Why were matchlocks even a thing when a flintlock mechanism so simple and could have been introduced from day 1?

Why were matchlocks even a thing when a flintlock mechanism so simple and could have been introduced from day 1?

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the history of weapons technology is surprisingly absent from IQfy even though it's all over youtube
    i think that's because IQfy is more for identity cope and normies who use youtube don't really have that issue

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the history of weapons technology is surprisingly absent from IQfy even though it's all over youtube
      We have a board for that, it's called /k/

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        filled with trannies and feds (I repeat myself)

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        /k/Black folk have zero valid knowledge of weapons older than WWII.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I doubt it

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        /k/ is Ukraine's number one wiener sucking board now.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nobody gives a frick except you Ivan

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That doesnt even show the whole mechanism on the other side. A matchlock is a spring being held by a level but a flint lock has an automatic flashpan opener as well as a sear for safety during wienering.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This.
      Flint locks were extremely complex for the time and its amazing Europeans were able to make millions of the things.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    actually, technology often works in complete reverse to how you'd think it would, and firearms are the exact same
    the evolution of the matchlock was slow and steady, but eventually they started having matchlocks that had triggers that snapped the match forward
    but by this point, the wheellock started to arise
    and its funny how much more complex the wheellock is than the flintlock
    and then firearms technology slowly started working in the opposite direction to start becoming simpler, eventually becoming the common flintlock we know now, and then that flintlock was further simplified into percussion muskets

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      also, this sort of thing happens in the modern day aswell
      the luger was over-engineered to hell and is possibly the most influential pistol in history, but despite how well made it is everyone carries around glocks, and even expensive pistols arent anywhere close to the complexity of a luger

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/pBWxq3C.jpeg

      also, this sort of thing happens in the modern day aswell
      the luger was over-engineered to hell and is possibly the most influential pistol in history, but despite how well made it is everyone carries around glocks, and even expensive pistols arent anywhere close to the complexity of a luger

      lastly, flintlocks actually did exist during the age of matchlocks, they were developed not too long after the wheellock
      but once again, they started out far more complex than a flintlock from the 1700s, which is why people were still using matchlocks
      tldr: its a lot harder to newly develop a simplified mechanism than it is to design a complex one that does the same thing

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Its also funny when you realise the most common matchlock variant mechanism is as advanced as a bronze age crossbow.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        well, metal is inherently difficult to make mechanisms with when all you can do is forge the parts
        the iron parts for a crossbow are easier to make than a matchlock (except for the earliest variants)

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Did they not know what casting was at that time? Seems like a no brainer to just cast a shit ton of tiny parts, forge out any defects then play Lego until you have the mechanism of a gun no?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Cast iron is brittle and a shitty material to work with overall. Especially when you need springs for the mechanism to work.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They definetly did know how to cast bronze; alsi most crossbow mechanism in china were done like that so it is doable. Maybe forging the iron did cost less

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            for certain pieces yes they did cast the mechanisms, but there were things that they had to forge by hand, and of high quality steel aswell
            the barrel for example is one, but also all the springs couldn't be cast, and had to be tempered in just the right way to make it springy
            and of course not all steel makes a good spring, so it took trial and error

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Bronze barrels (which are cast) are much better then iron ones (which are forged and cast). I don't think they used steel for barrels until the mid 19th century.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            thats not entirely true
            well, cast iron is entirely unsuitable for gun barrels, and compared to cast iron, cast bronze is quite a bit better
            however, wrought iron was the ideal choice for gun barrels and is far better than bronze or cast iron, and that had to be forged
            steel barrels probably would've been made in the same way wrought iron ones were, and back then they didnt make too big of a distinction into whether its steel or iron, just how much effort they put into making good iron (which could produce anything from wrought iron to high carbon steel)
            wrought iron barrels would be made from strips of iron wrapped around a rod and forge welded together, it doesnt sound secure but its actually far stronger than bronze
            the reason i know this is because i say this from the perspective of having researched cannon construction processes
            cast iron is considered to be the worst, while bronze is a step up, but wrought iron barrels made in a similar way were the only ones that could reliably hold up past the pressures of a thousand full military loads
            infact theres records from the 1800s where their wrought iron cannons held up to incredibly high pressure loads for hundreds of shots straight, exploding only after they put 7 pounds of gunpowder in it and filled the barrel up to the muzzle with cannonballs

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            also while its not entirely relevant, you can only make smoothbore guns with bronze or cast iron, yet wrought iron could be rifled, which made wrought iron cannon barrels highly sought after in the 1800s

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You can rifle bronze as well and the Confederacy did exactly that with their pinky 3 inchers and 6 punties.

