Why do flintlocks and wheel locks even need springs?

Flint strikers don't use spring tension to create sparks. It uses human hard muscle power to simply squeeze the flint against the steel to light sparks.

So why do wheel locks and flintlock need a spring to store energy and strike the steel to create sparks? Can't the mainspring be done away with and simply have the trigger scrape the flint against the frizzen?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I meant human hand muscle power.

    The flint strikers only spring isn't to scrape the flint against the steel bit to keep the two ends of the tool apart. The hand does the striking by squeezing.

    Its analogous to only having a trigger spring keeping the trigger ready to fire and not having a mainspring for the flint striker.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      you unironically need to be 18 or older to post here if you think a manual chemistry striker doesn't work with a spring and this is how your brain works

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I already mentioned the flint striker being a spring is analogous to only having a trigger spring to keep the trigger ready to fire. The spring in the flint striker isn't there to force the flint against the steel.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >this whole post
          yeah, once again you need to be 18 or older to post here

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The flint strikers body spring primes it for the hand to scrape the flint.

            The trigger spring primes the trigger to be pulled by the finger.

            The flint striker has no mainspring. The hand just squeezes it. The flintlock relies on the mainspring to force the flint to scrape the frizzen.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >he doesn't realise the spring just returns the mechanism to the ready position, and even opposes the hand's stroking motion

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I can never see those without being reminded that it was invented by a severely autistic girl in college and she got in trouble because people thought it was some kind of deviant sex toy.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What are those things actually then?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous
  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That thing you posted is literally a spring, and can strike spark in both directions.
    The answer is reliability ofc

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I already mention it

      I meant human hand muscle power.

      The flint strikers only spring isn't to scrape the flint against the steel bit to keep the two ends of the tool apart. The hand does the striking by squeezing.

      Its analogous to only having a trigger spring keeping the trigger ready to fire and not having a mainspring for the flint striker.

      The flint striker being a spring is analogous to the trigger spring in a flintlock musket. It holds the trigger in position, preparing for the human hand to squeeze the striker or trigger.

      The flint strikers spring body isn't what forces the flint against the steel.

      And you pointed out that the spring forces it back into its original position and causes additional sparks. The same can be done on a musket by only having a trigger spring which is set up against a non-moveable frizzen.

      Just install a flint striker on the lock of a gun next to the touch hole and there's no need for a mainspring.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it DOES use "human hard muscle power"
    it merely stores it for the moment its needed

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Making the mainspring takes unnecessary effort.

      Why do third world village blacksmiths make mainsprings on their flintlocks when they can just make a flint striker and install it on their gun?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        because it actually IS easier to just have a mainspring
        anon, over the 600 years of these guns existing, you don't think someone tried otherwise?
        do you think they just had a better weapon, then decided "naw, frick having money & power, trash this shit", and that was the end of it?
        do you even own a flintlock / percussion gun?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Slam fire shotguns don't use springs and rely on pure human muscle to slam the primer.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Slam fire shotguns also rely on the user being a few feet away from their intended target. You should answer

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

            could work, but can you imagine having to squeeze your trigger hard enough to get a get good spark to light the powder, and still remain accurate?

            So I'll do you one better; why don't we create an electric spark in it using one of those pshu-button lighter mechanism?
            At least it breaks cleanly, allowing you to stay on target more easily

            The piezo element's trigger point is probably easier to tune as well

            , but I don’t think you will because you’d rather just keep posting 2/10 bait.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The point is that the primer can be ignited without springs

              For that matter, why the hell do percussion locks need mainsprings?

              If primers like mercury fulminate and lead azide are sensitive to mere hammer taps like so many people on YouTube show, the hammer doesn't need a mainspring and can just rely in pure human hand muscle power to squeeze the trigger and slam the hammer on the primer.

