Early 17th Century Scandinavian Gun Lock

[Philip]

What do you think of this...

Imagine a trigger similar to that used on all the later, mature flintlock designs, an L-shaped thing pivoting at the corner, with the horizontal arm moving up as the trigger itself is pulled backwards.

On the horizontal arm, there is an offset vertical wedge-like extension that fits in the V-shaped space between the inside of the lockplate and the end of the sear spring / bar unit. The offset is to bridge the space between the central axis of the stock, where the trigger hangs, and the interior of the lock recess, it's only a fraction of an inch.

As it moves upward, the wedge goes up with it and spreads the sear from the lockplate enough to withdraw the sear nose enough to release the tail of the cock.

[Fernando K]

Hello

With all due respect, it seems to me that it is a copy, or better yet, a forgery with some advances. The same pristine state certifies this, and the profuse decoration, The closing of the jaws is conical, and thus tends to expel the stone, rather than retain it. It would be necessary to use some detection methods, such as the passage of the screws, millimeters or witworth.
Regarding the guarantor, it ends in a wedge, and if a curved surface is put under it, it comes out

Sorry for the translator. Affectionately

[Philip]

Originally Posted by Fernando K

Hello

The closing of the jaws is conical, and thus tends to expel the stone, rather than retain it. It would be necessary to use some detection methods, such as the passage of the screws, millimeters or witworth.
Regarding the guarantor, it ends in a wedge, and if a curved surface is put under it, it comes out

I don't think that this observation is sufficient to condemn Rick's lock as a piece of historicism. Looking a several published examples in Lenk, op cit, and in H L Blackmore's Guns and Rifles of the World, you will see that the jaw faces do orient themselves at an angle as opposed to parallel (as one sees on miquelets, true flintlocks, and related mechanisms). The shape of the cock and jaw pretty much determines this. Images of those guns with period flints still in place indicate that the stone was shaped somewhat differently from the blade-like form of common gunflints of a later period. Of course thick leather or perhaps lead wrapping would be necessary to ensure a tight grip, as is necessary on other flintlocks as well.

I also note from other examples that the jaw faces do have very deep transverse grooves, rather like those on the jaws of modern channel-lock pliers or plumbers' pipe wrenches, rather than the little raised teeth that we're used to seeing on other flintlocks whose jaws are capable of closing with parallel force.

[Philip]

Rick,
What are your comments on the head of the jaw screw? Needs a spanner wrench, just like on the dog of a wheellock.

For comparison, I see slotted drum-shaped screw heads on the Scandinavian locks published in the books I cited in other posts. And the classic Baltic lock has a ring shaped head, reminiscent of a miquelet.

The high-dome slotted screw heads on the other components look like an early style to me, maybe someone who knows Germanic guns better than I do might have some input.

[rickystl]

Hi Philip

Thank you so much for your comprehensive replies. You too Fernando K.

Trigger: It could be as you mention above, especially if this lock is later than originally suspected. But I'm starting to think along the lines of Fernando K.
What if a single, vertical trigger was used, with a shape at the rear of the trigger that resembles a smallish pin that is half flat/half round and tapers to a cone like shape ? And aligns with the far rear tail piece of the spring bar. As the trigger is pulled back, the semi cone shaped piece moves upward gradually enlarging against the spring bar and eventually moving it inward.
In any case, it seems the little tail opening at the end of the spring bar is key to opening. Otherwise there would be no need for the little tail. See pic below...

Rick

[rickystl]

Per Philip's mention, an early 17th Century Swedish snaplaoc, and a much later Baltic lock just for comparison.

Rick

[Philip]

Originally Posted by rickystl

Per Philip's mention, an early 17th Century Swedish snaplaoc, and a much later Baltic lock just for comparison.

Rick

Thanks for the pics. The Swedish lock is a snaphaunce, having a separate pan cover and frizzen. Looks like the pan cover is manually operated, isn't it? I don't see a pushrod linking it to the tumbler. A contrast to the more-developed automatic-opening systems (with internal mainsprings acting on tumblers) see on Scottish and Dutch snaphaunces (and thus on later Moroccan locks) or on the Central Italian alla fiorentina locks.

Appears that we are on different pages re the "Baltic lock". You show an interesting and rare early transition to the mature form -- is this a shooter's replica made by The Rifle Shoppe? ' Wonder who has the original prototype -- rare! Notice an essentially snaphaunce system (separate frizzen and pan cover), with external mainspring. And this lock has a pivoting matchlock style pan cover, not a sliding wheellock or snaphaunce type. A very interesting thing -- these Scandinavian locks came from a culture on the fringe of Europe, and appeared right when firearms technology hit the "cusp of change" several times within a short historical span.

