Miquelet Lock Pistol end 17th c

[Fernando K]

Hello

I do not know if I will give myself to understand, because English is not my language

I think the first thing you should do is know how big the missing screw is. I mean that you must find out the diameter and pitch of the screw, checking the threaded part of the holes in the lock Example [: 5 mm metric screw. by a step of 0.8mm.)

As at that time the diameters and steps were not standardized, it is a bit difficult to get a copy, but it would be necessary to try with numerous screws (metric or Withwort) until obtaining one that threads. Knowing this, it is easy for a turner to modify an existing screw, or to manufacture one from scratch, modifying the hexagonal head to round, according to the surviving example.

Affectionately

[AHorsa]

Hi Fernando,

thanks for your comment! It´s a good idea to modify a hexagonal head!
Actually the diameter of the whole is 3,5mm. So there must be some alterations anyway. The head´s diameter of the surviving example is 8mm. Sadly a 4mm-screw´s head is 7mm. So I guess a way would be: Taking a 5mm screw with hexagonal head (8mm diameter), altering the head and the shaft and adapt the thread (or let a turner do this, which might be more fruitful )

Kind regards
Andreas

[Raf]

hI Andreas
This pistol maybe a bit more complicated than it first appears. Given the conservatism of Italian gunmakers these Brescian type pistols continued to be made well into the eighteenth century with a variety of locks . Flintlock , snaphaunce with or without external buffers and as in your case a southern Italian toe lock.Having said that I agree that in the main this pistol probably belongs to the third quater of the seventeenth century. First question is are you absolutely sure this is the lock it started life with ? The reason for asking is that these pistols are normally of uniformly excellent quality and from the photographs the lock does not seem to be up to the quality of the rest. Secondly the center lockplate screw appears to have been drilled through the wood rather than through the sideplate which is a strangely scruffy thing to do on a pistol of this quality. Also the third sideplate hole, where a belt hook might have been fitted looks like its been blanked of with a domed rivit. All this should be easily resolved by looking at the rebate for the lock to see if their are any signs of it being cut for a different lock. If it looks OK then we need to think again. Another strange thing is the barrel tang which has been shaped to fit round the very nicely executed escutcheon doesnt look right . Also at this date you would expect the barrel tang screw to be fitted from underneath the trigger guard and screwed into the tang. Whatever the answer is its still a nice thing and if it has been modified then this must have occurred fairly early in its working life. Attached are some images of our archaic looking Brescian snaphaunce of a similar date and a potential pattern for the missing ramrod tube .

[Fernando K]

Hello

Two observations

First: The front face of the frizzen also has a mask, as does the arch of the guard and the stock knob. If the mask is the same or similar, the lock is original. And also, it seems to be consistent with the little decoration that we find on the barrel, the trigger guard arch and the butt pommel, except for the masks and a work of filing, giving drawing to these parts.

Second: the back plate (side plate) and the decoration around the tang barrel I suppose it is iron) seem to come from another hand, they may have been obtained by the armorer who assembled the gun, and the holes for the screws that hold the lock they may not coincide with the spaces in the side plate for the screw holes. There is also a hint of this; the barrel tang had to be filed in a corner to embed the decoration.

Affectionately

[Raf]

1 couldn't see from the photographs the mask on the front of the frizzen so if this is the case then the lock obviously belongs. I also take your point that individual furniture fittings were bought in from specialist outworkers therefore one might expect some stylistic inconsistencies. Still think the tang looks odd but these things do happen. Apologies if I have confused the post.

Here for general interest is the interior of the snaphaunce I posted.Notice that the maker, initials detailed , didnt entirely trust a single piece vertically operating sear and incorporated a secondary sear in order to lock it , rather like the sear arrangement in a wheelock but operating in a vertical plane

[Fernando K]

Hello
}
Interesting. The second sear blocks the first, but can only move by turning. How is it handled by the shooter? The second guarantor seems continually bound by the small double spring at the end of the plate. Thanks

Affectionately

[Raf]

Originally Posted by Fernando K

Hello
}
Interesting. The second sear blocks the first, but can only move by turning. How is it handled by the shooter? The second guarantor seems continually bound by the small double spring at the end of the plate. Thanks

Affectionately

Hi I thought you might be interested .Maybe this image makes it clearer. This arrangement seems to be transitional between earlier snaphaunces with interlocked horizontally moving sears and flintlocks / snapaunces with vertically moving sears . I haven't seen it illustrated before and may be uniquely Italian. It seems surprising to find it on a late seventeenth century gun but this antiquated style of lock with its external buffer continued to be made in the early eighteenth century.

