Wheellocks and Flintlocks

[Sam Cade]

Originally Posted by malloyd

nothing about the roll of paper tape mechanism in a modern cap pistol toy wouldn't have worked instead of individual percussion caps.

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

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by malloyd

*SNIP*

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).

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Sindri

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.

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.

[Mr Frost]

Originally Posted by Sindri

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

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 .

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by Mr Frost

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 .

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.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Sindri

... 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.
...

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.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Sindri

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. .

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.