What arms writers refer to as the Baltic lock is shown below ( from Robert Held's The Age of Firearms ,1957, p 83). It has an internal mainspring and tumbler much like that of the English flintlock, and a two-part sear with both arms activated by one V-spring which is identical to that of the "Roman" miquelet. Also, note that the lock illustrated here (and most of the originals in published photos) show the rotating frizzen secured by the friction of screw pressure, not by the small V-spring that your lock has.

Back to Fernando K's hypothesis that your lock is an historicism, I can't help but wonder why a reproducer of a later time would go through the trouble to design and make such an innovative feature such as that frizzen retaining system if he was mainly focused on copying something old, especially during Victorian times when the primary purpose of these reproductions was decorative.

The presence of slag inclusions in the lockplate metal is encouraging. Admittedly, the piece looks as though it had been strenuously cleaned in the past. Coming out of a source in Germany, it might be understandable. Back in college on a visit to Nürnberg, I was struck by the shininess of the breastplates on display in the armor hall of the Germanisches Nationalmuseum -- those things were bright! I hope the patina was retained on the posterior surfaces.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by rickystl

Hi Philip



Trigger: It could be as you mention above, especially if this lock is later than originally suspected. But I'm starting to think along the lines of Fernando K.
What if a single, vertical trigger was used, with a shape at the rear of the trigger that resembles a smallish pin that is half flat/half round and tapers to a cone like shape ? And aligns with the far rear tail piece of the spring bar. As the trigger is pulled back, the semi cone shaped piece moves upward gradually enlarging against the spring bar and eventually moving it inward.
In any case, it seems the little tail opening at the end of the spring bar is key to opening. Otherwise there would be no need for the little tail. See pic below...

Rick

You and I have the same idea. A half-cone (or a wedge) that moves up and separates the tail of the sear bar from the lockplate (and thus withdrawing the sear nose) would perform the same function.

My description includes a right-hand offset between this cone/wedge and the trigger itself just for dimensional compatibility between the position of the trigger (aligned to the central axis of the stock) and the inside of the lockplate (a bit to the right, near the top of the lock recess where the lockplate would sit).

[Philip]

What you have is a Norwegian or Swedish snap lock of exceptional workmanship and apparently late manufacture. Looks like it was intended for a sporting gun made for someone who could afford quality, and of somewhat conservative taste.

These snapping locks started out as snaphaunces sometime in mid- to second half of the 16th cent., with large external springs that powered the cock and retained the frizzen all-in-one. By the 17th cent., they evolved into flintlocks with a combined pan-cover and frizzen, the latter pivoting atop the pan-cover to provide a safety feature since the sear had no half-cock. In Norway and Sweden, the external mainspring remained the norm until quite late, whereas in the so-called Baltic lock, the spring and sear connection was entirely internal and the cock given a more graceful curved profile. Baltic locks were made in various areas in the region surrounding the Baltic Sea, including Russia.

The Swedish arms historian Rudolf Cederström points out 3 different designs of top jaw attachment which can be used as identifiers of geographic origin. The most common is the Swedish system, in which the underside of the rear of the top jaw is dovetailed into the corresponding area of the lower jaw (the cock body). Norwegian locks have a top jaw with a vertical tenon at the rear that slides in a mortise in the bottom jaw (same concept as on the miquelet locks of southern Europe). Baltic locks have a top jaw whose rear end is flared out and channeled into a U shape that rests over a corresponding curved part of the lower jaw.

Torsten Lenk, in his The Flintlock: its Origin and Development (English version ed. John F. Hayward, 1965) states that the Swedish style appeared on snaphaunce locks in the 16th cent., the Norwegian style in the 17th, with the Baltic style quite late in that century.

What you have is an anomaly. Note that its top jaw attachment is unlike any of the 3 above, it hinges on a horizontal pin. Also, it has a very sophisticated spring stop for the frizzen that positively locks it into place for firing. The innovative design and sophisticated manufacture suggest a time period very late in the 17th cent., possibly into the very early 18th. By then, of course, the mature version of the "French" flintlock had made solid inroads throughout northern and central Europe and was even produced in north Italy as well. By the 1670s or so, "early adopters" among well-to-do sportsmen would have been very familiar with the flintlock "alla moderna", so that's why I am suggesting that your lock was probably destined for a gun ordered by someone who was very fond of the old ways. After all, consider the enduring popularity of wheellocks in some niches of the German and Swiss markets, until the mid-18th cent.