Talk:Flintlock

message: Would this be the technology used by French and English soldiers at Fort Louisbourg and Fort Beausejour in the 1750s during the North American loctaion of the Seven Years War?--Sonjaaa 17:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly.  As indicated in the article, the previous technology was obsoleted shortly after 1630, and newer technology did not start to come into play until well after 1800.  Your dates lie nearly at the middle of the flintlock period.  Robert A.West (Talk) 23:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Used in Seven Years War?

message: Actually the smoothbore musket was in widespread use during the American Civil war.  Neither side of the conflict had anything like enough weapons for the mass armies of staggering size fielded by the protagonist.  This state of affairs went on through the 1st 2 years of the war.  It would be fair to say that up to 1/3 of the troops in the field were so equipped throught the 1st year of the war.  Both sides struggled mightly to get Springfield/Enfield percussion rifles into the troops hands. I rather doubt that by the 3rd year of the war there were field formations using muskets anymore but until then... Tirronan 15:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  we have a problem =

message: The subsection 'See also...' includes the following list:
*Wheellock
*Caplock
*Snaplock
*Snaphance
*Miquelet
*Musketoon
*Brown Bess
*Charleville musket
Can you spot the odd men out? For me, the first five of these are particular locks or firing mechanisms, whilst the last three have nothing to do with the firing mechanism but are particular types of firearms.
As such, I don't think they have any place in this list, or this article. Shouldn't See also... only refer to other lock mechanisms? (the article on Matchlock could be added to the list...)
Would anyone object if I removed the last three in the list? They could be added either to Firearms or to Antique guns - or to both these articles, which are far more appropriate.
Nick Michael 10:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and do it - that's what Wikipedia is all about! Nick Michael (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: So why don't you go ahead and write it Keith? That's what Wikipedia is all about. Although I have never heard of metal cartridges being used in the flintlock era... Nick Michael (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Well I suggest you go ahead. Don't worry, you will be treated quite mercilessly if people don't agree - there are lots of 'em out there watching and waiting, eagle-eyed, for any modification that dares show its face. I look forward to reading your edits! Nick Michael (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also": spot the odd men out... 

message: An editor deleted the word "frizzen" and replaced it with "hammer", saying this was the "more historically accurate term". Since "frizzen" is the more popular term today, I restored it so both words are used. But if hammer is "more historically accurate", "frizzen" has an impeccable pedigree as well. OED cites (1629): He is euer readie to strik fyre with his frezell and his flint. Later on, in 1817, it cites: Putting down the frizzel, and making it spring up again with a loud snap. A definition does not appear until as late as 1892: Frizzle, in flint and steel guns the piece of iron acted on by the flint to produce the explosion.
When and how the final "L" changed to "N" is not clear to me. From the 1629 citation above, it seems that frezell was a word used for the "steel" used in fire-making (incidentally adopted by Philip the Good of Burgundy as his emblem), and not necessarily associated with firearms. I must say that "hammer", even if "historically accurate", doesn't make much sense to me, and is hardly helpful in describing the action of the flintlock. Nick Michael 07:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: David, having never heard the term 'anvil' used for what most people call a 'frizzen', I looked hard, and can only find the term 'anvil' used in percussion firearms, where it seems to designate what is usually called the 'nipple', or, in more modern arms, 'That part of the cartridge primer which is a solid surface, against which the firing pin strikes to set off the priming powder.'. As such, I don't think the term should be used in the Flintlock article - what's your opinion? Nick Michael (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with you that Frizzen is the better term.  Admittedly the only references to it being called an anvil are from somewhat older sources, such as "Small Arms" by Wilkinson.  So refering to the Frizzen as an anvil as well might confuse things.  David Fortini 21:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr Burgess, would you be kind enough to let us know your source(s) for this, and can you supply any citations using the word 'hammer' for the part of the lock that is struck and produces the sparks? It would be very gratifying to put this thread to rest for ever! Nick Michael (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some thoughts on "Hammer" and "Frizzen" 

message: We should probably add something to explain why flintlocks were no longer preferred. I own a precussion muzzleload rifle and I believe the reason is that the flintlock's are harder to use in moist environments. If the priming charge gets wet the weapon will not fire (and its a pain to unload it). With the cap, charge can be help in your pocket until read to fire and you simply place it over the nipple when ready (vs having to measure and pour, which is how I *think* the flintlocks did it). Additionally the flintlocks probably require more open access to the pan which creates more problems with moisture in the field. This is only what I know, perhaps someone who ones one can verify this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertGary1 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why percussion caps became more popular

message: It has been suggested that Flintlock and Flintlock Mechanisms be merged. I had split them on a previous edit due to the fact that the article on Flintlocks contained little information about the mechanism itself and seemed to be mostly devoted to the weapon. I decided to split the mechanism into a separate article so that it would be consistent with other firing mechanisms such as percussion locks, wheelocks, matchlocks, etc. and therefore the mechanism article would be of similar scope to these other articles. This puts the current dividing line with "flintlock mechanism" being about the lock itself and "flintlock" being about the weapon based on this mechanism. Flintlock is somewhat unique in this list since the term is often applied to the entire weapon, which is not true of other lock types (people generally don't call a percussion lock based weapon a "percussion lock" for example). The present complaint, as I understand it, is that there is overlap between the two articles, and both articles are fairly short in length. Personally, I can see both sides of the argument, so it's not clear to me which way we should proceed.Engineer comp geek (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An argument for separation is the uses flintlock mechanisms were put to that didn't involve handguns. I threw in a quick addition to the mechanism article about Fougasses, and 'flintlock tinder lighter'. A further use (which I'm going to add as soon as I can re-find the reference) is the gunlock. They were an importance advance to the Royal Navy at the end of the 18th century. Catsmeat (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Is there a consensus, then, that the two pages should remain separate?  They have been tagged for a merge since May 2009... Doniasis (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've removed the merge tag, if there are no objections. Doniasis (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging Flintlock and Flintlock Mechanism

