ALGERIAN KABYLE MUSKET for Comment

[rickystl]

Hi Philip.

Thanks for your reply. Yes, it's an interesting and curious subject, without much historical information outside of Europe. It is a known fact that the flint from the mines in the Eastern countries was simply sub-standard to the English black or French amber. This is probably why the English would ship barrels of pre-knapped flints to the Eastern market for use of their troops stationed there.
And probably could not (at least officially) be sold or traded to the locals. Also, if my memory serves me, the optimum beveled flint as we know it was not in general use till about the second quarter of the 18th Century (?). Previous to that, some collectors/shooters call it a flint "pawl". Just a more crudely knapped flint without the optimum beveled shape. Sort of like a chip of flint and steel used for starting a fire. This combination, I believe is the primary reason for the extra strong mainsprings in the Eastern lock copies.
Maybe a lesser knowledge of optimum spring hardness and hardening of primary wear points could also be a contributing factor (?).
I can say, from a shooter's perspective, that the Algerian lock as above does eat up beveled flints very quicky! And the trigger pull is very stiff.
Another good example which I believe adds further evidence to the poor flint quality in the Eastern region are the English TRADE locks that were traded all over the East and North America around the turn of the 19th Century. These were basically an ENGLISH MADE copy of the locks used on the British 3rd Model Brown Bess musket. What I have noticed is the same locks sent to the Eastern markets have this stronger mainspring versus the same locks sent to North America. (Not to be confused with the LOCALLY made copies of this lock, that are of far lesser quality of found on some of the Afghan Jazails). There are lock makers here in the States that have over time noticed the same thing as respects the mainsprings. But generally, I believe the quality of flint available in the Region accounts for these heavy mainsprings.

Rick

[Philip]

Originally Posted by rickystl

Hi Philip.

I can say, from a shooter's perspective, that the Algerian lock as above does eat up beveled flints very quicky! And the trigger pull is very stiff.
Another good example which I believe adds further evidence to the poor flint quality in the Eastern region are the English TRADE locks that were traded all over the East and North America around the turn of the 19th Century. These were basically an ENGLISH MADE copy of the locks used on the British 3rd Model Brown Bess musket. What I have noticed is the same locks sent to the Eastern markets have this stronger mainspring versus the same locks sent to North America. But generally, I believe the quality of flint available in the Region accounts for these heavy mainsprings.

Rick

Thanks for a very interesting observation as re mainsprings on "Brown Bess pattern" locks made for different markets. My limited experience with British regulation-style weapons makes this revelation news to me and despite this specific area being a tad off-topic from this thread, the gist of it may certainly apply to the current discussion.

The overall robust proportions, heavier mainsprings, and the emphasis on durability over mechanical refinement on North African firearms would come across as advantages of sort in a milieu in which the shooters tended to be nomads having to carry on in a state of material deprivation, far from access to skilled gunsmiths for maintenance and repairs. And perhaps being chronically short of good flints!

What is perhaps less obvious to us is why, despite the great skill exhibited in some Islamic cultures in making twist-forged and "damascus" barrels, and the love of showy ornamentation for the better pieces in practically all areas, that the overall standard of lock-making even on the luxe weapons of the pampered elite tended to be noticeably below what a European would consider even middling-good. It speaks volumes when you examine those war-trophy Ottoman guns of the 17th cent. converted to sporting weapons in Europe-- the only component considered worth saving was the barrel.

[BANDOOK]

HI STU
HERE IS MY KABYLE MUSKET WHICH I HAD POSTED SOMETIME BACK ,HAS LESS CORAL DECORATIONS THAN YOURS BUT ITS VERY LONG ,REGARDS

[rickystl]

Originally Posted by Philip

Thanks for a very interesting observation as re mainsprings on "Brown Bess pattern" locks made for different markets. My limited experience with British regulation-style weapons makes this revelation news to me and despite this specific area being a tad off-topic from this thread, the gist of it may certainly apply to the current discussion.

The overall robust proportions, heavier mainsprings, and the emphasis on durability over mechanical refinement on North African firearms would come across as advantages of sort in a milieu in which the shooters tended to be nomads having to carry on in a state of material deprivation, far from access to skilled gunsmiths for maintenance and repairs. And perhaps being chronically short of good flints!

What is perhaps less obvious to us is why, despite the great skill exhibited in some Islamic cultures in making twist-forged and "damascus" barrels, and the love of showy ornamentation for the better pieces in practically all areas, that the overall standard of lock-making even on the luxe weapons of the pampered elite tended to be noticeably below what a European would consider even middling-good. It speaks volumes when you examine those war-trophy Ottoman guns of the 17th cent. converted to sporting weapons in Europe-- the only component considered worth saving was the barrel.

Hi Philip.

I believe your theory of "durability over mechanical refinement" is spot on. And all the physical evidence I've seen leads in that direction. And for the reasons you mention.
Yes, it does speak volumes that in the case of the Ottoman guns the barrel was considered the only item of value in the later use of sporing arms. Curious. Of course. the English and French have always prefered the use of the true flintlock over the miquelet. So this was probably also a factor. But you would think that with all the many years of lock use in the Ottomas and North Africa there would have been improvements in the mechanical refinements. But I guess things changed very slowly in that Region.

