Wheellocks and Flintlocks

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Swords were a status symbol due almost entirely to inherent complexity and expense of basic manufacture. They required very high-quality materials and a higher level of craftsmanship than most weapons. They didn't need to be bespoke or "blinged," although they were indeed often both.

Only the level we're talking about (nobles comparing hunting gear) you already above that level. I.e. were talking noble to noble where having a pistol is just the start of the comparison, just as having a sword would have been 1000 years earlier.

Not Noble to non noble


Actually that's kind of the point, once you get rich enough you start measuring your self in pretty esoteric things, not the things the majority of people care about or deal with it might be football teams owned toady, who decorated your gun was one a few centuries ago (actually I've seen how much really nice shot guns go for, it still happens)

Originally Posted by Varyon

If the only disadvantage a wheellock has comes down to cost (both for manufacture and maintenance), it could easily become a status symbol - it will always be more expensive than a comparable flintlock.

Thing is at the level we're talking about (the cost of the decoration being ,many times more than cost of the underlying gun) the actual price difference between a flintlock and wheel lock becomes a proportionally tiny part of the equation. Certainly not enough to make any real difference in status, unless the wheel lock is some how indicative of status in and of itself.

Originally Posted by Varyon

You can also make the wheellock mechanism look much more impressive than a flintlock, at least in my opinion.

Well in matter of taste there are no right or wrong answers, there are example of highly decorated wheel and flint locks so enough people with money though both were worth doing.

Originally Posted by Varyon

The weapons being a bit more fragile might not prevent them from being status symbols, particularly if you can use more expensive parts to offset/negate this penalty. If they have a higher Malf, however, they'll be abandoned.

Yeah I think that's fair (even if your life isn't on the line, There won't be many nobles keen to be embarrassed in front of who ever it is they are trying to impress)

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

You've also repeatedly mentioned differences in "training" for lock types and acted as if they were large. I do not believe they were. I'd rate them as less than an 8 hour familiarization. Indeed, I'd rate them at roughly a 5 minute explanation.

Well, probably not 5 minutes, since you are going to want your troops to be able to do the routine cleaning an lubrication, and even if not they'll need to fire it a several times just to get used to things like how stiff the trigger is and where the powder gases come out, which at muzzle loader rates of fire....

Mostly 8 hours is more than enough, but more might actually be justified when upgrading from some really primitive locks. I can use both hands to hold the gun? And I don't *need* to close my eyes when firing to avoid being blinded? It's possible to aim? That's amazing....

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Varyon

You'd load the weapon and, rather than having a flashpan, you'd have a piston that lowered (probably after being struck by a hammer) into the chamber itself, compressing things enough to ignite the powder (you may need a ratchet mechanism to prevent the explosion from throwing the piston back up), which then propels the bullet, as normal.

I'm rather dubious about this. You're requiring the lock to do a lot more mechanical work than a flintlock or wheellock. Springs were some of the hard parts of those locks, and this is going to need stronger ones, which start to require real effort to cock. As for the ratchet for the piston - you're creating something approaching the ambition of a semi-automatic action, in an era of much worse materials, with everything made by hand. It's going to be expensive, dangerous, or both.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Thing is with watches having complex and yet precise inner workings are part of the inherent draw of the object, less so with hunting guns which have other metrics to be judged by.

Not really. People who prefer digital watches don't prefer them because the parts are so tiny and complicated. Having impressive inner workings are a draw of clockwork, and wheellocks are clockwork.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

which we've just discounted because it largely can't be seen, or give any advantage. Complexity for complexities sakes is not particularly valued, especially when it give no increase in functionality.

However it can be seen through branding.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Have you seen C18th - C19th styles, exterior show was rather paramount to most styles of the time.

Sure, you can do a lot. Not quite "let's just slap some gold on the thing" though I think.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

OK but then you might need to cite what that sub cultures uses as a metric for assigning perceived value.

I'm just responding in this regard. For this thread I'm interested in mechanical differentiation.

