A look at two wheellocks

[Flint62Smoothie]

@TobJohn - If we throw in the concept that the pan ‘slot’ was actually ground by the wheel itself, acting as a milling cutter, does that alter your thinking for part ‘B’?

 

[TobJohn]

@TobJohn - If we throw in the concept that the pan ‘slot’ was actually ground by the wheel itself, acting as a milling cutter, does that alter your thinking for part ‘B’?

That’s what I was referencing. I agree that it is, and that could help explain why they made this entire section out of three different pieces. Having the the back filler (C) separate allows the pan (B) to rotate up to down while grinding.

 

[PhDBrewer]

Having the the back filler (C) separate allows the pan (B) to rotate up to down while grinding.

I agree.

 

[TobJohn]

Ya mean 1mm?
It appears that the spring is further away from the lock plate.

I was able to lightly tap the mainspring back into position (along the length of the lock), and it turns out your observation is actually correct. It is in fact still a millimeter away from the lock plate, which is keeping it from fitting in the slot.

 

[TobJohn]

This is a bit of a dumber observation, but I love how the pyrite holders on wheellocks of this era look like crocodile heads:

 

[rickystl]

Another minor observation is the long threaded top screws. I assume to accommodate different sizes of pyrite. The longer length screws was a carry-over feature to the snaphaunce lock.

Rick

 

[TobJohn]

Another minor observation is the long threaded top screws. I assume to accommodate different sizes of pyrite. The longer length screws was a carry-over feature to the snaphaunce lock.

Rick

Tying that to my response to Sam, it would be extremely fascinating to examine multiple lock types made in the same shop, assuming shops made more than one type of lock. I know Suhl had snaplocks, matchlocks, and wheellocks all made in the city in the early 1600s. Not sure how many shops were present, though

 

[TobJohn]

I just remembered there is an example. Michael had a matchlock made by Peter Peck. The musket was made a couple of decades after he was making incredible wheellocks for the HRE Charles V. By this point, financial issues had humbled Peter Peck to the role of a working class gunsmith. If I remember correctly, it was around the 1570s/80s that he became the resident armorer of his principality and got some prestige back.
An Early and Important Munich Military Matchlock Musket by Peter Peck, ca. 1575-80 - Ethnographic Arms & Armour

 

[TobJohn]

On the topic of origin of these locks, I google translated this page and the second gun has a lock that is signed by a known lock maker in Brescia:

However, the book, Le armi da fuoco portatili italiane dalle origini al Risorgimento, also calls the locks "Flemish Style", but the stocks "Brescian Style". As I have mentioned in other threads, google translate really struggles with Italian gun terms, so plenty of room for error.

Edit:
Shockingly, I was able to find a recent article on the gunsmith of the second gun. Hector was a German gunsmith, working in Brescia, that made Germanic/Flemish style locks and guns (less clear if the full guns are also German style) for the Italian market. His shop made large scale orders, with the 1580s/90s version of serial production.
L'Italia chiamò - Capodimonte oggi racconta... Hector! Chi era costui?

 

[TobJohn]

After some additional research through Le armi da fuoco portatili italiane dalle origini al Risorgimento, and then some internet research on "Terzaroulo" (carbines/giant pistols), it looks like that these locks actually are usually from Nuremberg, but attached to Brescian firearms. I am not sure if it is a vocabulary coincidence, but it seems like when the guns that fall under "Terzaroulo" are recorded, these locks are also in style (with only one dog).

This top example even has a lock that’s almost the same size as Rick’s/lock 2, ~8.5inches

 

[TobJohn]

I tested my wheel with a wrench, using some cloth to protect the metal, and it actually rotates kind of smoothly, but sticks wherever it stopped. I had incorrectly assumed the mechanism was frozen from age. Is there a danger to fully compressing the spring and trying to lock the wheel in the fire position?

The dogs can also be moved into position, and their springs are absurdly strong.

 

[Rudyard]

Hmmm. Good question. Interchangeability of parts had not evolved yet. And parts were forged rather than cast. Since all work was done by hand, making parts larger versus smaller would likely have been easier. This may also be the reason you see a wheellock pistol with a lock that looks larger than necessary. Forging, grinding, and filing small parts would have been time consuming. Still, you would think that with the complicated mechanism of the wheellock, lock makers would have kept at least some sort of patterns to use in building future locks.

Rick

This we can only guess & speculate you gentlemen all make educated guesses ime no different you in that .Just 'Boldly go where no man in his right mind would even think of boldly going ' Ime about to turn a new W lock' crank shaft' for an external spring w lock .. & no Captain Kirk to guide me .
Regards Rudyard

 

[Sam squanch]

if I owned it, I would clamp the wheel square , the shaft you wind it with, in a vise with some lead or copper padding to keep from marring it. Then I would turn the whole lock back and forth, gently, with a bit of oil down in the works. And watch the mainspring for signs of cracks. And wear eye protection!

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

Then I would turn the whole lock back and forth, gently, with a bit of oil down in the works.

DO NOT WIND BACKWARDS on a wheellock ... you WILL break the spring!

Yes, wind it in the way it is normally wound, and then back to the starting position, but do not rotate it the other way ...