On full cock the secondary sear D slips under the tail of the primary sear C at E locking it into the tumbler notch B. On release the force of the mainspring drives the sear out of engagement. The V spring controls the movement of both the primary and secondary sears.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by Raf

... these Brescian type pistols continued to be made well into the eighteenth century with a variety of locks . Flintlock , snaphaunce with or without external buffers and as in your case a southern Italian toe lock.Having said that I agree that in the main this pistol probably belongs to the third quater of the seventeenth century. .

Raf, you have a lovely example here, thanks for sharing it. In terms of style and decoration, I would say that this pistol is more likely to hail from central Italy than Brescia, although armorers in that area did on occasion make products for export, catering to outside tastes -- for instance the quantity of cup-hilt rapiers of high quality for sale to the Spanish market, and also in Spanish-dominated southern Italy.

The "toe lock" you mention is likely the so-called "roman" miquelet lock, something which vied for popularity in central Italy as well, along with the Florentine snaphaunce. Roman-style locks were not much favored in northern Italy, although gunsmiths catering to the luxury trade, working in Madrid and Lisbon, also made them in limited numbers.

[AHorsa]

Dear All,

sorry for the late reply. I haven´t been at home the last days. Thanks a lot for the discussion gentlemen and for sharing your nice example, Raf.
I add some better images. I hope the following is somehow understandable, as my English became a bt rusty the last years.
On the lock / frizzen, there is no third face. It´s just some decorative element, which from the side looks a bit like a face in this context. But the lock is, as far as I can judge it, in quite good quality and I cant find traces of alteratoins for a new lock on the wood.
The center screw is indeed drilled throug the would without a corresponding elemt on the lock plate. An there are some old alterations on the lock plate, one of them from the missing belt hook, the others I can´t attribute. On the other hand, there are no holes in the wood from older screws at another location.

In my eyes,

- the barrel definitively belongs to the shaft, although the tang screw is not "text book"

- the decorations and lock plate definitively belongs to the shaft

- as I can´t find any traces of altering or fitting in a new lock, I assume that also the lock belongs to the pistol from the beginning, although t
he decoratoins do not fit perfectly to the other elements.

I marked a round piece of the lock plate in the last image, which I thank was the point, deisgnated by the manufacturer of this element, for drilling a hole for the screw. It seems that it was never used.

As a conlcusion I think that, concerning the traces of age, all the parts belong together for a very long time / since its working life. Moreover I think it initially was assembled that way. Maybe the producer did not have another lock, so he fitted the screws to this one. I don´t know. But it seems that there have never been another lock on this pistol, followed by the traces (or non-existence of traces).

Kind regards
Andreas

[Raf]

HI Philip. Thanks for your comments. The good thing about this forum is that there is usually someone out there who knows more about things than you do. I agree. Could have been made in any small town North of Rome. Alla florentina has a nice ring to it. Your comments about the regional nature of Italian firearms production are I think perceptive. Probably explains why we see such a variety of lock styles, including Wheelock’s with no obvious chronological significance. Also one of the reasons these things are difficult to date.

Obviously type E according to Nolfo Di Carppegnas classification. All lock design is a compromise and early lock designers took the question of safety very seriously. The two part interlocked sear has a lot to recommend it as the thing wont lock off unless the primary sear is properly and fully engaged. The classic flintlock is the simplest, cheapest and one could argue worst solution.

[Raf]

Posts seem to have crossed somehow. Re Ahorsas post it is clear that the lock is original and the better view of the lock shows that the quality is consistent with the rest. Therefore please ignore my previous comments on this. As I suggested before the odd discrepancies can probably be accounted for by fittings such as the sideplate and escutcheon being bought in fully finished from specialist outworkers that didn’t entirely fit the gun that was being made.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by Raf

All lock design is a compromise and early lock designers took the question of safety very seriously. The two part interlocked sear has a lot to recommend it as the thing wont lock off unless the primary sear is properly and fully engaged. The classic flintlock is the simplest, cheapest and one could argue worst solution.

Thanks, Raf for your assessment. Your last sentence probably says it all as to why the classic "French" flintlock stayed around so long and moreover, became the standard system for military arms in virtually all Western countries. Not to mention the same sear system carried over into later percussion locks, and on the transitional breechloaders using side-hammer firing systems as well.

Speaking of simple, cheap, and (almost) idiot-proof, what is your opinion of the sear arrangement of the Spanish patilla miquelet lock (upward-bearing mainspring, half- and full-cock sears engaging foot of cock) that was also widely produced in Portugal, Brescia, Naples, occasionally imitated in the German lands, and almost universal in the Ottoman Empire and Iran?