The Dresden MONK'S GUN - a MYTH Revisited, and Finally CORRECTLY DATED: ca. 1525-30!

rysays · 11th January 2024, 05:27 AM

Looking closely I believe the friction bar is a separate part from the pull ring, with a rivet just above the juncture. Possibly a repair, or because the bar is made from carburized sparking steel while the pull ring is a softer alloy. Interestingly I found images of another reproduction which was sold sometime last year, and the gunsmith specifies that he produced a greater spark using flint in the device (demonstrated in the third photo!). I obviously have no insight into the accuracy of this reproduction, but as flint generates sparks by cutting (rather than pyrite, which is cut) this could explain why the original bar is very worn. With this in mind I'm considering if the the pyrite which survives in the device could be an erroneous addition, and has misled its interpretation. Matchlock's stylistic ID to 1525-30 isn't far from the earliest written mentions of flint snaplocks, so I don't think it's too outlandish of an idea.
Name: Screenshot_1.png
Views: 1866
Size: 942.3 KB

Name: Screenshot_1.png
Views: 1866
Size: 942.3 KB

Name: 19386138.67513568.jpg
Views: 1891
Size: 479.6 KB

Name: 19386138.75985194.jpg
Views: 1882
Size: 327.8 KB

11th January 2024, 05:27 AM	#36
rysays Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: NY, NY Posts: 9	Looking closely I believe the friction bar is a separate part from the pull ring, with a rivet just above the juncture. Possibly a repair, or because the bar is made from carburized sparking steel while the pull ring is a softer alloy. Interestingly I found images of another reproduction which was sold sometime last year, and the gunsmith specifies that he produced a greater spark using flint in the device (demonstrated in the third photo!). I obviously have no insight into the accuracy of this reproduction, but as flint generates sparks by cutting (rather than pyrite, which is cut) this could explain why the original bar is very worn. With this in mind I'm considering if the the pyrite which survives in the device could be an erroneous addition, and has misled its interpretation. Matchlock's stylistic ID to 1525-30 isn't far from the earliest written mentions of flint snaplocks, so I don't think it's too outlandish of an idea.