Leonardo's snap lock. The missing link ?

[Raf]

Something seems to have got lost in translation. I wasn’t claiming in my original post that Leonardo’s drawing was a flintlock type mechanism. It is clearly a matchlock with a self-opening pan. All I was suggesting was that it, or something similar could have served as a starting point for the development of flintlock type locks and that these might have developed at dates rather earlier than is usually proposed.

Whereas we have a slightly vague but plausible line for the development for the wheelock; Leonardo’s drawing about 1500, the Loffelholz manuscript remotely operating tinder lighters; 1505, the Palazzo Ducale combined wheelock crossbows etc. we don’t it seems have a similar theory for the evolution of snapping type locks. Blackamore (guns and rifles of the world 1965- p 28) admits that early references to self-igniting guns could apply equally well to flintlocks as to wheelock’s. Reason suggests that the two systems developed independently; possibly at the same, but we don’t it seems see the evidence for this.

The earliest dated wheelock’s (see Matchlocks piece) are certainly not the earliest existing examples. However these prove that by about 1550 the wheelock, at least in Germany, had passed through its development stage and shows most of the recognizable characteristics of this type of lock. Tower armories X11 1765; (Italian; about 1520) shows what I think we might expect to see in a developing idea. ( 1 ) External wheel, massive mainspring; secure wheel release mechanism yet to be resolved and an experimental matchlock type horizontally swinging flash pan cover opened automatically by a pin and a slot in the wheel. Now compare with this detached superimposed lock; also Italian, Museum of artillery, Turin. (2) Look at details of the wheelock. Like the cock screw, the wheel support bracket, the shape of the long chain links, and of course the forward facing mainspring. They could almost have come from the same workshop. Yet the date for this superimposed lock is suggested as being late sixteenth century. I suspect for no other reason than on the same lock plate is a toe lock with an L shaped combined steel and flash pan cover. One can only speculate on why someone should use two completely different types of lock on something as suicidal as a superimposed load firearm. Do you infer that the wheelock was considered the more advanced; therefore more reliable? Or that, the toe lock was experimental therefore not entirely to be trusted? However you can’t argue that both locks are not contemporary so on the evidence of the wheelock alone which date seems most likely? 1520 ish or late sixteenth century? But even if we were inclined to accept the later date it still places it in the period where all snapping type locks are usually assumed to be snaphaunces.

It also probably no coincidence that this early Italian toe lock is very similar to Algerian toe locks. (Authors coll.) (3) And of course to some Baltic locks. Lenk (The flintlock. Its origin, development and use. 1939) Illustrates a primitive (and probably updateable) Norwegian snap lock. (Nordiska Museum 56.592.5) (4) We read this as a snaphaunce but look at the rearward facing projection at the base of the steel. Clearly designed to act as a pan cover when the steel was in the firing position. But here the problem of having to keep the thing cocked once the pan is primed is resolved by having a secondary matchlock type pan cover which keeps powder in the pan when the steel is in the non - firing position. The solution is simple and this is I think as near as we can get to visualize what the first snapping type locks must have looked like. But perhaps significantly it is something that could be (and in this example probably was) knocked up by a competent village blacksmith. The true snaphaunce (separate steel, automatically opening sliding pan cover) has features that borrow from, or contribute to the developed Wheelock but cannot I think be regarded as the necessary pre cursor to the flintlock since as I have argued the combined pan cover and steel; the defining characteristics of the flintlock, may well have been there at the inception of the idea.

If both flintlock and Wheelock did begin their development in the closing years of the fourteenth century then the early fifteenth century prohibitions on the carrying of self firing guns might imply that the lawless had not suddenly equipped themselves with expensive state of the art Wheelock’s but with cheaply made snap locks of the type illustrated by lenk. And that the snapping lock might have got off to a bad start simply because its simplicity, cheapness and availability threatened the status quo.

Only a theory but I thought it was interesting...

[Fernando K]

Hello:

A small contribution. The key (Lock (2) belonging to the Artillery Museum of Turin has been claimed to be Italian, and the principle of XVII century. Morin says it's the end of the century, and has ibericas feature, and compares with a built gun 1570 (circa) to Don Inigo Lopez de Mendoza (d. 1580)

View Diana Armi Magazine, February 1976, article by Augusto Capecchi

Fernando K

[Raf]

Thanks for that . I think Im still going to argue that the Turin lock is generically related to a group of early wheelocks usually ascribed to at least the first half of the sixteenth century if not earlier. As evidence I would like to suggest that the use of square headed bolts , as opposed to screws in securing the major components is distinctive . A sensible idea since it means the lock can be stripped using the same spanner but this feature doesnt seem to be found on later locks . Unless of course someone knows otherwise? Image 1 is a detail of the Tower example . 2 is I think in the Germanishes Nationalmuseum, Nurenberg (W2036)

[Fernando K]

Hello:

Regarding the key (lock) Dual (flint and wheellock), there is a thread in this forum. Alli is for comparison, several Portuguese keys (locks), and even a view of the interior, with firing mechanisms

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...uese+wheellock

Affectionately. Fernando K

[Raf]

Brilliant! Thanks for that Fernando. I hoped somewhere their would be an internal detail of the Turin double lock . I am re posting it here because I think it makes sense in the thread. The long locking bar for the wheelock wheel with no secondary prop looks like an interim stage in the evolution of the idea . It does have some other interesting features. The pancover appears to be pushed open not , as one would expect by a cam on the wheelshaft but by a spring which is released by the cam on the end of the wheelshaft. Which again suggests an early stage in the development of an idea . However I cant immediately see how the trigger mechanism for the snaplock is supposed to work . Any ideas ?

I am also re posting a second Wheelock from the same museum because technically and stylistically it is very similar . Also note again the distinctive style of the cock screw and the matching square headed bolt on cock pivot. The suggested date for this is 1550. If the Turin double lock is of a similar date then this ought to make this earliest known example of a snaplock with a combined steel and pancover .

[Fernando K]

Hello :

I hope that the translations do not betray me
Regarding the key (lock ) twice , the fact that the heads of some screws be square has no significance : the key also has ordinary screws. Even the flintlock has (I see ) rake screw ( Frizen ) with his square head .
Regarding the absence of first detent is a result of elongation of the plate ( plate) is needed and act with the pawl from far back . Even the hole in the wheel should be flat rather than tapered , so that the end of the latch , driven by its spring , remaining there until he was introduced to fire . Just different , that cam cubrecazoleta ( COVERPAN ) is not driven by the crankshaft of the wheel, but by the guarantor.

Regarding the comparison with the key ( lock) Portuguese , this has all the characteristics of a late model the cubrecazoleta is driven by the crankshaft and even has a spring that keeps it permanently closed

Regarding the trigger system of the flintlock , any review would not be more than a fiction , without seeing the original weapon . Calamandrei , in his book " Acciarin nei tempi " ( Keys ( locks ) in time) imagines a trigger button, which goes outside the plate ( plate) . For me, the two holes below correspond to cock a spring which kept the hook (dog ) away from the rooster ( cock )

[Raf]

Hullo Fernando. Thank you for helping to keep this thread alive.
I’m sorry your comments didn’t translate very well, and if I have misinterpreted them apologies. I will try and answer them as clearly as I can.
Bolts rather than screws. –" Of no significance."
If we see similar stylistic or technical features (the bolts) that are shared by other locks it is reasonable to suggest that they might form a group, and that they might belong to the same geographic area or be of similar date. If these locks also have some early features and we don’t see the bolts on later locks it is reasonable to suggest these bolts might be a characteristic to some early locks that was later abandoned. Unless we are prepared to make these kind of comparisons we couldn’t research or try to date anything.

The wheel release mechanism with no prop. "Just different."
Sorry. No. The second prop is a fundamental stage in the development of Wheelock design and seems to happen quite early. It was found; probably through bitter experience that the single locking bar, (which was occasionally simply a flat spring) could, if the nose of the sear was worn, or more likely the hole in the wheel was blocked with dirt, appear to lock the wheel, but in reality it was just hanging on the edge of the hole. Thus a knock could dislodge it and the gun would fire by accident. The second prop ensures that the wheel will only ‘ lock off ‘ when the sear fully enters the hole in the wheel. Its perfectly reasonable to conclude that wheelock’s with a single locking bar are, at least in evolutionary terms, earlier than those with the double locking system because experience had shown this system was in practice unsafe.

The pan cover opening mechanism.
I’m not sure what your point is. All I can say is that I haven’t seen a similar system before but if someone else has it would be nice to know. It seemed reasonable to suggest that this slightly convoluted arrangement might be an early stage in trying to work out the best way to open a sliding pan cover

The Portuguese lock "has the characteristics of a late model."
I don’t know anything about Portuguese locks. Are you saying the date 1550 is wrong? I thought there was a suggestion that it might be of Italian manufacture? I assume it has a one piece hooked type combined arm and flash pan cover as seen on some early German wheelock’s prior to the introduction of the sliding pan cover. This is shown in the dismantled wheelock attached; German C 1540. (The Met; New York) Notice also that despite its early date it does have a secondary prop for the wheel-locking bar.

The release mechanism for the flintlock.
There seem to be some missing bits in this area. The pivot for the cock looks inadequate. One would expect it to be supported by a bridle as in an aqujeta and I assumed that was what the holes were for. Its difficult to imagine how a spring to release the dog catch (as on the aqujeta) might work as the hook on the catch doesn’t seem big enough to hold.