            thats not entirely true
            well, cast iron is entirely unsuitable for gun barrels, and compared to cast iron, cast bronze is quite a bit better
            however, wrought iron was the ideal choice for gun barrels and is far better than bronze or cast iron, and that had to be forged
            steel barrels probably would've been made in the same way wrought iron ones were, and back then they didnt make too big of a distinction into whether its steel or iron, just how much effort they put into making good iron (which could produce anything from wrought iron to high carbon steel)
            wrought iron barrels would be made from strips of iron wrapped around a rod and forge welded together, it doesnt sound secure but its actually far stronger than bronze
            the reason i know this is because i say this from the perspective of having researched cannon construction processes
            cast iron is considered to be the worst, while bronze is a step up, but wrought iron barrels made in a similar way were the only ones that could reliably hold up past the pressures of a thousand full military loads
            infact theres records from the 1800s where their wrought iron cannons held up to incredibly high pressure loads for hundreds of shots straight, exploding only after they put 7 pounds of gunpowder in it and filled the barrel up to the muzzle with cannonballs

            Cast Iron is very serviceable it was the generic process for most demi cannons of the 17th century. Bronze wasn't used as much for certain nations because it was too expensive. Heck both the Tsar and the Dardanelles is made from cast bronze.

            Can you tell me what books says that forged wrought iron is better then bronze? I think that would put the end of the arguement.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You can rifle bronze
            the rifling wont last for very long, and its pretty evident that they only rifled bronze cannons when they had no other option

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I think it's important to mention it when rifled cannons started out because of bronze rifles which is quite different then saying they could only make smoothbores. Also again we are talking about matchlocks and flintlocks for muskets so i really don't see the relevance with 19th century guns with process alien to 16th century smiths

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            17th century*

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ok, i'll reword it, bronze doesnt make for good or particularly long lasting rifling
            >i really don't see the relevance with 19th century guns with process alien to 16th century smiths
            my main point was just that forged wrought iron cannons were stronger than cast bronze ones, i cant really be assed to dig up one of the many different sources i've read to prove it so believe what you want
            but i do know that the methods of constructing wrought iron cannons are similar to the way they constructed early wrought iron barrels
            the reason is pretty straightforward, cannons are just so massive and costly to produce that the technology to produce them takes quite a while to catch up with small arms production technology, and as such, wrought iron cannon barrels were made from several smaller segments of iron hammered and forge welded together, in the same way you would a wrought iron musket, except with massive machinery hammering it together for you
            i wish i could give you some decent images to show you the parallels but google is being extremely israeli right now and just showing me completely unrelated images

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They used brass springs and hammers for goa guns which for most components would be easier then forging it

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because the matchlock simpleeand easier to make. It neesds just 3 pieces (match holder, trigger and a spring) + a plate

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. Plus the matchlock was reliable and hadn't to content with the teething errors of early flintlock types.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because people are dumb. Especially medieval people. This is why they didn't have mbice things in the first place.

    I tell you even more. Do you know what is Nessler ball? That was muzzleloader bullet inspired by Minie ball. It was for smoothbores muzzleloaders. They didn't have riflings but such bullets stabilised In flight anyway do to aerodynamics like badminton shuttlewiener. Such ball at least doubled accuracy (group size) of the smoothbores.
    Imagine that such little trick and you double range of smoothbores right form the beginning, starting from the 16 century. But no! People were stupid, ignorant and backwards and they used inferior ball round for 400 years, don't bothering to try something else. And only when rifled mine ball gums started to pressure smoothbores people rushed to somehow improve smoothboores to give them chance against rifled wundervaffen and this is how Nessler ball was invented.
    Just imagine centuries of people stupidity.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Especially medieval people
      Bait

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And then why they didn't invent Nessler ball? Or musket? Or rifled musket with Minie ball?
        Because they were DUMB ignorant mothefrickers who wanted nothing new.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >mbice things

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Designs using the "simple" principle of flint striking a frizzen had existed for about a century, the snaphance and snaplock of the 16th century and various 'locks made by different countries in the early 17th century. However these had various flaws, such as the risk of the gun going off half wienered or a flash in the pan and various design features and innovations in manufacturing were needed to improve its reliability before it eclipsed the matchlock as the most popular firing mechanism.

    The miquelet and Frenchlock were arguably the first true flintlocks, combining many features, the miquelet continuing to be popular alongside the flintlock among civilians and irregulars. Along with the ability to half-wiener and a covered pan lifted out of the way automatically, many components were internal preventing fouling and general dirt and rust interfering with the mechanism, their manufacture was also standardized to improve precision. This was part of the general trend of applied sciences in the 17th century which can be observed in the history of clockmaking beforehand.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >so simple

    Go and make one right now.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because a flintlock mechanism is a relatively complex piece of engineering with relatively tight tolerances. All of those pieces had to be forged by hand by a skilled craftsman. A matchlock is comparatively much simpler and easier to manufacture. This is especially important when considering the primary purchasers of firearms - kings - who needed them at a huge scale and all relatively the same. This is a tall order for a pre-industrial economy

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *