"Wheel-lock pistols: how slow to load?" Topic

Were wheel locks slower to load than flintlocks?

Were they more or less reliable than flintlocks?

Any gun buffs here know the scoop?

about 3 sec to turn the wheel with the spaner/key.

the same, both have problems with water and springs.

yes me.

they are a bit slower setting off the main charge making them harder to keep on target.

The wheel-lock pistol was much more liable to have something go wrong with it than flintlocks. They had more intricate moving parts to break.

Rich

Quester/ Rich, would there be any significant alteration re fire factor in wargames rules with a 17th Century unit using wheel locks compared to an 18th Century unit with flintlocks?

Are you thinking of them used mounted, or on foot? Are you asking how long it took to load them? In combat? Give us some idea of what you're looking for.

The 18th century flintlock was a huge advance over the wheel locks, which as far as I'm aware were usually mounted weapons and normally would be fired once in a combat.

The springs broke if overtightened, or if left tight too long. Look at some pictures of cavalry in the TYW-ECW period and you'll usually see the 'key' hanging on a ribbon from around their necks. They were expensive and complicated, and not used in general by infantry.

Dan

Actually the wheellock was the superior firing mechanism as long as it wasn't broken. A flintlock is more prone to misfires, the lock it self is quite sturdy and simple but will misfire if the flint is poorly shaped/chipped, the flitn is improperly fitted in the jaws or the flint has been lost due to being shaken loose.

The wheellocks main drawback was the high cost, the fact that it required expensive specialists to repair and mantain not to mention the risk of the springs breaking if the pistols was handled with care when used.

The flintlock pistol won in the end because it was cheaper and more soldier proof, not because it was more efficient in combat. The Swedish army actually tested the two against each other in the late 17th C and purchased a new model of wheellock as late as 1690 because they were unsatisfied with the performance of the M/1687 and m/1688 flintlock pistols. In the end the accountants won and the m/1699 flintlock issued to replace all remaining wheellocks

Pistols were certainly reloaded during battles, pistols & carbines were the first military small arms to regularly use prepared paper cartridges and holster were fitted with cartridge holders to make it easy to reload.

There should be no noticable difference in fire factors, the training and experience of the men using the pistols and the tactical situation will have far greater impact on the effectiveness pistol fire than such a minute difference as what type of lock a pistol uses to fire the powder charge. This assuming that the users are properley trained.

Particularly in the 16th century poorly trained users of wheellocks shoudl be given lower fire factors as a lack of training and care resutled in improperly loaded pistols, broken or fatiuged springs and so on. La Noue discusses the problems involved with the lack of care on part of the French Gendarmes IIRC

In a campaign wheellock armed units should be more expensive to equipp and cost more to mantain due to the presence of a gunsmith. Units without gunsmiths should have lower fire factors due their small arms beign in poor shape.

Although pistols would be reloaded, the question is when. You can imagine time allowed in a caracole against a pike block but the ECW cavalry charge accounts I have read (allowing for all the issues with the sources) show such time rarely being available. In fact cavalry often seems a one-act play with a hope of a second performance if lucky. In that turbulent act, stopping to reload would be very difficult.

As our rules are for battles, I wouldn't worry. If they can pause for a bound/move/? then the soldier will reload.

The only chance for horse to reload their pistols would be during reforming inbetween actions, as both hands are required for the complex process.

I would rate wheellocks higher in reliability as well.

Cheers

Romain

Might flintlocks have been less delicate, so that they could be used as clubs with fewer worries?

Hi

The pyrites in the wheel lock are more likely to fail within 20 shots than a flint lock.

As noted, more expensive, but no real difference in firepower, just failure rate. In our battle rules, we don't worry about it, in skirmish, we do. Reloads only at a stand not under attack. Thus, multiple pistols historically.

Rocky

Daniel S hit the nail on the head. It was simply a matter of cost. Remember that when firelocks were introduced, the wheellock was still in use. One only has to look at the cost of replicas in seeing the price difference. A nice flintlock Brown Bess is about $800. USD It would be very difficult to procure a wheelock (pistol for that matter) for under $1,500, and VERY few people can afford, and do, make them. The problem is with the spring (which is actually a leaf spring as in a flintlock with a chain.) If left spun too long, then it is problematic…i.e. too much stress on the mechanism. With the flintlock, one does not need to keep it "spanned"/cocked, as it can be done immediatly before firing.

ilodic.

One other difference… a well made wheel-lock is a lot more immune to a wet environment as the firing mechanism can be fully enclosed, making it a lot more reliable in anything less than full immersion.

Pistols are a cavalry weapon and the way they were used depends on the tactical doctrine of the forces using them. Early ECW (1642 – 43) Parliamentarians were more likely to use Dutch tactics which required deeper formations of Horse (usually 6 ranks deep). This formation is associated with pistols used in a defensive tactic. The caracole as it is often known. This requires the ranks to trot forward one at a time to deliver pistol fire to the enemy then to retire and reload. Of course this requires the enemy to sort of accept this treatment without counter attacking to operate as the text books suggest!

On the other hand Royalist horse used Swedish tactics right from the off. This required horse formations to draw up in shallower and wider formations (usually 3 ranks. Rupert issued instructions to charge to contact (perhaps reining in at the last moment) and using pistols as a melee weapon. In theory one pistol should remain unfired for use in the pursuit phase. From 1644 both sides were using at least elements of Swedish tactics, forming in 3 ranks and using pistols as melee weapons. This of course means that each pistol is only fired once in the melee as there is no safe place to reload in hand to hand fighting.

Probably a better measure of a horse units combat effectiveness is the number of pistols/carbines etc carried and not there type coupled with the tactical style to be applied.

I was just reading an account of Edgehill the other day and was struck by the unsuccessful Roundhead tactic of receiving at the halt in a deep formation.

Was anyone on the continent still using this tactic/ formation in the 1640's?

I know Guthrie suggested that the Imperials kept using deep formations for their Kuirassiers even after the Wallenstein period. OTOH, Guthrie is "occasionally" incorrect…..