Bill Akins
New member
Although I am familiar with their mechanics, the terms describing the different styles of flint striking steel weapon actions have always puzzled me. There doesn't seem to be a definitive historical nor modern standard of just what exactly comprises these actions and how we should TERM them. We know how they work mechanically, but historically descriptions by authors have misused terms to describe them so much that it causes terminology confusion to this day.
Although I want to get to the flint style actions, a modern era example would be the discussion of is it a "clip" or a "magazine"? From research we know that Ferdinand Von Mannlicher (supposedly) invented the "clip". An example of which is the 8 rd "en bloc" clip used in the M1 Garand rifle. However many people erroneously (or is it erroneous?) use the term "clip" and "magazine" interchangeably.
Many people will object and quickly try to correct someone who calls a magazine a "clip". But just who is correct? That may surprise you.
Case in point....
Many people "feel" that a "magazine" is different from a "clip" in that the magazine is in their minds a removable metal box with an integral spring in it that holds the cartridges, whereas most Von Mannlicher style "clips" do not have an integral spring and only hold the cartridges while a spring separate from the "clip" comes up from the firearm into the open bottom of the clip to force the cartridges upwards. But....if that is true, then why has the lever action rifle's tube beneath its barrel historically been called its "magazine"? That "magazine" tube is not removable and it is questionable whether the spring in the tube belongs to the "magazine" or belongs to the firearm itself. The answer seems to be it depends on your point of view.
Then there is the historical reference to "magazine" that has nothing to do with the weapon itself and everything to do with the actual room or storage area where the ammunition or powder/projectiles or explosives are stored.
So when is the term of "magazine" only pertinent to a supposed removable metal box with an integral spring? And why do trying to be exact with these terms matter if we understand the differences in them mechanically? The answer is that the only reasons the terms matter is so we can place such terms into a context so that ourselves and others can hopefully understand the mechanics of something when it is being described or illustrated. But our terminology and use of that terminology is flawed and leaves much to be desired regarding being exact and technically correct.
There are other modern instances of confusion and disagreement in terminology like the "magazine" verses "clip" example, I just used that as one example since it is so commonly known by most of us.
But the main thing I would like to discuss is what are the differences between a Snaplock, a Snaphance or "Snaphaunce", a "Miquelet" and a "Flintlock's" actions.
First a bit of history.
We know what a "matchlock" is. Basically a weapon that uses a rope (known as the "match") impregnated with sulfur/saltpeter to cause it to burn slowly but not go out (hopefully) unless it gets very wet. That smoldering match is placed into the jaws of or into a hole in the head of, what was known as the serpentine. The early matchlocks didn't have a trigger. You just pushed forward on the serpentine with your thumb to bring the smouldering "match" it held to the touch hole of the barrel. Not the most accurate because of too much movement of your hand manually moving the serpentine forward. So later matchlocks incorporated trigger lock mechanisms that would snap the match to the touch hole. There doesn't seem to be much disagreement or confusion on what comprised "Matchlocks".
Equally so there doesn't seem to be much confusion on what comprised a "Wheellock". Basically a spring loaded serrated wheel that had the jaws of a cock holding a flint brought against it so that when the spring tension was released on the wheel, it spun and showered sparks toward the touch hole just like our cigarette lighters do today.
But....there is much confusion and disagreement on what comprises and what the differences are between the different actions of a cock holding a flint and striking against a steel frizzen are. I am talking about the Snaplock, Snaphance or Snaphaunce, Miquelet and Flintlock.
Some historians term the Snaplock as not being a true flintlock (in their minds) because it does not have a pan cover attached to the frizzen that automatically opens and closes with the movement of the frizzen. (The Snaplock was the earliest of the Flintlock (type) actions). But then there are some Snaplocks that do have a pan cover attached to the frizzen. So it is very confusing. Here is a description worth reading on the Snaplock. That comes from the below link....
