Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

As it stands wheellocks and the different varieties of flintlocks work mostly the same. Wheellocks seem to cost more and require a spanner, Snaplocks don't operate as well in rain. There are also familiarity penalties between flintlock varieties.

Is there anything else that's significant enough to justify mechanical representation? I've heard that, for example, wheellocks are faster igniting.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

The rain issue is a matter of how closed the lock can be built. A wheel lock doesn't *have* to be less open than a flintlock, it just can be, because you don't need that clear space for the hammer to travel through.

I wouldn't expect that to matter much. It's the difference between the time it takes for the wheel to accelerate to a speed that throws sparks and the time the hammer takes to fall. That might matter if you were shooting at distant targets from a moving vehicle, but really probably isn't a lot greater than other sources of variability - say the burn rate of the powder between where the spark hits and the touch hole.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

Yes? I was summarizing the differences found in Low-Tech. There is room for differentiation between weapons in how well they function in the rain.

It's certainly not going to matter much, but is it worth a bonus in a niche condition like determining who fire first?

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

Nah, the time between the trigger pull and either gun firing is likely to be shorter than the flight time of the bullet. It's not long enough to say convert a tie in the instant you pull the trigger into the guy with the faster lock hits soon enough to throw off your aim. A black powder ball probably doesn't cover 5 yards in time difference (one or two hundredths of a second), never mind any nerve impulses if you were hit.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

Wheellocks are more complicated and more fragile. They also need their pyrite component replaced after roughly every 10th shot. The flint and iron striker of a flintlock need adjustment after every 20th shot at most.

About the only advantage I've ever heard of for wheellocks is that very finely made ones are a little more reliable in rain than flintlocks.

You generally only see the two at the same time very early in flintlock's timeline and only as a temporary thing. You get more overlap between matchlocks (for muskets) and flintlocks.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

Ignoring for the moment issues of resolution is this more fragile in the sense of worse Malf or worse HT?

It's not for a historical setting. I'm considering having wheellocks hang around next to flintlocks as a status status due to the increased cost of making them and lack of any egregious disadvantages.

On the other hand matchlocks look stupid and so are going to exist only as a historical footnote.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

Not sure if they failed more often, but if the doohickey breaks on a flintlock, you're replacing a spring. On a wheellock, you're sending it to be rebuilt. I'd say lower HT.

Wheellocks competed well with matchlocks, because they didn't require a burning string (a plus when in rain, or hunting an animal with a good sense of smell, or surrounded by kegs of powder, or stuffing a pistol in your trousers). Once flintlocks truly became established enough to overcome cultural inertia, wheellocks were left as curiosities. Cultural inertia is stronger in the personal-sidearm market (i.e. the wealthy) than it is in the weapon-we-need-ten-thousand-of-by-next-month market (i.e. the military).

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

Although the problem of procuring enough of the latest-and-greatest and of maintaining two different types of kit often encourages militaries to stick with what they already have. Famously, hunters had been using fusils for decades when the first armies began to take them up on a small scale. European armies in the nineteenth century had real dilemmas about which new technologies to adopt, and which to skip until their successor came along, because manufacturing enough rifles for the whole army could take decades.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

I'd say wheel-locks have both lower HT and HP.

Wheel-locks have lots of egregious disadvantages compared to flintlocks. Costing more, needing more maintenance and breaking easier are altogether egregious. That's why even very conservative gun-makers such as the Germans abandoned them over a very short period of time (c. 20 years).

If the wealthy want more expensive guns they'll just get more decorations. In near-modern times this manifests in items such as Sadaam Hussein's gold-plated AK-47.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

I assume the main thing likely to break in a wheel lock is the chain that connects the spring to the cam on the wheel shaft, probably followed by wear on the trigger sear arm - that's the highest precision part of the mechanism, since it's balancing between not applying enough force to lock the wheel, and engaging so firmly you can't move by pulling the trigger. Essentially the wheel lock is more fragile because it has those two extra delicate parts - the main spring is pretty much the same as on the flintlock.

