Primed and Loaded | Snaphaunce Ignition System

[@sgtbrendan289]

I visited there in 2004. When we went through the armory, my 11 year old son commented " Hey Dad!, they have a snaphaunce, just like yours" I was told that was the first time the staff had heard that one :) Needsless to say, we got the delux tour. I think I have a pic of my son holding that same musket.

[@JYFMuseums]

Thank you! And we're honored to be a small part of a family memory

[@claptrap4084]

So im 32, and just stumbled on this channel. I first started studying old or antique firearms back when i was roughly 18. Mostly through internet videos or anything i could find. So ive roughly been doing this 15yrs now at this point and this is the first time i came across a Snaphaunce.....i already knew of the Handgonne, Matchlocks, Wheel locks, and of course the flintlocks....better never heard of the Snaphaunce. Needless to say we are always learning new things no matter how long we've been at it and i always love discovering new antiques ive never seen before

[@vrmvrum]

Excellent presentation! I've been a long time fan of the Snaphaunce and have a carbine version. Most people skip over the Snaphaunce, but I've always seen it as an important transition piece. Also, as you touched on in the video, it has deep roots in the beginnings of our country.

[@wesmckinney4915]

Great video! Studying some of the history of prior firearms to the American long rifle. I have a .32 caliber Kentucky that I squirrel hunt with and absolutely love it! Great video and excellent presentation

[@JYFMuseums]

Thanks!

[@saturn_in_blue]

I don't live anywhere close to Virginia or even in the US, but your series this is one of the best, clearest explanations of these early firearm types on the internet. Super cool!

[@JYFMuseums]

Thank you!

[@jeffyoung60]

The Snaphaunce (pecking hen) ignition system was a short-lived new technology between the wheellock and flintlock. The snaphaunce system was the ancestor of the flintlock, was simpler than the more complex wheellock, but not by much. The snaphaunce used a separate, sliding flashpan cover and the flint dog hammer struck down on a moving steel anvil to generate the sparks. Mother being the necessity of invention, some smart gun smith realized you could simplify the snaphaunce even further by ridding half of the mechanism. In the flintlock, a simple hammer containing the flint struck an L-shaped flashpan cover. The strike generated the sparks at the same time knocking the L-shaped cover back, exposing the flashpan powder. It was simplicity itself plus a whole lot cheaper to manufacture en masse than the more complicated snaphaunce. The snaphaunce rapidly faded from view while the flintlock when on in use for the next two hundred years. Only the more reliable percussion cap superseded the flintlock rapidly but even then for about forty years or so before the invention of the unitary, metallic cartridge. The metallic cartridge has been in continuous use for some two hundred and sixty years, still awaiting either the caseless cartridge or the ray-gun to replace it.

[@cariopuppetmaster]

Wheellocks are very different from flintlocks a separate tree

[@JYFMuseums]

@cariopuppetmaster Correct! Wheellock ignition and flint ignition are two separate lines of firearms development. The snaphaunce is no interim short lived transition between the two technologies, but is an early forebearer of what is to come in flint ignition evolution that leads to the French lock, the ignition system that we simply know as the flintlock today.

[@jeffyoung60]

@@JYFMuseums I revised my information above to clarify that the snaphaunce was the ancestor of the flintlock, and not an evolution of the wheelock.

[@tachankasoupcannon]

Thank you so much for making this. I've had an interest in historical firearms for a long time and I've had a lot of trouble finding information on the snaphaunce and the other transitional ignition systems between matchlock and flintlock. This did a really good job of breaking it down so that we can see the differences. The matchlock video is incredible too, it's great to see more content for these often ignored time periods.

[@JYFMuseums]

Thank you for the compliments and we are glad you've enjoyed our videos about the snaphaunce and matchlock ignition systems in our Primed and Loaded series. If you've not seen it yet, we did a video about the wheellock ignition system as well. And remember, keep your powder dry!

[@calebwelch6393]

Fascinating video! I have never heard of the Snaphaunce before so it was quite interesting to learn about!

[@calebwelch6393]

Likewise I forgot to ask if y’all have any book recommendations on this subject.

[@jamesread1607]

@@calebwelch6393 You might seek out the book, The Flintlock, its Origin, Development, and Use by Toresten Lenk, translated by G. A. Urquhart and edited by J. F. Hayward And for a general history try The Treasury of the Gun, by Harold L. Peterson

[@calebwelch6393]

@@jamesread1607 Thank you!!! I’ll make sure to add those books to the ever growing book pile!

[@davidhanna9420]

Keep your powder dry. Love the slo-mo.

[@vigokyoto12]

Very detailed yet easy to understand explanation! I was wondering what the difference between a Snaphaunce gun, and a Flintlock gun is because essentially it is the same thing but has a different mechanism. This video gave me the understanding of how muzzle loaded guns work, and it helps me a lot in my novel writing! Thank you for the wonderful video! I hope you're healthy and well! :)

[@JYFMuseums]

Thank you. The main difference between the snaphaunce and the flintlock, as the system evolves, is a reduction in the number of moving parts; the addition of a half cock to allow the locking of the cock back and out of the way, while preventing its falling and striking the battery/hammer; then the combining of the pan cover with the battery into a single part.

[@vigokyoto12]

@@JYFMuseums thank you for the explanation!

[@rosensaramov7336]

Incredible weapon! Great presentation!

[@JYFMuseums]

Thank you!

[@gregdodd4729]

I can see how the snaphaunce would be the firearm of choice as a fowler for someone sitting in a marsh waiting for ducks or geese. Great video.

[@nikitamckeever5403]

Thankyou for your video , excellent content . I thoroughly enjoyed it 👍😁

[@wvcruffler123]

Is this a Dutch design musket? Really love the wrist area geometry.

[@JYFMuseums]

This particular piece is a reproduction of a snaphaunce fowler from about 1603, that was originally a diplomatic gift from King James to the Russian Czar.

[@johnfisk811]

They were still made in Morocco into the 20th century partially because they allowed the weapon to be safely carried loaded and primed with the steel swung forward. Allegedly made by some of my Amazigh ancestors.

[@BIG-DIPPER-56]

THAT was EXCELLENT - Thanks So Much! 😎👍

[@JYFMuseums]

You're welcome!

[@KroM234]

It's funny to see how it's overengineered compared to an ironned-out flintlock system. They basically devised a whole mechanical system to protect the pan and travel out upon the cock's strike. While all it would take later on is the idea of the frizen being the pan's actual lid and cover. But then again, it might be tied to the progress state of spring technology. As the frizen on a flintlock is geared by a much thiner spring on the outer part of the lock. Maybe they didn't have the machinery/smithing technology to come with such thin springs just yet in the early17th century. Might just be tied to production costs being too high at this stage for whole armies.

[@JYFMuseums]

Talk about over-engineered make sure to look back at our wheellock video! As for the evolution of the snaphaunce to the French/flintlock, you may be right, and it is fascinating that these issues were all ironed out in about a 70 year period. A relatively short period of history in firearms technology. What is striking is how often we modern folks do tend to look back on historical technology as simple or primitive, and not always appreciate how they were able to manufacture complicated parts and movements all by hand.

[@scottanos9981]

​@@JYFMuseumsAlso how efficiency begins to define the progress of a lot of technological advanced rather than complexity!

[@mcRydes]

What's the big practical improvement brought by the French lock over older snaphaunce designs? Fascinating that flintlock systems were already taking over as early as 1619 in Virginia, I didn't even know there were flintlock designs in this era! Do we have any idea what proportion of guns counted in inventories were matchlock vs snaphaunce? Thanks for the demonstration

[@JYFMuseums]

The big practical improvements brought by the French lock was a reduction in number of and the simplification of the parts within the lock mechanism, combining the pan cover and the battery into a single part that is so often referred to today as the frizzen and the addition of a half-cock to the lock system. The half-cock allowed the shooter to "lock" the cock back and out of the way of the pan, to make priming of the weapon easier, without actually cocking and arming the weapon to then load, as one had to do with the snaphaunce. We do not know what proportion or ratio of firearms were matchlock vs snaphaunce. Unfortunately the language used in various records is not as precise as we would like it today and often writers & clerks are using words other than matchlock or snaphaunce to refer to firearms. We'll often have to infer what is meant in that context. Firelock for example, is often debated as to it's exact meaning and is generally accepted to mean a flint ignition.

