AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Gun Building => Topic started by: smart dog on May 20, 2019, 01:52:41 AM
-
Hi Folks,
I finished a long-term experiment with a Davis colonial American lock. I used it on my "Star of Bethlehem" rifle, which I think many of you are familiar and I show below. I've come to understand the working of flintlocks very well from building, tuning, repairing, and shooting them in rain, snow, and temps ranging from -20 degrees F to 90 degrees F. I am a keen observer and am not in love with any modern-made locks since I had the opportunity to shoot several antique guns with a very fine late flint English locks. That experience spoiled me forever. Every commercial lock you buy today is second rate to those. Anyway, I wanted to test one hypothesis, that the frizzen spring strength needs to be only sufficient to keep the pan cover closed and prevent kick back that strikes the flint a second time during a shot. A good flintlock should create abundant sparks without a frizzen spring and you want the frizzen to get out of the way as quickly as possible. But here is the rub, much testing of flintlocks focused on lock speed and speed of ignition. The fresh clean lock is put through a few trial shots and data recorded. To be honest, I don't give a @!*% how fast a lock is. I want to know will it fire the gun after 10, 20, 30, 40 shots and when the flint is worn to a nub. Any good shooter can accommodate slow ignition but ignition has to happen. To that end, the only modern commercially made locks that satisfy me are Chambers round-face English, Virginia fowler, and early Ketland locks. Chambers late Ketland may also perform as well but I don't have enough direct experience at this time. The Davis American colonial lock seemed to be a good one when I bought it and I was enthusiastic about it. Its performance was barely acceptable to me on my "Star of Bethlehem" rifle but I wanted to experiment with the strength of the frizzen spring over time and a lot of shooting conditions. I adjusted the frizzen spring so it held the pan cover closed but was fairly weak about 7.5-10% (measured with a scale) of the force needed to bring the flintcock back to full cock. The lock still produced abundant sparks and I went with that prescription for several years of shooting. The lock was very fast and reliable for the first 10 shots or so. As soon as gunk built up on the flint and frizzen, and the flint got worn, reliable ignition ceased. In addition, careful examination of the pattern of sparks when the lock was clean showed that most hit the pan on the front edge. When shot and dirty, few sparks hit the pan at all and I had many misfires. My next step was to increase the frizzen spring force to 25-30% of the force needed to bring the flintcock back to full cock. That solved the problem. It resulted in very reliable ignition even when the flint was dull and the lock dirty from fouling, and sparks fell into the pan. My conclusion is that the frizzen face must be in position to force sparks into the pan not out of the way quickly. Moreover, the resistance caused by a stout frizzen spring creates sparks even when the flint has to scrape through a film of fouling. I increased the strength of the frizzen spring and have had no misfires with the gun after 30 or more shots without cleaning.
dave
(https://i.imgur.com/dkxGiCr.jpg)
-
Dave,
Thank you for takimg the time to write this up, and share ypur knowledge with all of us. I am sure there are more than just me who greatly appreciate it, and are trying to learn more and become better builders.
Mike
-
Great info on your testing, but I’m just a little inexperienced in messing with frizzed springs even tho I’ve built quite a few rifles. Guess maybe now would be as good as any to learn.
-
I had some unpleasant experience with a modern production lock. It worked great only as long as the flint was razor sharp. I could get maybe 4-5 shots before having to knapp the flint. The mainspring was very wimpy and tumbler bearings quite sloppy. I tried re- arching and re- tempering original spring and ended up breaking it. Made a new one nearly identical to old one and it performed little better. Made another shaped differently and much heavier, bushed the tumbler bearings and finally began to get better results, but now had frizzen rebounding. Tried re- heat treating original frizzen spring and got it working good for about 6 months then it broke. Made a new frizzen spring and now I can usually get 20 - 30 shots off before flint needs attention. Maybe not up to original English standards but a great improvement. As purchased the lock was not really useable. I count the whole experience as part of my flintlock education.
-
Dave, The whole idea that a flintlock is a simple machine can be quite deceptive. DGW showed, in the late sixties, that a crude lock can be made to spark and light from time to time. The advancements of our modern lock manufacturers have taken reliability to heights not seen in the 20th century. Eighteenth and nineteenth century products are the high point of human hand work and as a commodity these locks needed to function at a level compatible to the times. Reliability was not desirable, it was mandatory, so the norm was near perfection. Given that metallography was a scatter shot in the early times, the skill and intuition of the smith made the difference. The old timers did not have access to O-1 or stressproof whatever steels. They had what they had and they felt the potential of the metals with deep nonverbal experience. Kind of like Kentucky windage metallurgy. This summer's projects include a group of six "V" pan locks and I will experiment with different tumbler cams and frizzed angles. I am developing drop forging dies for these locks and will make a bunch of the most successful version. I personally like a frizzen that snaps with authority and feel that the tipping point is what gives a lock it's speed.
