Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook
Rick,
I'm a bit confused by these re-enactors findings re. speed of ignition.
A normal matchlock with a scear -bar can be very fast indeed, certainly the speed of a flintlock.
Re the snapping matchlock;
Many if not most, of these are in fact earlier than the scear-type.
If you go to European forum here, you can see untold amounts of matchlocks, in threads started by Matchlock, (sadly with us no more) and others.
Snapping matchlocks were used for target shooting into the late 17th century, but these were for specific matches, and shot Very well indeed!
Often these took a live coal, rather than matchcord for ignition.
Best,
Richard.
|
Hi Richard!
Well, your thoughts were the same as mine when I first heard this mentioned. He did say the later sear-activated matchlocks do indeed have a faster ignition speed. But he preferred the earlier lever-activated style for two reasons that I recall: 1. After firing, release of the trigger on the lever style returns the serpantine/matchcord back to it's original positon, giving greater access for cleaning the pan and vent hole if necessary. 2. The matchcord on the sear operated requires more frequent length adjusting.
So, I think he was saying the lever style is more forgiving than the sear activated locks. Maybe this is what he meant by "control" ? But I would think that would be a small price to pay for faster ignition time. Maybe just a matter of what you get use to.
I just recalled the conversation while we were talking about mechanisms. It is curious that the Ottoman/Arab/Indian style matchlocks never adopted the latter sear activated mechanisms. At least I've never seen one.
The only sear activated locks I've personally fired is my own Japanese one. (Which has an additional learning curve LOL). So it will be interesting to try out a lever activated one once my Torador barrel is finished.
Rick.