[@brianhiles8164]

Is it true that the genuine expression was to “bend the battery“? I am somewhat dubious, as in the era of the weapon the term _bend_ (and _bending,_ the doing thereof) were already subsumed to mean a type of knot that was intended to attach a rope to a rope.

[@JYFMuseums]

Yes, it is a genuine expression. Bend or bent were already words long used when referencing archers and crossbowmen and the preparations of their arms. Sir John Smythe referred to bending cross bows in his book, “Certain discourses, concerning the formes and effects of diuers sorts of weapons…”. Humfrey Barwick, critiqued Smythe’s commentary in his book, “A breefe discourse, concerning the force and effect of all manuall weapons of fire…” and referenced archers with bows bent. When we come to Virginia, Captain John Smith in his book “The General History of Virginia, New England and the Summer Isles” wrote of pistols bent, when readying pistols or pointing a pistol at an enemy. In his book “The True Travels, Adventures, and Observations of Captain John Smith into Europe, Asia, Africa, and America” Smith described defensive abattis being sharpened and set towards the enemy as “and bent against the Enemy, as three Battalion of Pikes”. The words bend or bent can be used in several contexts, to prepare or to point something, such as arming a crossbow, or loading and arming a firearm by “bending the cock”, “bending the battery”, or “bending the hammer”, and it can refer to ropework and knots, or even bending on sails.

[@Hung-Ly]

If I ever manage to go to America where is this fine museum also I have a Question what changed for later Soldiers to get mass-produced flintlocks couldn't the kingdoms of the day outfit their troops with Snaphaunces?

[@JYFMuseums]

Thank you for the questions. Our two museums are in Virginia’s Historic Triangle of Williamsburg, Yorktown, and Jamestown in southeastern Virginia. To learn more about our two museums check out our website at www.jyfmuseums.org/ The answer to the question of what changed for later soldiers to get mass-produced flintlocks could be said to be the whole of firearms history. Early firearm production was within small production shops, all by skilled hand labor, with firearms produced in any number of styles often based on what was currently believed to be fashionable. This manner of production by hand offered no commonality, uniformity, or interchangeability of parts. One of the most important changes to firearms production was not necessarily within the realm of ignition technology, but the development of the concept of the “pattern piece”. Rather than a government simply purchasing any firearms made available by a maker, a government would commission the making of a pattern piece. A pattern piece would serve as an example or as an original pattern that all other makers were to copy. The concept was that makers had to take their measurements from a pattern piece, make their own patterns from those measurements and simply make their production copies of the pattern piece. This concept of the pattern piece along with the advent of the industrial revolution in the early-18th century, and the ability to be more precise in the manufacturing of parts went a long way to evolve the ability to mass-produce firearms. A final stage of the evolution to mass-production of firearms was the development of the "armory system" that evolved in the late-18th century into the 19th century, which made extensive use of interchangeable parts and mechanization for production. Labor became more efficient with a lower skill level than required by hand production.

[@Hung-Ly]

@@JYFMuseums thank you for Answering my question it is very Interesting to know that Firearm Production used to be more of a finer craft than it is now I always thought that Firearms were Produced in a Pattern Thank you very much for answering my question if I have any more can I ask again?

[@JYFMuseums]

Yes Please! We are always happy to answer questions.

[@knightingale9833]

I read on Wikipedia that to have a single guard on duty every night with a Matchlock cost about a mile of slow burning chord per year, the Snaphaunce really was a massive gamechanger in terms of reducing the resource intensity of equipping people with firearms.

[@JYFMuseums]

There may be some truth to that. In our experience making and using slow match, we have found that our slow match with both end lit burns an average of 1 foot an hour. Purely as a math exercise, we might presume that a guard detail with 15 men as a reserve, 15 as a rounders and 15 sentinels, with a rotation of those men every couple hours, might easily burn as much as 360 feet of rope in a 24 hour guard period - without necessarily firing a shot. In a year that might be 131,400 feet or about 24 or 25 miles of rope for match. But that is speculation. Match and the care of the match is always a consideration, but it provides a certain reliability that a snaphaunce does not have. With the snaphaunce flints become the consideration. No flint, there's no operating snaphaunce. A flint may be good through 30 to 40 shots before the flint is dulled and unreliable.

