Miquelet Lock Pistol end 17th c

[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?