Reliability of Snaphaunce?

[R.J.Bruce]

New poster, lurked for some time. I have only owned, and shot, flintlock long rifles in the past. Mainly, with Siler locks. Had total reliability with the locks on the different rifles that I owned.

I am thinking of purchasing a snaphaunce, and was wondering how the locks faired as daily shooters?

Any input would be appreciated.

Thanks

 

[rickystl]

Hi R.J.

My only experience with shooting the snaphaunce lock is with an original Moroccan lock. These original locks take quite a bit of re-working to get them to operate reliably. But I'm confident the English style lock from TRS - if assembled correctly - will function better.
The most noticeable is the longer timing of ignition. I'm sure this is primarily due to the long throw of the cock. And you have both a battery and pan cover being pushed forward at the same time, etc. Lots of nomenclature happening after you pull the trigger. LOL
I had to keep in mind that the original design of this lock goes back to the late 16th Century. In fact, it seems that the ignition timing of the wheellock is a bit faster. LOL I can readily see why the adoption of what we call the true French developed flintlock with it's vertical sear was so quickly accepted.
The guy in the YouTube Link above I believe is a Forum member and could probably give you a better opinion.
But in my opinion, the snaphaunce is no where near as reliable as a Siler type flintlock being made today.

That said, the earlier 17th Century guns are a blast to shoot.

Rick

 

[R.J.Bruce]

Hi R.J.

My only experience with shooting the snaphaunce lock is with an original Moroccan lock. These original locks take quite a bit of re-working to get them to operate reliably. But I'm confident the English style lock from TRS - if assembled correctly - will function better.
The most noticeable is the longer timing of ignition. I'm sure this is primarily due to the long throw of the cock. And you have both a battery and pan cover being pushed forward at the same time, etc. Lots of nomenclature happening after you pull the trigger. LOL
I had to keep in mind that the original design of this lock goes back to the late 16th Century. In fact, it seems that the ignition timing of the wheellock is a bit faster. LOL I can readily see why the adoption of what we call the true French developed flintlock with it's vertical sear was so quickly accepted.
The guy in the YouTube Link above I believe is a Forum member and could probably give you a better opinion.
But in my opinion, the snaphaunce is no where near as reliable as a Siler type flintlock being made today.

That said, the earlier 17th Century guns are a blast to shoot.

Rick

Thanks for the info. I was looking for a daily shooter from an earlier era.

 

[RAEDWALD]

The Moroccans kept with the snaphaunce as it allowed them to carry it primed with the pan closed. The safety being the steel thrown forwards out of battery. Their snaphaunces had automatic pan covers of course.

 

[Irishmusket]

The Snaphaunce when properly built is very reliable.But fouling from the priming effects them quickly not as bad as wheel lock however wich are horrible after just A few shots they gum up and are very very unreliable from the burnt up priming fouling the lock far To finicky .The Snaphaunce how ever keeps the priming secure till the moment of truth very much like flintlock .not so with most wheel locks and matchlocks this is actually a real issue .This issue and high and difflcult maintence and reliability issues is why most armies stayed with matchlock they were easy to maintain and train troops to care and feed them .The snaphaunce the english lock and The dog lock were superior to the matchlock and the wheellock and a true step forward In the middle 17 th Century .By the early18th century most but not all The armies of Europe were using fire locks of one various types