-
Thanks for looking and responding folks. Clint, I agree with you except speed is not everything. Reliable ignition is more important to me. To that end, when a lock is dirty and greasy, and the flint worn, I believe a longer, harder scrape on the frizzen face is better than a spring balance and geometry that pushes the frizzen out of the way immediately after the strike. I believe that feature is the reason why my Chambers round-faced English locks work so well. I use them on my mid-18th century English rifle and fowler. Currently, I've fired over 600 rounds from my English rifle without a single misfire or hang fire, and only used up 10 flints during that period. I only swap out flints when they no longer have any discernible edge. I am confidant that my fowler will equal that performance after I corrected some "teething" issues like drilling the vent hole a little larger. However, I tuned both of those locks so they are not right out of the box and during shooting I periodically but routinely clean the vent hole and wipe the frizzen face and flint. IMO, any lock can work pretty well with a nice sharp new flint, and clean frizzen and pan. It is only when the flint is worn and the breech is dirty that you really find out if you have a good lock.
dave
-
Dave,
I have one of the Davis Colonial locks. When I got it, the center of the cock was not inline with the center of the frizzen.
The flint would have to be offset in the jaws. I perceived this as a flaw and with the cock placed in a vise, I heated
and bent it a little. It all lines up now.
Did your lock come like that? I am wondering if I fixed something that did not need to be fixed.
Thanks
-
Dave, thanks for conducting the experiment, and for a GREAT writeup. Really like people who enhance and promote our muzzle loaders.
I kinda expected your results, and had wondered about locks which allow the frizzen to "spring open". Force meets force, and provides that shower of sparks.
-
Excellent eye opening work. Thanks for posting.
-
My moose and bear rifle has the Chambers Early Germanic lock and it is absolutely dependable. Rain, snow, minus 30's on up and it has always worked for me. It's not fussy about flints either. It and the early Ketland, and Round faced english are my favourites for hunting dependability. "Fast" is or can be misleading, since sparks can ignite the pan powder before the lock has completed it's travel /operation
-
I did the same many years ago with another lock which happened to be a different model of Davis lock. I made a new stouter frizzen spring to solve the frizzen flip back problem. It seemed to spark better and flints lasted longer but I was not sure if it was due to less flip-back action on the flint or more sparks/directed to the pan.
-
Thanks for sharing the testing results; much "food for thought".
-
Why can’t today’s lock makers get a few styles of these fine old locks and replicate them. Should be easy with modern Cad/Cam and CNC equipment. Duplicate the design and the spring tensions.
Maybe it is not effective and the market volume isn’t there.
-
I agree with the first part of Smart dogs assessment. The frizzen spring only needs to be strong enough to hold the powder from spilling and prevent the frizzen from opening by accident while going through the brush. As for the second part about fowling goes, everybody should wipe off the fowling from the frizzen face as required according to conditions. Allowing fowling to build up on a frizzen or flint creates an unfair condition for comparison. IMHO.
-
Just my impression, but I don't think any of the lock makers who are currently selling locks do anything CNC or even CAD. It would be nice to see more copies of originals!
At a show earlier this year I probably looked at every lock for sale. One passed a preliminary inspection so I bought it. The rest would need a lot more work to fix. Basic things, like cock not aligning flint towards the middle of the frizzen, very bad frizzen to pan fit, large lateral slop in the tumbler, frizzens obviously overly soft, ... Close to nothing is done well on many of the locks nowdays, IMHO. I know many seem to think worshipfully of some locks, but I'm not buying it. I've done a bit of machining, and what I've been finding is $#@* jobs. I'd rather have the castings and do it myself then go through the work of fixing it for some of these. Recently I had to replace a tumbler, a frizzen, a mainspring, rebend the cock, take a full mm off the bridle so the fly couldn't jam it, reshape the fly to keep it from bashing the sear, shorten the tumbler axle, harden and temper said frizzen, replace the frizzen spring since it seemed the roller was chewed by vice grips sometime before I got it, shorten all the screws, change the sear angles, remove some excess on the outside of the replacement tumbler that was causing excessive sear travel, got rid of the excessive distance between the flint and the frizzen at half-cock, adjusted the fitting of the replacement mainspring to have minimal lock plate clearance,... All that and probably more I'm forgetting, BEFORE getting to the point of doing any of the polishing work! And that was supposed to be a GOOD lock and yes I did send it back for some factory work before I started on it! And recently I got a custom lock that was, well, in need of re-work. Not usable as-is. With the frizzen closed you could pour 3F out of the pan. Probably even 2F.
IMHO, locks seemed to need less work around 30 years ago.
Sorry I raved OT. I'm still annoyed as you can tell! Anyway, back on topic - I greatly appreciate the info from your testing of frizzen spring strength. That's one area of working on locks where I definitely know nothing!
I tried an alternative mainspring with a different force curve in a Late Ketland, and found it altered the location the sparks went. The spring was essentially stronger at full cock. So it is likely equivalent to lightening the frizzen spring? The results surprised me. I went back to an original spring so the sparks went in the pan like they were supposed to!
Please keep up the tests and let everyone know what you find out! THANKS!
