17th century flintlock

[Fernando K]

Hello Raf

Precisely, the double lock (lock) of Turin, according to the Italian expert Marco Morin. is Portuguese or Iberian peninsula.

Fold the lower lamina of the mainspring, appears to have had any function other than as a buffer. In key (lock) Ceylan, LAVIN page 172 in the end of the mainspring gets under the pan (for additional reinforcement?) And the same goes for the oldest "fecho Anselmo" as "Espingarda Perfeyta", page 451 . Do not forget that where the edge of the plate has a projection in front of the bread, used to stop the cock in his fall and to support the end of the mainspring. Do not forget that Ceylan was a Portuguese colony, influenced by the Portuguese gunsmiths

affectionately. Fernando K

Sorry for the translator

[Matchlock]

From Dr. Torsten Lenk, Flintl°aset, 1939: snaphaunces from the mid-16th to the early 17th c.

m

[Raf]

Yup . Got all those. Apart from the German one they are not snaphaunces.

[Raf]

Numbers 1 to 4 would I think have to be classified as flintlocks since , as in Evigneys lock an extension to the base of the steel is used to keep powder in the pan. Therefore pancover and steel are combined which has to be the basic definition of a flintlock. Number 5 is an early snaphaunce because the steel and pancover are separate. The pancover is a wheelock type sliding pancover which is opened by a plunger attached to the cock operating on the pancover link arm. As in a conventional snaphaunce only in this instance the linking mechanism is external.
Lenk seems to have regarded the flintlock as a distinct invention therefore does not classify these early locks as flintlocks. However I think a modern view would be that the classic flintlock was an evolutionary development which occurred as a result of a simplification or compromise between the variety of solutions to the snapping lock problem that had developed by the early seventeenth century.