[@eggisfun4217]

I LOVE THE SMALL DELAY AND THE SOUND

[@nicktrueman224]

Gorgeous who is making these?

[@JYFMuseums]

This fowling piece was made for us back in the 1990s by a gunsmith now retired.

[@nicktrueman224]

@@JYFMuseums it's a really lovely piece, thank you. I thought it may have been a Rifleshope model as it's similar to one in their catalogue. As I am overseas I bought a matchlock kit from them which was a ton of work for a simple lock, but everything needed work and it was a great sometimes nerve wrecking challenge. Making sure all holes drilled into the stock lined up with the underlugs etc. I tried to contact them again for Snaphaunce musket but I never heard back. I still have my matchlock and love it. Thanks

[@iceberg789]

how did they fight with these in the rains ?

[@JYFMuseums]

With a little difficulty. Never mind the firearm itself, one key issue is to remember that gun powder (or black powder as we know it now) is hygroscopic which means it can absorb the moisture suspended in the air. Damp gun powder is spoiled and will not burn until it is dried out. Soldiers certainly understood the need to keep their powder dry and developed tricks for drying it out, which may have included drying the powder in the backs of their armours over fire. In addition to firearms, musketeers were equipped with swords.

[@craigcook1571]

What was a standard powder charge back then?

[@JYFMuseums]

Unfortunately at this point in the late-16th and early-17th centuries, its difficult to say with certainty what a standard charge may have been; especially considering the often poor or inconsistent quality of gun powder production in that period. Sir Roger Williams does write -- "Caliuers [calivers] may say they will discharge two shot for one, but cannot de∣nie; but one Musket shot doth more hurt than two Ca∣liuers shot, farre or nere and better cheape: although the Musket spend a pound of powder in 8. or 12. shot, and the other smaller shootes twentie and thirtie of a pound." quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A15466.0001.001/1:4.18?rgn=div2;view=fulltext quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A15466.0001.001?view=toc Eight to twelve musket shot from a pound of powder or 20 to 30 shots from a pound of powder from a caliver? That is a little mind boggling.

[@craigcook1571]

@@JYFMuseums 8-12 per pound sounds like pretty hefty loads. What were they shooting at, Dinosaur’s? Thanks for the answer

[@tomhenry897]

More is better Lots of reloaded do it

[@alexcarter2461]

I can see how fascinating these were at the time period. You can't really compare anything of the 16th century that has that level of complexity, and I'm not just referring to the snap haunce alone.

[@waldemar4149]

При Оливере Кромвеле , пехота скорыми темпами стала переходить на мушкеты с таким замком. Через несколько лет , фитильные мушкеты и пики в английской пехоте остались в истории. Даже в колониях , индейцы Великих Озер , были согласны платить бобровыми шкурами только за мушкеты с такими замками. Сложилась интересная ситуация , когда в Европе еще продолжали пользоваться фитильным замком , индейцы были вооружены передовым оружием.

[@emeteriosilva6901]

El sistema de rueda es mas rapido...???

[@eckelrock]

People who complain about the lack of innovation of muskets have no appreciation for the mechanical ingenuity involved behind these pieces. Not to mention that each one had to be hand made and fitted!

[@JYFMuseums]

Exactly!

[@chickensandwich1589]

Where do y'all purchase your weapons from?

[@JYFMuseums]

We've purchased reproduction weapons from a number of gunsmiths through the years. Including John Buck and Dale Shin to name just two.

[@chickensandwich1589]

@@JYFMuseums Thanks for the reply! Seems John Buck has retired, shame.

[@joshb4898]

What year (approx) is that specific design from?

[@jamesread1607]

This particular piece is a reproduction of a fowler from about 1603 that was originally a diplomatic gift from King James to the Russian Czar. The snaphance ignition first appeared about the 1550s.

[@btrenninger1]

It surprises me that it's charged after the pan is primed and cocked.

[@grenouillesscent]

Awsome

[@bimantara83]

Precicouse informations.