It's worth keeping in mind there's no particular reason for the order of invention of lock mechanisms - there isn't anything about most flint lock mechanisms (despite the single name, there are several kinds) that couldn't be built by anybody who could build a wheel lock if they'd thought of it - and a lot of the details are simply a consequence of the kind of springs that were available. If spiral ("watch") springs had existing, wheel lock mechanisms would be simpler and might well be as reliable as flintlocks. If coil springs had been a little easier to make, you'd might see locks where you generated friction by pulling pieces linearly past each other. If somebody discovers appropriate metals early, modern cigarette lighter "flint" mechanisms are essentially wheel locks but with something that strikes sparks so much easier you don't *need* a strong spring to get the required forces. There are several chemicals that will work in percussion caps, and nothing about the roll of paper tape mechanism in a modern cap pistol toy wouldn't have worked instead of individual percussion caps. A slightly earlier discovery of batteries, piezoelectric crystals, any number of hypergolic chemical mixtures, or compression heating fire pistons could've sent gunlock development off in entirely different directions. An alternate history doesn't particularly need to have the same kinds of gunlocks as European history.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

3 more delicate parts. The iron pyrate on the "wheel" is much softer and m0ore fragile than either the flint or the frizzen on a flintlock. It needs replacement twice as often as the flint even when t6higns work right.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

There's been a lot of discussion on wheellocks, I suppose no one can think of any factors to distinguish the different types of flintlocks besides the snaplock weakness to rain?

Why lower HP?

Only breaking more easily is a real problem. Costing more is an advantage when you're trying to distinguish yourself and more maintenance is a mild downside but also discourages their use with the sort of person who doesn't have servants. Also, unlike a gold-plated version of a regular firearm a wheellock requires different training which also helps to distinguish the wielder. While there's a lot of not-gauche things you can do with the exterior an intrinsically more expensive lock mechanism allows you to invest more in the weapon while maintaining good taste.

This is a good point. What are the technological prerequisites and other effects of having spiral springs or piezoelectric crystals?

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

The snaphaunce variety of flintlocks appear to have their mechanisms on the outside rather than behind a lock plate. An obvious problem for not clean environments ad thus these were an inferior and transitory technology.

It's probably below the Gurps threshold of granularity but smaller pieces of a mechanism have fewer HP.

You never gain status when your pistol malfunctions. You just look stupid. The wealthy were most of the early adopters of flintlock technology. The earliest "true" flintlock (1613) still in existence and with unquestionable provenance is from the collection of Louis XIII, King of France and patron to _those_ Musketeers.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

The toy roll of caps is actually a vestige of a real weapons technology.

It was even standard issue in the USA and CSA armies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Model_1855

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

Spiral springs are available for things like clocks or music boxes from sometime in the 16th century. I don't know why they aren't used for gun locks, so I really don't know what would have to change. Maybe just cost. When cheap wind up clocks start appearing in the 19th century there do seem to be experiments with mainspring driven ejectors or trigger springs, but by then percussion had taken over from priming pans. I suppose if they become cheap earlier, you get more wind up toys and cheaper non-pendulum clocks.

For piezoelectric crystals, the only real requirement is an ability to facet gems. Historically of course the effect is only discovered in an era of electrical measuring instruments, and immediately leads to developments in pressure and temperature sensors, timekeeping quartz resonators and the like, but if you postulate somehow discovering it in an earlier era it probably doesn't do anything but let you make sparks. The reason it's plausible you could discover it that way is tourmaline is piezoelectric, so if you were cutting it and mounting it into a bit of metal jewelry while squeezing it.... Tourmaline's characteristic weird ability to attract ashes when heated is known from the 3rd century BC, the pyroelectric effect responsible has the same physical basis in the crystal structure, so discovering it can sometimes toss off firey sparks might not even be too surprising.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

Some interesting ideas here. Let's see...

Affordable watch springs and the like probably would have simply resulted in cheaper wheellocks, rather than whole new designs. Using internal springs to generate a spark inside of the weapon would have been interesting, however.

Mercury Fulminate, the material used for percussion caps, should have been possible for alchemists to produce. It requires nitric acid (aqua fortis, known by the 13th century), ethanol (aqua vitae, distilled at least by the 12th century), and mercury (known from ancient times). The first two reagents may require higher concentration/purity than alchemists could achieve, although even a mildly-cinematic campaign could waive that. For that matter, nitrocellulose - guncotton - can be made using cotton, nitric acid, and sulfuric acid (vitriol, also known by the 13th century), yielding something much more powerful (and cleaner burning) than traditional black powder.

