Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > European Armoury
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 28th February 2014, 08:01 PM   #1
Raf
Member
 
Raf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 252
Default

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.

Last edited by Raf; 1st March 2014 at 08:45 AM.
Raf is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.