Originally Posted by Varyon

It has since occurred to me that I may have been looking at this all wrong. If the wadding is packed tightly enough, you could have the "exit" be blocked by the bullet itself. You'd load the weapon and, rather than having a flashpan, you'd have a piston that lowered (probably after being struck by a hammer) into the chamber itself, compressing things enough to ignite the powder (you may need a ratchet mechanism to prevent the explosion from throwing the piston back up), which then propels the bullet, as normal. Such a self-contained system could result in earlier development of fixed cartridges (and could serve as an interesting way of making such ammunition more expensive, as well as more difficult to autoload, if the cartridges have built-in fire pistons).

That's a clever solution.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Just to warn you that some of the ROF differences seen in muzzle4-loading reflect historically "normal" ammo handling practices rather than technological capabilities. A lower ROF for matchlocks probably represents the use of loose ammo with no premeasuring. There' no reason why matchlocks should be inherently slower to reload than any other muzzle-loader.

Low-Tech treats premeasuring as it's own factor.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

You've also repeatedly mentioned differences in "training" for lock types and acted as if they were large. I do not believe they were. I'd rate them as less than an 8 hour familiarization. Indeed, I'd rate them at roughly a 5 minute explanation.

It's just an additional factor, nothing major.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Only the level we're talking about (nobles comparing hunting gear) you already above that level. I.e. were talking noble to noble where having a pistol is just the start of the comparison, just as having a sword would have been 1000 years earlier.

Not Noble to non noble

What's being talked about is how noble gear is defined. You can slap a ton of decorations on a spear, but you could also take the intrinsically more expensive sword and throw decorations on it.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Thing is at the level we're talking about (the cost of the decoration being ,many times more than cost of the underlying gun) the actual price difference between a flintlock and wheel lock becomes a proportionally tiny part of the equation. Certainly not enough to make any real difference in status, unless the wheel lock is some how indicative of status in and of itself.

However proportionality doesn't actually matter. All that matters is relative impressiveness. Otherwise people wouldn't add on minor additional decorations to something that already looks nice.

[Mr Frost]

I can actually see cultural reasons {and things} that results in lord mucks continuing to favour wheellocks over flintlocks provided they don't have to perform in all noble regiments or such .

Receiving one might be an intrinsic part of a coming of age ritual .

A degree of anachronism might pervade upper class society in the field of personal endeavors {yet they are thoroughly modern when it comes to money and politics} .

Wheels {or pyrite} may hold some religious , mystical or if you're using it magical significance {which might grant a real benefit for certain users !} in there culture .

If the barrels are made well enough and the users properly drilled in use and maintenance , such weapons {the barrels and to a lesser extent furniture at least} can last for a surprisingly long time .
Even today in some remote parts of the world a rare few people still hunt with an original Brown Bess or Charleville musket because it works and is cheap to operate {and some folk are just plain obstinate} .
Many of those guns could be quite old heirlooms - in one of Terry Pratchetts' Disk World stories relates how an ancient Dwarven heirloom axe isn't actually the original because over the centuries every single piece has been replaced several times ; maybe some guns are well on there way to that same place .

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Sindri

What's being talked about is how noble gear is defined. You can slap a ton of decorations on a spear, but you could also take the intrinsically more expensive sword and throw decorations on it.
.

Nobles generally hunted boar with spears and not swords. Probably because they wanted the boar to die rather than them. They occaisionally shot their pistols at people in deadly earnest too.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Nobles generally hunted boar with spears and not swords. Probably because they wanted the boar to die rather than them. They occaisionally shot their pistols at people in deadly earnest too.

Sure spears get used by nobles when they're useful. When looking for something cool to wear though they'd opt for the sword though, not the spear.

[Þorkell]

Originally Posted by Sindri

Not really. People who prefer digital watches don't prefer them because the parts are so tiny and complicated. Having impressive inner workings are a draw of clockwork, and wheellocks are clockwork.