TL3-4 batteries sufficient to cause a spark would probably be rather large, so they likely wouldn't see much use outside of fortifications (where the advantages of alternative firing mechanisms are less pronounced anyway). Hypergolic mechanisms, if even remotely reliable, would be in a similar boat, requiring too much weight.

Piezoelectric crystals would add some interesting flavor, although they'd ultimately function similarly to flintlocks - hammer comes down, strikes the crystal, produces a spark.

Fire pistons are, in my opinion, the most interesting, but I suspect they'd be beyond TL 4 capabilities. You would need some mechanism that reliably opens a small "window" in the bottom of the piston to eject the burning material to ignite the gunpowder, which is probably a bit too complex (a fire piston needs to be a contained system to build up sufficient heat to light anything, but then whatever it lights needs to light your powder).

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

The mechanism yes, but I don't think that should necessarily impact the HP of the weapon as a whole even ignoring granularity issues.

Like I said, breaking is a problem. If wheellocks would ideally have a lower HT score then yes, they have a serious problem as status weapons without a change in how lock technologies developed.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

Mass and HP gained from mass of the barrel and stock shouldn't figure into attacks on the lock.

More important than ho0w that technology developed is that it did develop and flintlocks replacing wheel-locks was an example of a superior technology replacing an inferior one.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

Yes obviously having a lighter mechanism will impact attacks against the lock. That's not how I'd read "lower HP" though.

That it did develop is completely unimportant. Again, not a historical setting. And the message that wheellocks have unrepresented fragility has been received. A change in how technology develops would thus obviously mean a difference in the wheellock mechanism.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

If your setting has extensive dry and sandy/dusty areas then matchlocks will still be popular there as being mechanically much simpler they are both cheaper and more reliable in said conditions {the grit is more likely to jam the more complex mechanisms - a matchlock doesn't need to be more complex than a lever with a single weak spring and it can continue to function without that spring} .

The Ottomans for example kept using matchlocks in large numbers well into the napoleonic era .

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

I can see that incentive, but it feels like the end result is avoidable. Matchlocks weren't better enough to persuade people set up with flintlocks to keep using them, just good enough to push back the switch. The rate of fire is a huge difference even without the other technical advantages, the skillsets to make and operate matchlocks are different and they're an obviously obsolete technology. Some care in designing the timeline, choosing significant firearm makers and perhaps some more emphasis on sealing the locks from the elements should handle things.

Still it's something to keep in mind, so thanks.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

Just to pick up on this, weapons as status symbols tended not to be status because of inherent complexity or expense of basic manufacture (that said if new technology was fashionable you might well be invested in paying over the odds for it), but because they were bespoke or blinged up.

Wheel lock of flint lock you can always find someone* willing to make you a unique one for a vast price, making the inherent difference in pricing irrelevant. The fact that GURPS uses CF as a multiplier isn't actually that matched by real world decoration

You also have to remember that unlike melee weapons that became more and more decoration only, the nobility/gentry kept hunting so prestige, status firearms still had to work. It might be embarrassing to have slightly out of fashion decoration on your gun, but of you can't get it to fire when you peers (or god help you the next tier up) are looking at you is also not good.

*and sometimes the cache of the artist/workman was also a draw in and of itself (that you paid for). You want a gun engraved by Gustav of Munich, even if Helmut in your house hold can do a decent approximation of Gustav's style.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

It's an effect you see in other items, like watches, though. I think the opportunity just doesn't come up often with weapons.

Surface decorations are all additive to what's going on with the mechanism, while more complicated mechanisms generally give more room to showcase the skill of the craftsman than simpler ones.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

That's true, there was a mania for automation in the C18th & C19th's. But as you say less scoep with weapons (even guns). Still soem quite fancy and oputlandish stuff was created



yes but they are not visible to the observer as much as decoration so less useful for displaying status. Also the scope is not that great in perfecting the mechanism certainly not as a comparison to other mechanisms. Decoration however is only limited by the artistry of the craftsmen and the observers appreciation of it.

