Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post - A 1548 Nuremberg Dagger-grip Over-and-Under Double Wheellock Pistol

Matchlock · 12th December 2013, 03:56 PM

Hi Raf,

I am afraid we have been stating some things completely wrong here as lateral push buttons on early wheellocks are concerned.

I have had a long talk with a friend of mine. His name is Armin König, and be builds the best firing gun replicas by far, the best I ever saw!!! He builds them so exactly after the best originals in big museums and from my own collection that they are exactly identical to the originals - down to the last milllimeter and to one or two grams in weight!!! We have often examined guns together, be it in famous museums or at the viewings of big auction sales houses; it usually takes him four to five hours to completely dismantle a gun, draw a plan and take all the single measurements and weights of each tiny part!!! Nobody is allowed to get near him during that time of utmost concentration. He builds everything with his own hands, not with the help of an engine-lathe. He is as devoted to his work as I am to mine - mine basically is the forum. He is a walking phenomenon and what he builds is pure perfection. Our minds think alike. And he, just like me, loves cats.

He categorically does not do any restorations to antique objects. When some tiny part is missing from a pistol in a museum or in some private collection he calls it a pity but would never touch and replace any part of an original piece. The reason being that he builds everything strictly after an original piece; never would he change the slightest detail or/and build what he and I both call 'fantasy pieces'. As nobody can tell for sure how exactly a missing piece looked he leaves damaged weapons alone. When a ramrod on a piece he has set his mind on rebuilding seems to be a replacement or is missing, he will build the piece with a ramrod that anybody would call 'replaced'.

As some people have presented the 'works' of their favorite gun constructors here, please let me show a few things of the best of them all.

Please allow me to link him here, he is an absolute idealist and a great person:
http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/.../Firearms.html
http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/...ockmusket.html
http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/...s/Caliver.html
http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/...ockmusket.html
http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/...ockpistol.html
http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/...ockpuffer.html
http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/...lehackbut.html
http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/...Bandolier.html
http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/...Wheellock.html

Well, Armin read our discussion on the forum. At first he was d'accord, but a few hours later he got back with me and told me the truth. I used to teach him many of the things he knows today and I still am his sole 'authority' as to dating objects. But I am proud as a peacock and thankful that he taught me in this aspect. What more can a dedicated teacher expect than his best-ever student surpassing him?!

Now here are the mere facts, and I stated them as short and precise as I could:

Most of the earliest Germanic wheellock mechanisms had only a sear spring that acted so that it prevented the nose of the sear from resting in the notch of the wheel. 'Earliest' meaning from the beginning, which certainly must have happened during the second half of the 15th century, until at least the mid-16th c., in many cases well after 1600, though.
In order to force that nose to safely rest in the notch of the wheel when the wheel chain was spanned, all locks of such an early Germanic type of construction - this neutral formulation helps avoiding regional or dating problems - needed a lateral push button outside the lock plate that had to be pressed. When you press that button you can feel the force of the sear spring counteracting. Only when that push button 'clicks' into its assigned position the nose of the sear has safe contact with the depth of the wheel notch.

So that's all there really is to that push button discussion. May I advise you to closely study Robert Brooker, Landeszeughaus Graz, Austria: Radschloss-Sammlung/Wheellock Collection, Hong Kong 2007, ISBN 978-0-9795532-0-2.

On p. 77, four views of the North-Italian type of lock (Robert thinks that the lock is ca. 1520, but actually it should be correctly dated 'ca. 1540') of RG 3 are represented; in the bottom view you will see the tiny sear spring, cf. also the second view on the following page.
Let's go to p. 80, RG 4: the barrel dated 1558 and the lock contemporary. In view 4 of the Germanic-type lock, you can see the same spring principle, this time combined with a lateral push button to force the nose of the sear into the notch of the wheel.
As the 16th c. proceeded, Styria contiuned holding on to the archaic type of push button as it promised maximum safety. On p. 92ff, there are images of a heavy wall gun, FRG 285: the barrel and lock are Styria, ca. 1560, the stock was renewed in ca. 1700! Views 3 and 4 on p. 93 clearly demonstrate that the push button on this lock now has its own spring on which it acts.

Robert's book is basically very good work and worth buying; you literally get thousands of images although the Chinese printing greatly quality varies from page to page. When Robert attended me and my collection a few years ago, I explained to him my criticism as to dating many guns and pieces of accouterment, and he accepted it.

I wish to tell the following in no uncertain terms: even for museum standard people (!), the competency of the present Graz staff is horribly low!

E.g., they misread the date struck on the Nuremberg barrel of the arquebus RG 2 as '1527' though it really is 1537. They did not even know the mere facts that the barrel was of Nuremberg make and that complete arquebuses existed with barrels bearing the same characteristic type of arrow marks and dated of 1537 and 1539; they are preserved in the Bavarian Army Museum Ingolstadt, the Germanisches Nationalmuseum Nürnberg, and in my collection. Please see post 23f. in this thread above.
Misled by that wrong type and the archaic impact of the North Italian type of lock, Robert misdated the lock and barrel as '1527'; what he correctly remarked though is that the gun was restocked at the end of the 16th c.

Now finally here are some impressions of earliest firearms that my friend Armin König rebuilt - enjoy!