[@lmp2208]

Good photography and most explanation. The explanation of the seer, and the seer release lever could’ve been better. The explanation was counter intuitive to how it actually works. Should have actuated the release lever in the correct motion while in shot. I had to replay several times to understand the mechanism. Otherwise good.

[@joshuathomas8529]

All that makes the trigger in an AR-15 look simple.

[@nicktrueman224]

Now I am really jealous

[@JYFMuseums]

Don't be jealous.

[@nicktrueman224]

@@JYFMuseums I can't help it;) I am not a AR15 guy though they are ok I much prefer a beuatiful blackpowder musket or rifle of the later 16th and 17thc.and some 18thc flintlocks.

[@nicktrueman224]

@@JYFMuseums Do you like later Jaeger rifles? Though they appear 1680s Paul Poser being the gunsmith. And the French and English are beggining to make a more typical looking stock far more known to people.

[@JYFMuseums]

We do have a Jaeger rifle at our American Revolution Museum at Yorktown. kzbin.info/www/bejne/sHOkqKyqpaqLmqM

[@JYFMuseums]

@nicktrueman224 often overlooked and sitting between the military musket and the rifle is the fowler. Often with requirements that citizens own arms for militia service, the fowler filled the niche as both a weapon suitable for military service and fulfilling household needs.

[@onkelfritz3807]

battery? wheres the battery?

[@JYFMuseums]

The battery is the steel face that the flint strikes againt to generate the necessary spark to ignite the gunpowder. Go to 2:20 where Brian explains the external parts of the lock mechanism. At about 2:34 he'll point out the battery & at 3:00 he'll point out the battery again and explain its function.

[@amaynard66]

Great content, well presented. Curious is the "flashguard" on the side of the weapon historical. A quick search for images at the Royal Armouries makes me think it is but......... Also perhaps shooting glasses or safety glasses might be prudent (even though you do close your eyes tightly)! Reenactment accuracy isn't worth your eyesight! Still and all Well Done!

[@jamesread1607]

We are going back many many decades, but we bought this fowler from a gunsmith who said at the time that it was based on one that was a 1603 diplomatic gift from King James to the Russian Czar. Not a "flashguard" per se, but part of the structure of the pan to securely contain the gun powder and properly align the movement of the pan cover as it closes and opens.

[@jamesj4827]

TBF the wheel lock continued in usage as well for a long time in high end guns and were more reliable than a flintlock. Flint was a later design but you can't really make it out to be a 'evolution' as oif match lock was worst, wheel lock better and flintlock best, thats far from the truth Less reliable but cheaper, sturdier and easier to produce and repair are the advantages of flint and why it became so common. But wheellocks were amazing bits of kit

[@JYFMuseums]

Yes, wheellocks are amazing pieces of technology and in case you missed it, here is Brian’s video covering the weellock ignition system -- kzbin.info/www/bejne/b4q1mGWcnd5kb7M This video is about the snaphaunce ignition system because it was an early entrant into the class of flint ignition firearms that eventually developed into the flintlock and saw service in early-Virginia. Matchlock, wheellock, & flintlock are each very different and separate technological paths for the journey of firearms technology and Brian’s remarks regarding evolution were not about progression from one system to the other, rather his remarks addressed the importance of the snaphaunce ignition in the series of evolutions that eventually became the flintlock. These are not discussions of which technology was better, as each had their advantages and disadvantages, these are discussions about how these systems worked and how each were effective for their purpose in their time.

[@jamesj4827]

@@JYFMuseums ooh, thank you

[@smittysmith4891]

grease those lock internals please

[@janrobertbos]

.............ok guys it`s SNAPHAAN it`s a Dutch word referring to the movement of the ignition system which resembles the picking a chicken or rooster (HAAN) does.............

[@JYFMuseums]

Yes, snaphaan is the Dutch word that the English word snaphaunce is derived from.

[@rayungrenjani8333]

Well, i guess that's where our word SENAPAN ( Indonesian language) came from😅

[@wvcruffler123]

Does this appear to be a Dutch musket? Was wondering if there were some pics with measurements. I have a snaphaunce lock coming and was trying to decide what sort of rifle to build around it.