Decoration is not really additive to mechanism, there really isn't really a link between the two at all (apart from where the mechanisms gets in the way of decoration). That why the strict CF multiplier model doesn't work for decoration. There is no reason why enough styling to warrant an +3 bonus for an axe should cost $450 but $4500 for a broadsword or 10x as much, especially as the styling on the sword is likely to be concentrated on the hilt and scabbard (which is what people see mainly).

The point being craftsmanship of mechanism and craftsmanship of decoration are two different things (often involving two different craftsmen for a start), not only are they applied differently, but they would be judged differently according to different criteria as well.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

That's what brands are for.

I think there's a lot more room to impress with the wheellock than the flintlock.

It's also a constant. You'll get all the exterior decoration no matter what and thus it's functionally irrelevant.

I think you're confused about the meaning of the word "additive". It's, obviously, not multiplicative. There not being a link is precisely what makes something additive. You have a thing and then you add on another cost to it. The entire CF thing is something you've dragged into here. It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

The entire point is that they're different things. You already have the exterior decoration. An intricate mechanism that rewards the craftsmanship going in to it is something that lets you throw on more stuff.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

Sorry don't know what you mean here?



Depends on what your criteria your using for impressive



That my latter point about multiplicative cost factors

Actually I'm not, my point was it not even additive its separate, status so decoration really is not on top of craftsmanship of internet mechanism, because as I said you don't see the latter, and it also quite hard to infer it action unless you actually doing proper side by side assessment. That leaves aside that more complex does't mean better, and better is a likely judgement.



How does it allow you throw on more stuff? (more complex, mechanisms need more time and effort just to achieve their basic functionality). What do you even mean by throwing on more stuff, more importantly why is more stuff going to lead to increased status?

Status from objects is weird one anyway because it's in as much the eye of the beholder as it is the actual method used to gain it.

I'm pretty sure there are some sub cultures that would not take the decorative CF factors into account when assessing a weapon, but rather the CF of balances and v.fine.

Form vs. function, they are not mutually exclusive but neither are they exactly 50/50.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

It's also difficult to show how impressive the inner workings of a watch are. You can do a bit, but mostly what you do is make the outside distinctive and develop a reputation for making technically impressive watches. People recognize the brand and you thus benefit from your investment in the invisible inner working of your watch.

It's also what I've been saying the whole time.

If you perceive it, it's a separate factor that improves the resulting total impressiveness. Which is to say, something which is additive.

If you can't perceive it, it's effectively non-existent.

It constitutes more stuff. You have the exterior decorations and you also have bonus cool stuff in the form of an impressive mechanism. You want as much coolness as you can get without being gauche and this allows you to get more than just what you can get with exterior decorations.

A sub-culture can also be envisioned that disdains decoration but it's irrelevant. Allow me to remind you that I'm not commenting generically here. This is not a guide concerning how to make impressive weapons. It's a defense of an idea concern a specific sub-culture in a specific setting.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

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.



yes I think we agree on that.

Which is largely the difference between wheel locks and flint locks (even leaving aside the benefits Flint locks have in terms of outward use over wheel locks)

which doesn't seem to vary much between the two types of guns

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.



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

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

If it is complex mechanism over others, then I suggest you take the C18th & C19th craze for automatons as inspiration. Clockwork weapons that self load and prime for instance.

as an example there was clock work doll that could be programmed* to write letters, writing letters was the result bit a written letter in abstract was not the point fo fascination, it was the fact that it had been done by the doll.


*and that was the right term

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

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).

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.

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

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.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

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.

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.

Handling the powder, wadding and shot swiftly and efficiently by muscle memory is what eats up training time.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

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)

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.

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.

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)

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

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....

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

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.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

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.

However it can be seen through branding.

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

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

That's a clever solution.

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

It's just an additional factor, nothing major.

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.

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.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

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 .

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

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.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

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.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

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.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

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.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

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



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.


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



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


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.

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.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

Yes. It's not a feature of "watches" it's a feature of "clockwork" and clockwork covers other things, like wheellocks.

I have never attempted to, and need not do so.

It's not meaningless at all. They are derived from clockwork technology, also require skilled workers to produce and allow more room for the crafter to showcase his technical skill than a flintlock does.

Uh, no. No one has come up with something that fits within the granularity of the game. Despite not needing any technical advantages at all faster ignition is totally the sort of thing people will point to as making a technology the correct choice for discerning users who are willing to spare the expense if there aren't other things that make it unsuitable.

