"Difference between Firelock and musket?" Topic

I am just getting started in the ECW period and for the life of me can't find what the difference is between Firelock and the standard musket men of the period. I know they were often assigned to guarding Artillery because of igniting issues of the powder but is there an actual distinction between them (firing/accuracy) and the musket on the Battlefield?

Or is this firearm pretty much the same as the musket of this period and only distinguished because of the firing mechanism of the time?

The standard musket would be a matchlock and 'firelocks' would be some form of flintlock removing the need for smouldering match around powder. Other than that there's little to distinguish them, although firelocks would be very unlikely to use a rest like earlier heavier matchlock muskets which were were being phased out for lighter muskets that didn't require a rest as the war went on.

Firelocks also were considered better for sentry duty and, admittedly rare, night operations, as they didn't need constantly burning match.

As well as the above, they had a slightly higher rate of fire, and were more reliable in wet weather.

Not strictly relevant to the OP's question but interesting nonetheless: the armies of the period used prodigious amounts of match and its use, supply and manufacture – sometimes from very strange materials including bed cords – is a fascinating subject in its own right.

Thank you for your answers, it cleared some thing up for me.

Very interesting. I'd have thought that 'firelock'
would be used for those weapons using actual smoldering
cord, while 'musket' would be for the flintlock.
However, I can see 'firelock' deriving from the actual
'fire' caused by the ignition of the powder in the pan.

Can anyone explain where 'snaphaunce' fit in during
that period ?

Can anyone explain where 'snaphaunce' fit in during
that period ?

I believe it is essentially a firelock musket by a continental name.