This lock refinement my be a subject for a new Thread? Don't know how many would be interested ? LOL. What do you think?

Rick

[Philip]

Originally Posted by rickystl

Hi Philip.

Yes, it does speak volumes that in the case of the Ottoman guns the barrel was considered the only item of value in the later use of sporing arms. Curious. Of course. the English and French have always prefered the use of the true flintlock over the miquelet.

This lock refinement my be a subject for a new Thread? Don't know how many would be interested ? LOL. What do you think?

Rick

Hi, Rick
True, although let's consider the perhaps greater number of remounted Ottoman barrels that are encountered on Austrian, German, and Italian sporting guns. And the surprising popularity of the Spanish-style patilla lock in all these areas. In the case of Italy it's obvious since the southern half of the peninsula was long tied to Spain for political reasons through the 18th cent. But I've also noticed, in large collections of 17th-early 18th cent. sporting guns sold at auction in Europe, that German- or Austrian-made miquelets show up more frequently than you'd expect. (the piece that I shared pics with you privately was by no means an anomaly). Look closely at the locks on these guns and you see stylistic elements that are purely Germanic, such as acorn-shaped jaw screw finials replacing the familiar ring, and also rearward extensions of the top jaw that serve as thumb rests to make cocking easier. It's obvious on all these that although you occasionally find recycled Ottoman barrels, no Turkish locks were similarly reused.

Let's also not neglect the connection between south Germany and Spain in terms of gunmaking technology and talent. The wheellock most likely came to Iberia via immigrant German gunmakers like the Marcuartes (Markwardt). One of the most outstanding Spanish smiths during the miquelet era was Nicholás Bamproyssen y Bis, who was half-German. (During his career as gunsmith to Felipe V, he devised the technique of forging barrels from the extremely ductile iron of Viscayan horseshoes).

Lastly, I'd like to point out the appearance of the miquelet-type external spring and transverse sears on French and Austrian locks made for breechloading guns; the system was apparently favored over the "true" flintlock in these applications because minimal wood had to be inletted for the mechanism in a design whose stock was already compromised to make room for the pivoting barrel.

Re your suggestion, yes! a discussion on refinements and improvements to miquelet locks would be most welcome, perhaps on the European Armoury board.

[corrado26]

The lock of a moukhala has details that give me reason to ask some questions:

When the battery is closed there is a remarkable gap between pan and the battery what is not explainable for me. As far as I know there have no parts of the lock been replaced so that I am convinced that the battery is the original one. But why this big gap? In my foto archive I have some more pictures of locks of the same type that show the same gap. Does anyone know the reason for this gap?

When the battery is closed one can see a small hole with a diameter of ca. 2mm and a depth down to the screw that fixes the battery. What is this hole made for?

[rickystl]

Hi Corrado.

That's a nice looking Algerian lock. I think I may be able to help. At least partially. I looked at all of my Algerian locks. And all have this hole, but with a tiny pin in the hole. I've never really noticed this until now. There is also a smaller hole on the bottom of the frizzen screw area opposite the hole on top.
Here is a "parts" lock I have. It appears what we call a frizzen "screw" is not really a screw. Even though the screw on the outside has a slot for a screwdriver, there are no threads in the hole where the frizzen screw seats on the inside of the lock.The one pic below explains it better. So for this conversation we will call the frizzen screw a frizzen "pin". LOL It appears that the tiny pin on yours is missing. Look close and see if there is a smaller hole on your lock below the frizzen pin area like the photo below. I'm guessing that if the frizzen pin is removed there would be another hole in the pin itself. Honestly, I've never taken on apart at this area to find out. That would be three holes total. My guess is that once the frizzen pin was inserted, a hole was drilled all the way through the top, pin, and lower area, and a tiny pin inserted what is now three holes, to keep the frizzen pin itself from working it's way out. So, if your tiny pin is missing, you can probably take a punch and small ball peen hammer and knock the frizzen pin out.
You would think it it would be much easier to simply thread the end of the frizzen pin and the hole in the lockplate, like the hammer screw. I can only speculate the reason for doing it in this matter. It seems they avoided making "threaded" screws or holes whenever possible, especially small screws. But the frizzen pin is not really small. Curious.
The last photo you posted, it does seem that the frizzen is sitting just a bit high in the cradle. Hmmm. Maybe the frizzen pin is slightly bent (?). This, possibly due to the tiny support pin missing (?).
If the tiny pin is missing, and the frizzen pin slightly bent, that could account for this gap between the frizzen cover and the pan. Actually, an easy fix - by the right gunsmith. All the frizzens on my Algerian locks close as normal. But they also all have the pin still in them.
Hope this helps. Let me know.

Rick

[rickystl]

Woops. Somehow the pics didn't post. We'll try again here........