              Why do percussion locks need mainsprings when just punching mercury fulminate will set it off?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Why do percussion locks need mainsprings when just punching mercury fulminate will set it off?
                You should try it and tell us why. Go buy a percussion rifle at your local Basspro today and instead of using the trigger and lock to fire the rifle, just hit the percussion cap with a hammer. Then, fire the rifle using the lock and trigger. Please use the scientific method when performing this experiment. I think this will answer your questions.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            and a slam fire shotgun is also not a fricking flintlock
            seeing as you couldn't answer the question, you're noguns moron who can barely comprehend an apple
            the "close" button on your browser is all the way on the top right, its a little "X", please click it right now

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    could work, but can you imagine having to squeeze your trigger hard enough to get a get good spark to light the powder, and still remain accurate?

    So I'll do you one better; why don't we create an electric spark in it using one of those pshu-button lighter mechanism?
    At least it breaks cleanly, allowing you to stay on target more easily

    The piezo element's trigger point is probably easier to tune as well

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For that matter, why the hell do percussion locks need mainsprings?

    If primers like mercury fulminate and lead azide are sensitive to mere hammer taps like so many people on YouTube show, the hammer doesn't need a mainspring and can just rely in pure human hand muscle power to squeeze the trigger and slam the hammer on the primer.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Flint strikers don't use spring tension to create sparks.

    It literally has a spring that both presses the flint against the steel and return it to its initial position afterwards, you're a blind moron.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The flint isn't pressed against the steel. You have to squeeze the flint against the steel yourself. The spring only holds the flint at the same level as the steel.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I own one, moron, you only need to press sideways because the flint is already pressed against the steel.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    man I can only imagine how flustered op feels right now

    imagine coming up with a moronic thread like this thinking you're really onto something and are somehow smarter than centuries of tech and evolution before you and you just keep embarrassing yourself when anons point out the idiocy of your thought process

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The first matchlock arquebuses had no springs and the trigger was simply a lever to lower the match. The spring matchlocks like the snap matchlock came later. And even the other non-snap matchlock variant used in England only had a weak spring and simple lever mechanism.

      It's not a dumb question to ask why they didn't put flint on the other end of the simple lever mechanism and scrape it against steel.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >It's not a dumb question to ask why they didn't put flint on the other end of the simple lever mechanism and scrape it against steel.
        >Matchlock presses match down at like 1MPH
        >Flintlock snaps a rock into a piece of steel so hard there's consistent sparking
        It's only a dumb question if you've ever seen a matchlock operate, seen a flintlock operate, made sparks with flint and steel, or ever scraped two things together in your entire like.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The first matchlock arquebuses had no springs and the trigger was simply a lever to lower the match.
        yes, because its already burning
        >The spring matchlocks like the snap matchlock came later. And even the other non-snap matchlock variant used in England only had a weak spring and simple lever mechanism.
        YES, BECAUSE ITS ALREADY BURNING
        >It's not a dumb question to ask why they didn't put flint on the other end of the simple lever mechanism and scrape it against steel.
        yeah, it is fricking dumb, all you'll end up with in the same fricking thing, just mirrored & with even less reliability
        the idea is fricking moronic, and you are a fricking moron for not only thinking it up, but attempting to argue that it would be a good idea after consistently being proven wrong
        you god damned noguns frick

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >OP watches a single forgotten weapons video featuring a matchbook firearm and thinks he is the master of all blackpowder now
        What does a burning slow match do that a flint and striker doesn't do, OP?
        Think real hard as to why one of them reliably sets off powder when lowered, and why the other might need a bit of a zip in order to do it instead

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    jesus christ this moron is just going to keep doubling down until he hears what he wants to hear

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Can't the mainspring be done away with and simply have the trigger scrape the flint against the frizzen?
    because that would obviously suck. are you moronic?
    >crisp trigger pull, flint is struck well and consistently every time
    vs
    >dogshit trigger pull, fail to pull trigger fast enough and gun won't go off
    maybe try thinking before posting next time

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I would be very surprised if that "flint striker" really uses flint. It is in all likelihood using ferrocerium/auermetall and not flint. Getting good sparks from actual flint is a lot more difficult in comparison. Auermetall wasn't invented until the 20th century.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ITT: morons who don't know the difference between flint and ferrocerium.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Flint strikers often take like half a dozen clicks or more to get a spark sufficient to set off black powder.

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