tumbler ? Does it move horizontally or vertically and is their a second locking prop ?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 672
|
![]()
Hello, Raf:
The sear (sear) acts on walnut (tumbler) horizontally with two sureties, primary and secondary. There is also an evolution, which is named key (cock) half "of molinhas fecho" half and key (lock) means "French", with walnut (tumbler) and sear (sear) vertical, and the key to the French spark. Sincerely .. Fernando K |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]() Quote:
You must have noticed by now that there are two Fernandos going on; the one that knows a significant lot about locks and has been replying to your questions is Fernando K; the one who has posted the petronel picture (and not only) is Fernando (no K), who knows extremely less about the subject. Perhaps you like to have a look at this link; it will possibly complement the answers to some of your questions about these Portuguese locks: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...light=molinhas And by the way ... the petronel you have asked for the precise date in this post, was made in the Lisbon Arsenal circa 1560 -1580. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 672
|
![]()
Hello, Fernando and Raf (Rafael?)
I'm just a love of the mechanisms (locks). At one time, I knew nothing of the keys (locks) Portuguese. Fernando explained to me some issues. Affectionately. Fernando K |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 252
|
![]()
Hullo to all Fernandos.. wherever you may be . Sincere apologies for confusing you and thank you both for your contributions. As your probably aware I am new to this forum and am still trying to work out who everybody is.
All I was trying to do was research early snaplocks, on the assumption that such a simple intuitive idea ought to have existed at a much earlier date than the examples we have ( C1580 ) I just find it fascinating trying to imagine how these early ignition devices ; including wheelocks might have first developed and what stages they must have gone through in the development of the idea. Rafael. And Fernando ; sans K . Just for clarification. Do either of two locks you illustrate, Anselmo and Molinhas have single horizontally moving sears or sears with a prop as in wheelocks ? Difficult to see from the pictures. The relationship between these Portuguese locks , early Italian toe locks , the Aquijeta and Algerian toe locks is obviously very close and I would have thought have to be the earliest examples of a combined pan and frizen. The earliest suggested date for the Lisbon petronal (c1560) would make it roughly contemporary with the earliest vaguely dateable snaphaunces. Last edited by Raf; 16th December 2013 at 09:39 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 252
|
![]()
In pursuit of the earliest ( or in this case worse ) snaplock here is a Mongolian version. The trigger release is breathtaking in its elegant simplicity...
Also interesting is the lack of a frizen spring and no evidence that one was ever fitted at least to this gun. Which suggest what I suspected; that early snaplocks may have relied simply on the inertia of a relatively heavy steel creating enough resistance to create a spark. Difficult to argue that something like this could not have been knocked up by any blacksmith sometime in the fifteenth century... Last edited by Raf; 16th December 2013 at 03:19 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|