Hullo Michael . Do we have a translation/ communication problem ? I thought this was exactly what I was describing very clearly in my last post. What I was also trying to do was explain how the earlier push button sear locking system conferred some advantages over the later, for the sake of argument , post 1550, two part locking system which uses a small spring to engage the sear with the wheel slot and relies on the camming effect of the of the wheel driving the sear out of engagement once the secondary prop is released by the trigger. The advantage being that in the push button system their is no drag on the inside face of the wheel caused by the primary sear spring continuing to push the sear onto the inside face of the wheel after it has disengaged. And as you say pressing the button while the lock is being spanned means you can ' feel ' that the sear has properly engaged with its slot. Presumably , with time and better construction it was found that the disadvantages of the primary sear dragging on the face of the wheel didn't have a significant effect on the efficiency of the mechanism and this system was abandoned so the wheel could now be spanned without having an additional button to press. But one can also see how this 'failsafe' system might have persisted longer on simpler and more primitive locks which is what we see.
Its confusing to imply that the push button sear is a feature of all early German locks , since the earliest locks dateable German locks ( the combined wheelock / crossbow which you illustrated ) show a sear arrangement where the primary sear is positively engaged with the wheel by a spring and disengaged by a secondary bar operated by the trigger . In principal exactly the same as we see on Italian locks with a single locking bar which is positively engaged with the wheel by a spring and released by the trigger acting directly on the tail of the sear.
Not I would have thought that controversial and I don't think we need to call in expert witnesses.
|