message: I've noticed that Firelock redirects here.  Merriam-Webster ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/firelock ) defines a firelock as a matchlock, but I'm no expert one way or the other so I figured I'd just put this here for someone to see.76.172.17.227 (talk) 06:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Most dictionaries [] seem to define it as a flintlock or wheellock and Merriam-Webster gives this as a second definition.  However this site would have it as what everybody else is calling a matchlock and a matchlock to them is a hand match ignited gun.  It appears that firelock has meant different things at different times, the term being transferred from one lock type to another as firearms were improved. .  I suggest changing the redirect to point to Lock (firearm) and explain the term there. SpinningSpark 00:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done it myself. SpinningSpark 00:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firelock Redirect 

message: George looks to be carrying a percussion cap muzzle-loader to me. Thoughts? Even if it is a flintlock, it's hardly a clear illustration of one. I say he has to go. Snori (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got eagle eyes Snori! A percussion lock without a doubt. I've exchanged the pic for a far more appropriate one, if you're agreeable (the lock is still not very clear, but the weapon itself is, and the way he carries it). Nick Michael (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "A Scottish laird"

message: Sir John Keegan, among others, have written about the mythical bayonet charge.  They almost never happened.  Bayonets were a weapon of last resort in defense</I>; think of the infantry squares at Waterloo holding off Ney's cavalry charges.  Section needs to be rewritten.
PainMan (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely this is covered (or should be) under the Bayonet article...? Nick Michael (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The myth of the bayonet charge 

message: For readers new to the subjects, the Matchlock article reads way better. It has a description of the technology followed by the history. This page doesn't even begin to describe how it works until halfway down. That's not helpful. Let's discuss a better order. --206.180.38.20 (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not organized well 

message: The diagram illustrating the flintlock action has been part of the article for many years, and I've only just realised that it is totally incorrect with regard to the frizzen spring action. The frizzen spring appears to act on the frizzen only when the frizzen is open. Otherwise, the frizzen looks as if it can pivot freely, which of course can not be the case, as the priming powder would escape! 
Can any one change this? I don't have the technical knowledge to do it. Nick Michael (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flintlock mechanism diagram faulty 

message: A flintlock pistol circa 1700–1730
Ketland brass barrel smooth bore pistol common in Colonial America.
A flintlock pistol circa 1700–1730
Ketland brass barrel smooth bore pistol common in Colonial America.
Flintlock firing system of a French naval gun.
Flintlock pistols were used as self-defense weapons and as a military arm. Their effective range was short, and they were frequently used as an adjunct to a sword or cutlass. Pistols were usually smoothbore although some rifled pistols were produced.
Flintlock pistols came in a variety of sizes and styles which often overlap and are not well defined, many of the names we use having been applied by collectors and dealers long after the pistols were obsolete. The smallest were less than 6 inches (15 cm) long and the largest were over 20 inches (51 cm). From around the beginning of the 1700s the larger pistols got shorter, so that by the late 1700s the largest would be more like 16 inches (41 cm) long. The smallest would fit into a typical pocket or a hand warming muff and could easily be carried by women.
The largest sizes would be carried in holsters across a horse's back just ahead of the saddle. In-between sizes included the coat pocket pistol, or coat pistol, which would fit into a large pocket, the coach pistol, meant to be carried on or under the seat of a coach in a bag or box, and belt pistols, sometimes equipped with a hook designed to slip over a belt or waistband. Larger pistols were called horse pistols. Arguably the most elegant of the pistol designs was the Queen Anne pistol, which was made in all sizes.
Probably the high point of the mechanical development of the flintlock pistol was the British duelling pistol; it was highly reliable, water resistant and accurate. External decoration was minimal but craftsmanship was evident, and the internal works were often finished to a higher degree of craftsmanship than the exterior. Dueling pistols were the size of the horse pistols of the late 1700s, around 16 inches (41 cm) long and were usually sold in pairs along with accessories in a wooden case with compartments for each piece.
Muskets
Main article: Musket
Flintlock mechanism
Flintlock muskets were the mainstay of European armies between 1660 and 1840. A musket was a muzzle-loading smoothbore long gun that was loaded with a round lead ball, but it could also be loaded with shot for hunting. For military purposes, the weapon was loaded with ball, or a mixture of ball with several large shot (called buck and ball), and had an effective range of about 75 to 100 metres. Smoothbore weapons that were designed for hunting birds were called "fowlers." Flintlock muskets tended to be of large caliber and usually had no choke, allowing them to fire full-caliber balls.
Military flintlock muskets tended to weigh approximately ten pounds, as heavier weapons were found to be too cumbersome, and lighter weapons were not rugged or heavy enough to be used in hand-to-hand combat. They were usually designed to be fitted with a bayonet. On flintlocks, the bayonet played a much more significant role, often accounting for a third or more of all battlefield casualties. This is a rather controversial topic in history though, given that casualties list from several battles in the 18th century showed that less than 2% of wounds were caused by bayonets.[4]
Antoine-Henri Jomini, a celebrated military author of the Napoleonic period who served in numerous armies during that period, stated that the majority of bayonet charges in the open resulted with one side fleeing before any contacts were made.[5] Flintlock weapons were not used like modern rifles. They tended to be fired in mass volleys, followed by bayonet charges in which the weapons were used much like the pikes that they replaced.[dubious – discuss] Because they were also used as pikes, military flintlocks tended to be approximately five or six feet in length (without the bayonet attached), and used bayonets that were approximately 18 to 22 inches in length.
Rifles  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.47.250 (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  flintlock's  

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion