Leonardo's snap lock. The missing link ?

[Raf]

In pursuit of the earliest ( or in this case worse ) snaplock here is a Mongolian version. The trigger release is breathtaking in its elegant simplicity...
Also interesting is the lack of a frizen spring and no evidence that one was ever fitted at least to this gun. Which suggest what I suspected; that early snaplocks may have relied simply on the inertia of a relatively heavy steel creating enough resistance to create a spark. Difficult to argue that something like this could not have been knocked up by any blacksmith sometime in the fifteenth century...

[Fernando K]

Hello, Raf:

I think the key (lock) has broken the shortest branch mainspring: the square hole in the plate (plate) seems to prove it. Also that the bowl (pan) in the ball and seems to be drawing the battery dock.

I think any key (lock) could depend on the inertia of a rake (Frizen) heavy, without spring, because any sudden movement would that moved out of position. There is, in any museum or collection, a gun (or its remnants) with this feature.

Affectionately. Fernando K

[Raf]

Hullo Fernando.
I did find a different example of a Mongolian lock. Sorry cant post it , so you will have to trust me on this one . It also appeared to have a single leaf mainspring and no frizen spring. But what was interesting is that it had a decorative fence to the end of the flashpan very similar to the one illustrated below; 17C Russian. Appears to be missing from the example above. See also the rearward projection on the steel as in Lenks primitive snaplock. So I think we can assume that the origin of these Mongolian locks are a version of Russian snaplocks and that the primitive release mechanism is an example of reverse engineering adapted to local manufacturing skills , or lack of them !
I know claiming a snaplock without a frizen spring will work is eccentric but I have tested it on Dutch snaphaunces with the spring removed and they do still spark up .

[Philip]

Originally Posted by Raf

Also interesting is the lack of a frizen spring and no evidence that one was ever fitted at least to this gun. Which suggest what I suspected; that early snaplocks may have relied simply on the inertia of a relatively heavy steel creating enough resistance to create a spark. Difficult to argue that something like this could not have been knocked up by any blacksmith sometime in the fifteenth century...

Hi, Raf
There are a number of extremely primitive snaplock guns kicking around the States, having been brought back by American servicemen during the Vietnam War. Smallbore, pistol grip stock not fitted for ramrod, and a very rudimentary flint mechanism with external mainspring and no screw-tightened jaws for the flint which was apparently lashed in place with rawhide or the like. THESE LOCKS OFTEN LACK A FRIZZEN SPRING AS WELL.

The guns do not even belong to the Vietnamese culture-sphere, they are aboriginal artifacts associated with the diverse tribes of the Annam/Lao/Cambodia highlands.

As re your comment about the inertia of a heavy frizzen, my examination of a good number of these guns indicates that the steel is not especially massive, and is a rather loose fit on its pivot. But apparently, these things worked! Unfortunately I do not have a photo handy at moment, if I do locate an image, will post it here.

[Raf]

Hi Philip
Reposted here is an excavated Russian snaplock originally posted by Evegeny. K . Evidence for the possible early evolution of these primitive locks will have to wait until one turns up in an establishable archaeological context.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by Raf

Hi Philip
Reposted here is an excavated Russian snaplock originally posted by Evegeny. K . Evidence for the possible early evolution of these primitive locks will have to wait until one turns up in an establishable archaeological context.

Thanks, Raf! Would be interesting to know the location of the find and its cultural and historic context, especially considering that during the period in question, the lands of the eastern Baltic and the Slavonic territories to the south and east were a crossroads for invasion and rule under different crowns.

This is an interesting one. Mainspring bears down on the front of the cock's foot, as on the Kremlin example I posted above. Snaphaunce configuration, with a vertical post on the pan indicating a pivot for a (matchlock-type) manually opened pan-cover (which is also seen on some primitive Scandinavian designs).

Do you have Yuri Miller's Russian Arms and Armour ? More princely examples of Russian snaplocks in the Kremlin Armory, and during the period in which they were in vogue, there was quite a spectrum of design variations. You see lockplates with a bulging contour on the bottom imitating the style of wheellocks, external and internal mainsprings, decorative and stylistic touches echoing Scottish, Dutch, and English snaphaunces, etc.