If wheellocks don't have a significant downside for the wealthy all that is necessary for their continued presence is for it to be plausible for them to have grown attached to them given the right circumstances.

No it doesn't. It just needs to allow people to distinguish between items with varying reputation for quality.

There never was a point to begin with. The status of exterior decorations is completely irrelevant because it doesn't interact with the mechanism, nor would being paramount mean that gaucheness isn't a thing if people haven't yet started replacing random things with solid gold.

Reasons have been produced. You apparently have problems with them and I'm responding to your comments regarding them. Please don't take that to mean that the subject of the thread is "can wheellocks coexist with flintlocks and if so, how". The subject at the start was finding small details to differentiate more the various weapons in the wheellocks and flintlocks category and I remain interested in hearing different perspectives on that. I'm also interested in the ideas being generated regarding other alternate lock technologies.

I'm not envisioning a society with a particular obsession for clockwork. It's just a more difficult mechanism to make.

Your post was talking about proportionality. However proportionality doesn't matter in this context. It isn't how people make decisions in terms of status items.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

But clockwork is broad enough category that different things within it are assessed by different metrics.

And bringing in digital watches is very much relevant to watches and not to guns.



So again where the "more" that you implied existed?


So again as above show where that extra craft actually manifests in increased functionality. Otherwise you just have a complex difficult thing that adds no benefit compared to the simpler thing. to go back to my original point, complexity of design is not a inherent good thing if it doesn't come with anything in return.

So again where is the increased functionality given by the clockwork wheel lock?


So same point again, it's matter of functionality, so where is the improved functionality of wheellocks.

Remember clockwork got easier to make, the skills became more widespread as time went on, so the barriers to wheellocks lowered, so if they also came with a increase in functionality why did we not see their continued use?

Flintlocks came in after wheellocks and during the period when wheellocks would have been getting easier to produce.



I agree, but since that didn't happen we can either assume that there was either some downside, or those circumstances didn't occur



yes but the reputation has to be established and maintained by being their. Remember we're talking about a very small market here. And ultimately we get back to the same point, reliability is aspect fo functionality, again where is the advantage that wheel locks enjoy over flint locks.



That only true if we accept you inherent point that status was irrevocably linked to the internal mechanisms, and you have not demonstrated that is the case. We know decoration was however a key component of an objects status. Even if we did accept you assertion that still wouldn't make it either or, but decoration and mechanism

hate to break it to you but when ever and where ever they could they did



Sorry so far you reason seem to be limited to "because clockwork" and vague allusions to things below GURPS level granularity without actually going into much detail.

We've discussed clockwork but you seem unwilling to address the point about clock work in the different contexts it was used in (watches vs guns)



OK, it's just that by itself is not reason for increased status (I mean it can be part of it, but it normally comes with other factors, and is context specific)

No teh point you were making was: "wheel locks were more expensive than flint locks (being clock work), more expensive things are higher status, ergo wheel locks were higher status than flint locks."

My point was: "but given the all the extra costs of the decoration on top of each, the actually difference in price due to the mechanism is minuscule in comparison to the actual overall cost of the gun. So ergo any increases in status directly derived from different costs of the underlying mechanism in equally minuscule."

So inherent cost not relevant, so we come back to functionality

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

Where did faster ignition come in? There's no increase in ignition speed until you get to percussion caps.

I do think wheel-locks have significant disadvantages and it is not at all plausible that they would remain in production for long after flintlocks became available,

Note that if I was a player in this game I might not argue with you more than once about it not making sense but I'd never believe it was true.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

Reality. All firearms actions have a delay between pulling the trigger and igniting the propellant, and since the invention of ultra-highspeed photography (and more recently microsecond electronic timers) there have gun enthusiasts who measure it. Except maybe for some kinds of cannon fuses it's never more than a few hundredths of a second, i.e. too short for humans to detect the differences, but that doesn't stop some of those enthusiasts from claiming one or the other action is better because its shorter, or more uniform, or more dependent on how you pull the trigger, or whatever.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

I'd have called that "human belief" instead if reality.

There's actually an almost perceptible delay between the flash in the pan and the smoke coming out of the barrel. It's quite obvious on high speed film. It also goes away when percussion caps come in. It also gets you another 50 feet per second without making any other changes.