Having impressive clockwork isn't generally seen on watches. I just looked at Rolex, and as far as I can see none of their watches show the clockwork under normal circumstances. Also their logo isn't prominent on some of their watches and on some entirely absent. I'd think that spending a few grand on a watch you'd want it to not look bad and be pretty darn reliable.

If showing the clockwork was a way to impress people skeleton watches would be more popular.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by Þorkell

Having impressive clockwork isn't generally seen on watches. I just looked at Rolex, and as far as I can see none of their watches show the clockwork under normal circumstances. Also their logo isn't prominent on some of their watches and on some entirely absent. I'd think that spending a few grand on a watch you'd want it to not look bad and be pretty darn reliable.

If showing the clockwork was a way to impress people skeleton watches would be more popular.

You don't need to show the clockwork, just give signals indicating that it should be of high quality. People can recognize Rolexes and Rolex has a reputation for quality.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Sindri

Not really. People who prefer digital watches don't prefer them because the parts are so tiny and complicated. Having impressive inner workings are a draw of clockwork, and wheellocks are clockwork.

Of course they don't because digital watches aren't clock work, and we value digital stuff by different metrics? (just as they did guns)

Digital watches are rather a different context to the watches I was talking about, I'm still talking about watches as objects of status at around the same time as wheel locks and flint locks. Watches at the time were prized for complexity and part of who that was shown was through extra functionality. Now you still have answered how that extra functionality can be shown with wheel locks.

Saying wheel locks are clock work is a bit abstract to be meaningless. Its not particularly complex clock work so no real scope to have impressive workings in the context of complex clockwork workings. It actually juts a gun with a different trigger mechanism. An inherently simpler thing than a watch.

One that was surpassed pretty quickly and had no scope to up it game with extra functionality

It also not like we don't have real life to judge them by, if their inherent nature was seen as intrinsically valuable above their utility as guns they would have lasted a bit longer, and well they didn't

Originally Posted by Sindri

However it can be seen through branding.

Branding based on internal complexity still has to draw attention to it, and justify why it is a good thing.

Branding also changed between the period we're talking about and modern times. Branding back them was based more of specific recommendation (e.g Gun makers to the king") branding now a days is based on wider range of values, (although celebrity endorsement is still a big one). It's also an interesting one because it actually deal with perception of value, functionality and quality, without necessarily having it.

Originally Posted by Sindri

Sure, you can do a lot. Not quite "let's just slap some gold on the thing" though I think..

Don't think anyone has said that have they? Also you haven't addressed the point.

Originally Posted by Sindri

I'm just responding in this regard. For this thread I'm interested in mechanical differentiation.

OK, but since the end result is the same, your going to have to come up with some reason whey weellocks are seen as specifically more worth of status.

As I and if you want to marry it to clockwork, I'd go with added functionality / automation

Originally Posted by Sindri

What's being talked about is how noble gear is defined. You can slap a ton of decorations on a spear, but you could also take the intrinsically more expensive sword and throw decorations on it.

Yes that fine, it basically value adding. But the point is the inherent Flinlock/wheellock = spear/sword metaphor is flawed because the wheel lock really wasn't that distinct from the flint lock in either form, function or perceived status. Flint and wheel mechanisms were really just means to an end with no real inherent value attached to them other than how they achieved that end.

I think the point is you want it to be so simple because it involved clockwork. and that fine (you've already said your setting up your society to inherently see that as a draw), but you really can't use real life to model that, because in real life it wasn't the case in that context.

Originally Posted by Sindri

However proportionality doesn't actually matter. All that matters is relative impressiveness. Otherwise people wouldn't add on minor additional decorations to something that already looks nice.

That again assumes that the wheel lock is some how more inherently more relatively impressive than a a flint lock, and again if that's your set up fine, but don't go looking for that in RL examples because it doesn't seem to have been the case in RL.

But TBH I don't actually get your point as the post I was responding to was talking about difference in mechanism costs.

Also if nothing else you still get decoration because it will just become another vector to impress by (its just it will all be wheel locks), unless you having a society that inherently values the wheel lock and is not interested in decoration at all.