"Before the weapon is fired, the pan has a closed cover: the mechanism for opening this cover (ie manual or automatic) can affect whether the weapon is classed as a snaplock. In fact, the term Snaplock may be used in three ways
The most general use of Snaplock is for any lock which strikes flint against steel but which does not have the defining feature of a true flintlock. This is the frizzen, a single piece of metal which is a combined "steel" and self-opening pan cover.
A more restrictive definition excludes the "snaphaunce", more sophisticated weapons with a lateral sear and a pan cover, separate from the steel, that opens automatically.
Sometimes the term is used only for specific Scandinavian, German, and Russian varieties of lock."
....As I said, the above confusing and conflicting description of the Snaplock comes from this below link....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snaplock
The Snaphance or Snaphaunce is (supposedly) a later version of the Snaplock, and supposedly has a pan cover that is attached to the frizzen and automatically uncovers the pan when the frizzen goes forward from being struck by the flint in the jaws of the cock. But as we have read already regarding the Snaplock, it said the Snaplock has either an automatically opening pan cover or a manually operated pan cover. So if that is true then how is the Snaphance any different from the Snaplock? It appears it isn't so why the difference in terms of a Snaplock verses a Snaphance? Again, read the link above and the pertinent sections I posted on the Snaplock having either a manually operated pan opening cover or an automatically opening pan cover attached to the frizzen.
And if some but perhaps not all Snaplocks while all Snaphance's have an automatically opening pan cover attached to the frizzen....they why are they termed Snaplock or Snaphance and not just called a Flintlock?
Are you confused yet? I know I am and I understand the mechanics of this stuff!
Here is a section from the below link on Snaphances.....
"The snaphance first appeared in the late 1550s as a development of the earlier snaplock. The main improvement was that the pan-cover opened automatically (to keep the priming dry until the exact moment of firing), as in the wheel-lock. (The snaplock had a manually operated pan cover similar to that of the matchlock. Some definitions class the snaphaunce as a sub-type of snaplock.)"
But as we read earlier some Snaplocks DID have automatically opening pan covers. So again, why if it has an automatically opening pan cover is it still called a Snaplock by some and a Snaphance/Shaphaunce by others, even still why aren't the ones with the automatically opening pan cover that is attached to the frizzen simply called a Flintlock? All very confusing.
The above regarding the Snaphance/Shaphaunce is from this below link.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snaphaunce
Next is the Miquelet. It seems the Miquelet is also supposedly a Snaplock. Yet in the three pictures of a Miquelet at the below link, it shows all three having a pan cover attached to the frizzen. Wouldn't that make the Miquelet a Snaphance instead of a Miquelet? Or even further, wouldn't that actually make it a Flintlock? Here's a link to a description and pictures of a Miquelet...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miquelet
Now I notice that in some Snaplocks and some Snaphances and some Miquelet's they have the spring for the lockwork exposed on the outside rather than on the inside of the lockwork. Now some people will say if it has an external spring powering the lockwork, that it isn't a true flintlock and that a true flintlock has an internal spring powering the lockwork, and that, that is what designates a TRUE Flintlock. Well, who made up that rule and why? What difference does it make if the spring powering the lockwork is internal or external when it comes to terming whether it is a flintlock or not? Doesn't the Snaplock, the Snaphance, the Miquelet and the Flintlock all use a flint which strikes a frizzen which showers sparks into a pan? Sure they do. Yet supposedly only one is called a "Flintlock" while the others even if they exhibit the exact same mechanical characteristics of a Flintlock, are called by their own terms. How terribly confusing!
Here is a site describing a Flintlock. But again, it seems some Snaplocks, Snaphances and Miquelets appear to match the same description for a Flintlock. So why call them anything other than "Flintlocks"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flintlock
I have for many years been confused about all the above. I am bringing it here for discussion with the full knowledge that if this confusion of terminology has been going on for hundreds of years, any discussion we may have here could not hope to be definitive and answer all the questions posed. But with that certainty of uncertainty in mind, it is still worth discussing and hearing opinions.
