Wheellocks and Flintlocks

[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.