Early 17th Century Scandinavian Gun Lock

[rickystl]

Hi Philip

Thank you so much for your comprehensive replies. You too Fernando K.

Trigger: It could be as you mention above, especially if this lock is later than originally suspected. But I'm starting to think along the lines of Fernando K.
What if a single, vertical trigger was used, with a shape at the rear of the trigger that resembles a smallish pin that is half flat/half round and tapers to a cone like shape ? And aligns with the far rear tail piece of the spring bar. As the trigger is pulled back, the semi cone shaped piece moves upward gradually enlarging against the spring bar and eventually moving it inward.
In any case, it seems the little tail opening at the end of the spring bar is key to opening. Otherwise there would be no need for the little tail. See pic below...

Rick

[rickystl]

Per Philip's mention, an early 17th Century Swedish snaplaoc, and a much later Baltic lock just for comparison.

Rick

[Philip]

Originally Posted by rickystl

Per Philip's mention, an early 17th Century Swedish snaplaoc, and a much later Baltic lock just for comparison.

Rick

Thanks for the pics. The Swedish lock is a snaphaunce, having a separate pan cover and frizzen. Looks like the pan cover is manually operated, isn't it? I don't see a pushrod linking it to the tumbler. A contrast to the more-developed automatic-opening systems (with internal mainsprings acting on tumblers) see on Scottish and Dutch snaphaunces (and thus on later Moroccan locks) or on the Central Italian alla fiorentina locks.

Appears that we are on different pages re the "Baltic lock". You show an interesting and rare early transition to the mature form -- is this a shooter's replica made by The Rifle Shoppe? ' Wonder who has the original prototype -- rare! Notice an essentially snaphaunce system (separate frizzen and pan cover), with external mainspring. And this lock has a pivoting matchlock style pan cover, not a sliding wheellock or snaphaunce type. A very interesting thing -- these Scandinavian locks came from a culture on the fringe of Europe, and appeared right when firearms technology hit the "cusp of change" several times within a short historical span.

What arms writers refer to as the Baltic lock is shown below ( from Robert Held's The Age of Firearms ,1957, p 83). It has an internal mainspring and tumbler much like that of the English flintlock, and a two-part sear with both arms activated by one V-spring which is identical to that of the "Roman" miquelet. Also, note that the lock illustrated here (and most of the originals in published photos) show the rotating frizzen secured by the friction of screw pressure, not by the small V-spring that your lock has.

Back to Fernando K's hypothesis that your lock is an historicism, I can't help but wonder why a reproducer of a later time would go through the trouble to design and make such an innovative feature such as that frizzen retaining system if he was mainly focused on copying something old, especially during Victorian times when the primary purpose of these reproductions was decorative.

The presence of slag inclusions in the lockplate metal is encouraging. Admittedly, the piece looks as though it had been strenuously cleaned in the past. Coming out of a source in Germany, it might be understandable. Back in college on a visit to Nürnberg, I was struck by the shininess of the breastplates on display in the armor hall of the Germanisches Nationalmuseum -- those things were bright! I hope the patina was retained on the posterior surfaces.

[Fernando K]

Hello

Regarding the lock presented by Rick, and according to the principle of parsimony, I must say that I think that it is not even a Victorian copy, but a modern one, as if someone had copied something, and at some point made some innovations. Thus, the ear that fixes the spring on the piece that makes the cover-pan, held by a pin, instead of a screw, and which interferes with the bait powder. In turn, the guarantor has been taken from older weapons, as we can see in some primitive wheel weapons

Affectionately

[Philip]

Originally Posted by Fernando K

Hello

Thus, the ear that fixes the spring on the piece that makes the cover-pan, held by a pin, instead of a screw, and which interferes with the bait powder. In turn, the guarantor has been taken from older weapons, as we can see in some primitive wheel weapons

Affectionately

Without seeing the component fully stripped down in full view, I can't rule out the possibility of it being a later replacement and/or alteration. However, from a functional standpoint, I don't think that the ear should interfere that much since the pan is fairly large and the ear and its pin doesn't take that much space. Also, the flint knocks the frizzen and pan assembly out of the way when striking sparks so the burning priming powder should have direct access to the touchhole at the moment of ignition.

What do you mean by "guarantor"? What is the original Spanish term, maybe I can look it up in my Spanish and Portuguese references so I know what you are trying to discuss.

[Fernando K]

Hello

Of course, I was not referring to the timing of the shot, but to the act of priming. The closure of the cover-pan is made on the bait powder, and the ear falls on the bait, preventing its complete closure.

The translator has translated the word "f i a d o r" as "guarantor"

As I have argued, it seems to me that it is a modern replica, and with this I end my comment. I don't want to be the one with the last word .....

[corrado26]

Looking at the absolutely flawless metal of the locks I think that Fernado K's statement that these are modern replicas is correct.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by rickystl

Hi Philip



Trigger: It could be as you mention above, especially if this lock is later than originally suspected. But I'm starting to think along the lines of Fernando K.
What if a single, vertical trigger was used, with a shape at the rear of the trigger that resembles a smallish pin that is half flat/half round and tapers to a cone like shape ? And aligns with the far rear tail piece of the spring bar. As the trigger is pulled back, the semi cone shaped piece moves upward gradually enlarging against the spring bar and eventually moving it inward.
In any case, it seems the little tail opening at the end of the spring bar is key to opening. Otherwise there would be no need for the little tail. See pic below...

Rick

You and I have the same idea. A half-cone (or a wedge) that moves up and separates the tail of the sear bar from the lockplate (and thus withdrawing the sear nose) would perform the same function.

My description includes a right-hand offset between this cone/wedge and the trigger itself just for dimensional compatibility between the position of the trigger (aligned to the central axis of the stock) and the inside of the lockplate (a bit to the right, near the top of the lock recess where the lockplate would sit).