Such is the problem with terms that cross over into each other. And terms are very important when trying to teach someone the mechanics of what you already may know, but are hampered with teaching others by inexact and confusing terms.
.
Although I want to get to the flint style actions, a modern era example would be the discussion of is it a "clip" or a "magazine"? From research we know that Ferdinand Von Mannlicher (supposedly) invented the "clip". An example of which is the 8 rd "en bloc" clip used in the M1 Garand rifle. However many people erroneously (or is it erroneous?) use the term "clip" and "magazine" interchangeably.
Many people will object and quickly try to correct someone who calls a magazine a "clip". But just who is correct? That may surprise you.
Case in point....
Many people "feel" that a "magazine" is different from a "clip" in that the magazine is in their minds a removable metal box with an integral spring in it that holds the cartridges, whereas most Von Mannlicher style "clips" do not have an integral spring and only hold the cartridges while a spring separate from the "clip" comes up from the firearm into the open bottom of the clip to force the cartridges upwards. But....if that is true, then why has the lever action rifle's tube beneath its barrel historically been called its "magazine"? That "magazine" tube is not removable and it is questionable whether the spring in the tube belongs to the "magazine" or belongs to the firearm itself. The answer seems to be it depends on your point of view.
Then there is the historical reference to "magazine" that has nothing to do with the weapon itself and everything to do with the actual room or storage area where the ammunition or powder/projectiles or explosives are stored.
So when is the term of "magazine" only pertinent to a supposed removable metal box with an integral spring? And why do trying to be exact with these terms matter if we understand the differences in them mechanically? The answer is that the only reasons the terms matter is so we can place such terms into a context so that ourselves and others can hopefully understand the mechanics of something when it is being described or illustrated. But our terminology and use of that terminology is flawed and leaves much to be desired regarding being exact and technically correct.
There are other modern instances of confusion and disagreement in terminology like the "magazine" verses "clip" example, I just used that as one example since it is so commonly known by most of us.
But the main thing I would like to discuss is what are the differences between a Snaplock, a Snaphance or "Snaphaunce", a "Miquelet" and a "Flintlock's" actions.
First a bit of history.
We know what a "matchlock" is. Basically a weapon that uses a rope (known as the "match") impregnated with sulfur/saltpeter to cause it to burn slowly but not go out (hopefully) unless it gets very wet. That smoldering match is placed into the jaws of or into a hole in the head of, what was known as the serpentine. The early matchlocks didn't have a trigger. You just pushed forward on the serpentine with your thumb to bring the smouldering "match" it held to the touch hole of the barrel. Not the most accurate because of too much movement of your hand manually moving the serpentine forward. So later matchlocks incorporated trigger lock mechanisms that would snap the match to the touch hole. There doesn't seem to be much disagreement or confusion on what comprised "Matchlocks".
Equally so there doesn't seem to be much confusion on what comprised a "Wheellock". Basically a spring loaded serrated wheel that had the jaws of a cock holding a flint brought against it so that when the spring tension was released on the wheel, it spun and showered sparks toward the touch hole just like our cigarette lighters do today.
But....there is much confusion and disagreement on what comprises and what the differences are between the different actions of a cock holding a flint and striking against a steel frizzen are. I am talking about the Snaplock, Snaphance or Snaphaunce, Miquelet and Flintlock.
Some historians term the Snaplock as not being a true flintlock (in their minds) because it does not have a pan cover attached to the frizzen that automatically opens and closes with the movement of the frizzen. (The Snaplock was the earliest of the Flintlock (type) actions). But then there are some Snaplocks that do have a pan cover attached to the frizzen. So it is very confusing. Here is a description worth reading on the Snaplock. That comes from the below link....
"Before the weapon is fired, the pan has a closed cover: the mechanism for opening this cover (ie manual or automatic) can affect whether the weapon is classed as a snaplock. In fact, the term Snaplock may be used in three ways
The most general use of Snaplock is for any lock which strikes flint against steel but which does not have the defining feature of a true flintlock. This is the frizzen, a single piece of metal which is a combined "steel" and self-opening pan cover.