However, since all of the early lock types are identical from the pan to the barrel there's no speed difference between them.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

Sure there is. Time for a hammer to fall certainly can differ from time until the wheel is fast enough to throw sparks.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

I misspoke (err, miswrote) when I wrote "ratchet." You wouldn't need anything nearly so advanced - a simple catch as is used to hold a crossbow string or similar should be sufficient. The trick would be to have it in the correct location (note that the piston coming back out isn't in and of itself a serious concern - rather, there's the risk of it coming back out with sufficient force that it breaks free, which will cause you to vent pressure rather than propelling your bullet).

I've been doing a bit of research on fire pistons. First off, you can determine what temperature (in Celsius, assuming the ambient temperature is around 27 degrees - note it doesn't change too much for lower starting temperatures) the tender inside will reach based on the equation T=300*(Li/Lf)^(2/5)-273, where T is the temperature, Li is the initial length of the cylinder of air in the piston and Lf is the final length of the cylinder of air in the piston. I can't find the blasted "Semenov equation"/relationship that nearly every paper references, but apparently autoignition temperature (that is, the temperature at which an object ignites without the presence of an open flame/spark) actually decreases as pressure increases.

Black powder has an autoignition temperature between 200C and 464C. Nitrocellulose apparently has an autoignition temperature around 220C, as does paper (putting a scrap of paper in with your black powder shouldn't be too difficult, so we'll assume 220C is the autoignition temperature of both propellants). So, 220=300*(Li/Lf)^(2/5)-273, or Li/Lf=3.5 (so we need around 70% compression). That's at 27C (80F) - 0C (32F) is going to be Li/Lf=4.4 (~78% compression). This ignores (because, as noted, I couldn't find the blasted equation) the effect of pressure on autoignition - you could probably get away with much less compression.

Regardless, you apparently only need compression of around 80% (5:1), while traditional fire pistons apparently tend to have a compression of around 96% (25:1), yet can be started with a simple slap. It seems that getting a spark out of flint and steel requires comparable force, and detonating mercury fulminate probably isn't far off, so I'd imagine the same springs that store enough force for flintlocks to work would suffice in detonating a fire piston powered firearm.

Indeed. Probably the biggest thing that prevented this in our history was that there was only about a 40 year window between the wheellock and the snaplock being produced. That's really not enough time for wheellocks to become ingrained as a "noble's weapon." If there were 100 or more years between the two, you might have ended up with wheellocks gaining such status.

There's also the fact that apparently the wheel produced sparks in much closer proximity to the pan than the hammer did - no need to wait for them to fall before the powder gets ignited. It's not really enough to be tactically significant, however.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

The "wheel" on a wheel-lock only "turns" 90 degrees. It's basically the same distance as a flintlock's arm.

Re: Wheellocks and Flintlocks
 

I disagree. I believe the metrics are the same.

I should hope so! I mentioned them in context to watches.

I have done no such thing.

All it needs to do is give aesthetic pleasure. Any actual practical gains would be very small but also fundamentally irrelevant.

Nor is it necessary for wheellocks to have technical advantages to persist. They must merely have social advantages and not have technical disadvantages their users care about.

The circumstances didn't occur! Obviously, if I wanted wheellocks to persist I would be doing things like tweaking relative dates of introduction and other factors. It's simply bizarre that you'd read "the right circumstances" as our circumstances.

It's trivial to postulate that at least one company can manage to maintain quality standards enough for people to be able to signal their mechanisms quality externally.

Good thing I haven't attempted to do so, because trying that would be stupid. All that is necessary is for it to be plausible that the status of an item is associated with it's internal mechanism's quality, materials and difficulty to manufacture.

It seems my comment regarding slapping gold on things was appropriate then, because I would characterize what they did as decorating with gold not "yeah that thing? it's gold now".

Then I encourage you to reread the thread, because you've clearly missed things.

All it needs to be is another factor.

More proportionality.

At the beginning.

Which I have agreed with. High Malf makes a weapon unsuitable, Lower HT could work but makes things very difficult. Thus "if". What's being objected to here is that there are any pressures that could push wheellocks to persist, not that the net pressure is for them to stop being produced.

Is this

http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/TheSemenovModel/

Helpful?