Best,
Michael

12th December 2013, 03:56 PM	#26
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Hi Raf, I am afraid we have been stating some things completely wrong here as lateral push buttons on early wheellocks are concerned. I have had a long talk with a friend of mine. His name is Armin König, and be builds the best firing gun replicas by far, the best I ever saw!!! He builds them so exactly after the best originals in big museums and from my own collection that they are exactly identical to the originals - down to the last milllimeter and to one or two grams in weight!!! We have often examined guns together, be it in famous museums or at the viewings of big auction sales houses; it usually takes him four to five hours to completely dismantle a gun, draw a plan and take all the single measurements and weights of each tiny part!!! Nobody is allowed to get near him during that time of utmost concentration. He builds everything with his own hands, not with the help of an engine-lathe. He is as devoted to his work as I am to mine - mine basically is the forum. He is a walking phenomenon and what he builds is pure perfection. Our minds think alike. And he, just like me, loves cats. He categorically does not do any restorations to antique objects. When some tiny part is missing from a pistol in a museum or in some private collection he calls it a pity but would never touch and replace any part of an original piece. The reason being that he builds everything strictly after an original piece; never would he change the slightest detail or/and build what he and I both call 'fantasy pieces'. As nobody can tell for sure how exactly a missing piece looked he leaves damaged weapons alone. When a ramrod on a piece he has set his mind on rebuilding seems to be a replacement or is missing, he will build the piece with a ramrod that anybody would call 'replaced'. As some people have presented the 'works' of their favorite gun constructors here, please let me show a few things of the best of them all. Please allow me to link him here, he is an absolute idealist and a great person: http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/.../Firearms.html http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/...ockmusket.html http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/...s/Caliver.html http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/...ockmusket.html http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/...ockpistol.html http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/...ockpuffer.html http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/...lehackbut.html http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/...Bandolier.html http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/...Wheellock.html Well, Armin read our discussion on the forum. At first he was d'accord, but a few hours later he got back with me and told me the truth. I used to teach him many of the things he knows today and I still am his sole 'authority' as to dating objects. But I am proud as a peacock and thankful that he taught me in this aspect. What more can a dedicated teacher expect than his best-ever student surpassing him?! Now here are the mere facts, and I stated them as short and precise as I could: Most of the earliest Germanic wheellock mechanisms had only a sear spring that acted so that it prevented the nose of the sear from resting in the notch of the wheel. 'Earliest' meaning from the beginning, which certainly must have happened during the second half of the 15th century, until at least the mid-16th c., in many cases well after 1600, though. In order to force that nose to safely rest in the notch of the wheel when the wheel chain was spanned, all locks of such an early Germanic type of construction - this neutral formulation helps avoiding regional or dating problems - needed a lateral push button outside the lock plate that had to be pressed. When you press that button you can feel the force of the sear spring counteracting. Only when that push button 'clicks' into its assigned position the nose of the sear has safe contact with the depth of the wheel notch. So that's all there really is to that push button discussion. May I advise you to closely study Robert Brooker, Landeszeughaus Graz, Austria: Radschloss-Sammlung/Wheellock Collection, Hong Kong 2007, ISBN 978-0-9795532-0-2. On p. 77, four views of the North-Italian type of lock (Robert thinks that the lock is ca. 1520, but actually it should be correctly dated 'ca. 1540') of RG 3 are represented; in the bottom view you will see the tiny sear spring, cf. also the second view on the following page. Let's go to p. 80, RG 4: the barrel dated 1558 and the lock contemporary. In view 4 of the Germanic-type lock, you can see the same spring principle, this time combined with a lateral push button to force the nose of the sear into the notch of the wheel. As the 16th c. proceeded, Styria contiuned holding on to the archaic type of push button as it promised maximum safety. On p. 92ff, there are images of a heavy wall gun, FRG 285: the barrel and lock are Styria, ca. 1560, the stock was renewed in ca. 1700! Views 3 and 4 on p. 93 clearly demonstrate that the push button on this lock now has its own spring on which it acts. Robert's book is basically very good work and worth buying; you literally get thousands of images although the Chinese printing greatly quality varies from page to page. When Robert attended me and my collection a few years ago, I explained to him my criticism as to dating many guns and pieces of accouterment, and he accepted it. I wish to tell the following in no uncertain terms: even for museum standard people (!), the competency of the present Graz staff is horribly low! E.g., they misread the date struck on the Nuremberg barrel of the arquebus RG 2 as '1527' though it really is 1537. They did not even know the mere facts that the barrel was of Nuremberg make and that complete arquebuses existed with barrels bearing the same characteristic type of arrow marks and dated of 1537 and 1539; they are preserved in the Bavarian Army Museum Ingolstadt, the Germanisches Nationalmuseum Nürnberg, and in my collection. Please see post 23f. in this thread above. Misled by that wrong type and the archaic impact of the North Italian type of lock, Robert misdated the lock and barrel as '1527'; what he correctly remarked though is that the gun was restocked at the end of the 16th c. Now finally here are some impressions of earliest firearms that my friend Armin König rebuilt - enjoy! Best, Michael Attached Images Last edited by Matchlock; 12th December 2013 at 06:52 PM.