A more restrictive definition excludes the "snaphaunce", more sophisticated weapons with a lateral sear and a pan cover, separate from the steel, that opens automatically.
Sometimes the term is used only for specific Scandinavian, German, and Russian varieties of lock."
....As I said, the above confusing and conflicting description of the Snaplock comes from this below link....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snaplock
The Snaphance or Snaphaunce is (supposedly) a later version of the Snaplock, and supposedly has a pan cover that is attached to the frizzen and automatically uncovers the pan when the frizzen goes forward from being struck by the flint in the jaws of the cock. But as we have read already regarding the Snaplock, it said the Snaplock has either an automatically opening pan cover or a manually operated pan cover. So if that is true then how is the Snaphance any different from the Snaplock? It appears it isn't so why the difference in terms of a Snaplock verses a Snaphance? Again, read the link above and the pertinent sections I posted on the Snaplock having either a manually operated pan opening cover or an automatically opening pan cover attached to the frizzen.
And if some but perhaps not all Snaplocks while all Snaphance's have an automatically opening pan cover attached to the frizzen....they why are they termed Snaplock or Snaphance and not just called a Flintlock?
Are you confused yet? I know I am and I understand the mechanics of this stuff!
Here is a section from the below link on Snaphances.....
"The snaphance first appeared in the late 1550s as a development of the earlier snaplock. The main improvement was that the pan-cover opened automatically (to keep the priming dry until the exact moment of firing), as in the wheel-lock. (The snaplock had a manually operated pan cover similar to that of the matchlock. Some definitions class the snaphaunce as a sub-type of snaplock.)"
But as we read earlier some Snaplocks DID have automatically opening pan covers. So again, why if it has an automatically opening pan cover is it still called a Snaplock by some and a Snaphance/Shaphaunce by others, even still why aren't the ones with the automatically opening pan cover that is attached to the frizzen simply called a Flintlock? All very confusing.
The above regarding the Snaphance/Shaphaunce is from this below link.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snaphaunce
Next is the Miquelet. It seems the Miquelet is also supposedly a Snaplock. Yet in the three pictures of a Miquelet at the below link, it shows all three having a pan cover attached to the frizzen. Wouldn't that make the Miquelet a Snaphance instead of a Miquelet? Or even further, wouldn't that actually make it a Flintlock? Here's a link to a description and pictures of a Miquelet...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miquelet
Now I notice that in some Snaplocks and some Snaphances and some Miquelet's they have the spring for the lockwork exposed on the outside rather than on the inside of the lockwork. Now some people will say if it has an external spring powering the lockwork, that it isn't a true flintlock and that a true flintlock has an internal spring powering the lockwork, and that, that is what designates a TRUE Flintlock. Well, who made up that rule and why? What difference does it make if the spring powering the lockwork is internal or external when it comes to terming whether it is a flintlock or not? Doesn't the Snaplock, the Snaphance, the Miquelet and the Flintlock all use a flint which strikes a frizzen which showers sparks into a pan? Sure they do. Yet supposedly only one is called a "Flintlock" while the others even if they exhibit the exact same mechanical characteristics of a Flintlock, are called by their own terms. How terribly confusing!
Here is a site describing a Flintlock. But again, it seems some Snaplocks, Snaphances and Miquelets appear to match the same description for a Flintlock. So why call them anything other than "Flintlocks"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flintlock
I have for many years been confused about all the above. I am bringing it here for discussion with the full knowledge that if this confusion of terminology has been going on for hundreds of years, any discussion we may have here could not hope to be definitive and answer all the questions posed. But with that certainty of uncertainty in mind, it is still worth discussing and hearing opinions.
Such is the problem with terms that cross over into each other. And terms are very important when trying to teach someone the mechanics of what you already may know, but are hampered with teaching others by inexact and confusing terms.
.
Last edited:
