Acer,
No those arms don't touch, they miss by a couple thousands, about like Bob's cigarette paper. The spring maker who did those was a real master of his craft, not the slightest kink or unevenness in that spring as it loads. The one on the other lock is exactly the same. The problem with one arm hitting the other when it's loaded is that it puts entirely different stresses in the spring that go across the spring rather than along its length. Think of a sheet of glass. It will bend quite a bit without breaking if you put the two ends on books and push down gently with your finger but if you put it down on a grain of sand on your bench and apply any pressure it will shatter. Now most flintlock springs have a lot more beef to them so that a slight touch just at full load probably won't break it but if it hits hard or much before full load the contact area is where it will eventually fail all other things being equal.
I've seen some truly terrible springs in new commercial locks by makers other than Chambers. Gross over arches, etc. That's because the masters for some cast springs aren't particularly carefully made.. Judicious filing of the overly stiff base of these springs so that they become a smooth, even taper will take out the overarch and actually speed up the lock as the load goes out of the spring evenly and not in a uneven, vibrating, manner. Those old English shotgun locks by the Mantons and the best lock makers of their day are the fastest flintlocks ever made and by current cast spring standards the springs look very thin, but those springs are perfectly made and that's what makes the difference. The title of this thread "Mainspring design" says it all.
Tom