A fine Styrian snap tinderlock gun, ca. 1525, in the Graz Armory

Matchlock · 16th December 2008, 01:31 PM

Hi, Richard,

In fact, both the Pilsen gun and the litlle guy did lose a few pieces of wood covering the trigger/sear spring. They have been repaced in both guns but are completely original in the Hofkircher gun in Graz which retains them all.

Interesting enough, in the little harquebus, the rear little piece of wood is not held at all, just inserted (!); there are no old traces of glue whatsoever. The forward splice of wood is, as you wrote, just barely kept in place by the mainspring.

Of course, those two pieces would have fitted in much better when the wood was new and without any shrinkage. The part locks disappeared from the scene very soon, though, and complete lock plates took over for evidently practical reasons.

Michael

Pukka Bundook · 17th December 2008, 04:29 AM

Michael,

It's a wonder those little pieces of wood ar ever present, if only held in by friction!
You don't think the rear one could at one time have been attached to the spring somehow?

Re. the open topped rear sight;
Do you think it was opened up later, and was originally closed?
The brass inlay appears to be missing from the flat area, and looks a bit like the sight was 'modified' at some time?

what do you think?

All best wishes,

Richard.

Matchlock · 17th December 2008, 12:20 PM

[QUOTE=Pukka Bundook]Michael,

It's a wonder those little pieces of wood ar ever present, if only held in by friction!
You don't think the rear one could at one time have been attached to the spring somehow?

I don't think so; had it been attached to the spring it would have had to follow its lateral movement.

Re. the open topped rear sight;
Do you think it was opened up later, and was originally closed?
The brass inlay appears to be missing from the flat area, and looks a bit like the sight was 'modified' at some time?

Great minds think alike, Richard, that brilliant idea of yours really explains the unusual opening! Thank you so much.

Michael

Pukka Bundook · 17th December 2008, 02:11 PM

Michael,

Your last sentence reminds me of a quote I heard somewhere;

"Great minds think alike,.............................and so do ours!"

You are quite right, the spring could not have had the wood attached.

Richard.

Matchlock · 17th December 2008, 03:17 PM

Great minds think alike ... and so do ours, Richard!

Splendid. I didn't know that one but like it Very much!

Michael

16th December 2008, 01:31 PM	#1
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Hi, Richard, In fact, both the Pilsen gun and the litlle guy did lose a few pieces of wood covering the trigger/sear spring. They have been repaced in both guns but are completely original in the Hofkircher gun in Graz which retains them all. Interesting enough, in the little harquebus, the rear little piece of wood is not held at all, just inserted (!); there are no old traces of glue whatsoever. The forward splice of wood is, as you wrote, just barely kept in place by the mainspring. Of course, those two pieces would have fitted in much better when the wood was new and without any shrinkage. The part locks disappeared from the scene very soon, though, and complete lock plates took over for evidently practical reasons. Michael

17th December 2008, 04:29 AM	#2
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Michael, It's a wonder those little pieces of wood ar ever present, if only held in by friction! You don't think the rear one could at one time have been attached to the spring somehow? Re. the open topped rear sight; Do you think it was opened up later, and was originally closed? The brass inlay appears to be missing from the flat area, and looks a bit like the sight was 'modified' at some time? what do you think? All best wishes, Richard.

17th December 2008, 12:20 PM	#3
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	[QUOTE=Pukka Bundook]Michael, It's a wonder those little pieces of wood ar ever present, if only held in by friction! You don't think the rear one could at one time have been attached to the spring somehow? I don't think so; had it been attached to the spring it would have had to follow its lateral movement. Re. the open topped rear sight; Do you think it was opened up later, and was originally closed? The brass inlay appears to be missing from the flat area, and looks a bit like the sight was 'modified' at some time? Great minds think alike, Richard, that brilliant idea of yours really explains the unusual opening! Thank you so much. Michael

17th December 2008, 02:11 PM	#4
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Michael, Your last sentence reminds me of a quote I heard somewhere; "Great minds think alike,.............................and so do ours!" You are quite right, the spring could not have had the wood attached. Richard.

17th December 2008, 03:17 PM	#5
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Great minds think alike ... and so do ours, Richard! Splendid. I didn't know that one but like it Very much! Michael