Gerald
-
Hi,
I want to show these photos that demonstrate what I consider good performance in a flintlock. The lock is a Chamber round-faced English lock (which I consider the best lock commercially made today). However, it was tuned by me, springs balanced (frizzen spring opens at 30% of the force required to pull flintcock to full), and the frizzen was case hardened. The first photo shows sparks from a fresh sharp flint:
(https://i.imgur.com/8hrJwl9.jpg)
Now I turn that flint around so the dull blunt end faces the frizzen:
(https://i.imgur.com/r5jD5w6.jpg)
and fire:
(https://i.imgur.com/nS4yEfZ.jpg)
Then I coat the frizzen and flint with inletting black to simulate heavy thick greasy fouling on a humid day and fire:
(https://i.imgur.com/4175Rz4.jpg)
Then I picked up a small piece of quartz from my driveway:
(https://i.imgur.com/QWiM7hA.jpg)
and fired:
(https://i.imgur.com/Gq01iUu.jpg)
In all cases, the lock would have ignited the powder in the pan and fired. This is what I look for in a lock.
dave
-
Dave
Just out of curiosity why do you rate the round face Chambers lock over the Early Ketland. There is certainly less bounce in an Early Ketland due to lighter hammer and frizzen. my experience shows that both locks when well tuned throw a great shower of sparks. Tim
-
Weak springs very seldom work well. I hate weak frizzen springs for several reasons one is that they are too easy to nudge open when hunting.
One of the best locks I have is made from TRS recessed breech Manton rifle lock castings. Though someday I need to do a better job of facing the frizzen. It was likely 4140 and would only spark for a few shots even if casehardened.
It's stiffly sprung, not hard of flints, reliable, it's fast, and its very consistent speedwise.
As Dave state most locks we buy are really kits. For Germanic locks Chambers are the best. IMO and most need no real work or tuning unless its a minor spring re-arch.
Dan
-
Dave,
Your findings with the Chambers R-faced English and Early Ketland are exactly as my own.
I tried sharp flint, dull flint, oiled frizzen face and greased frizzen face and they all produced sizzling sparks.
Also agree entirely regarding a certain amount of pressure on the frizzen spring;
It needs enough resistance for the flint to cut through any foreign material on the frizzen face. A frizzen that moves too soon can not cause sufficient friction for the lock to spark well.
I had not figured out the 30% bit, and than you for that! But I knew a flint needs to "bight'.
These two locks are the only types I have used for a long time. I have other locks here, but may trade them off.
One that sparks V well but remains unused , is an L&R Durs Egg.
I do have aChambers Early Germanic as well, but the mainspring is much softer, and it does not have the "bight'.
-
It's a balancing act with springs. I have had to retemper frizzen springs to get a decent tension
more than once.I have seen lock that were fast because of a good mainspring but a look at the frizzen indicates
a high strike and no scrape.That will cause a slow fire or no fire.The 16 bore Manton that Tom Dawson had
would make a full scrape and slam white hot fire into the pan where it would sizzle with an audible sound.
Many production locks are little more than a project to work on as the gun is being made.Assembly quality
is a problem at times and was a big booger in the past along with frizzens made from?????????? at an
indifferent foundry.That Manton was and is the final conclusion to externally generated ignition systems
in guns and I recall reading these locks were a superb attempt to delay the onslaught of the up and
coming fulminate/percussion ignition.These attempts left us with some wonderful relics to try to emulate.
So far I haven't succeeded. >:(
Bob Roller
-
Dave,
What specific points on the frizzen and cock did you attach the pull force gauge to get your data? Also, did you pull on a plane parallel with the bore, or some other way?
Thanks, Bill
-
That Manton was and is THE final conclusion to externally generated ignition systems in guns.
These attempts left us with some wonderful relics to try to emulate.
So far I haven't succeeded. >:(
That’s amazing ... given the talent of you, Smart Dog and others here, that ‘we’ haven’t been able to replicate the performance of a Manton lock. Do you have any more thoughts on why this could be? Not debating, and most certainly not challenging anyone ... just questioning and trying to learn.
I wonder if it may be based in ‘craftsmanship’, but in meaning a LIFETIME OF IT, as in doing nothing else for a ‘day job’ but that task. I recall my Father, who was an old school craftsman in the locksmithing (keys & locks, not gun locks) trade for 60+ years and he could decode a wafer tumbler lock in seconds by eye, where ‘younger’ (in both age and experience) smiths would need decoding tools and still take many minutes, or even many key blanks, to do the same.
Thanks in advance for your thoughts!
-
It's a balancing act with springs. I have had to retemper frizzen springs to get a decent tension
more than once.I have seen lock that were fast because of a good mainspring but a look at the frizzen indicates
a high strike and no scrape.That will cause a slow fire or no fire.The 16 bore Manton that Tom Dawson had
would make a full scrape and slam white hot fire into the pan where it would sizzle with an audible sound.
Many production locks are little more than a project to work on as the gun is being made.Assembly quality
is a problem at times and was a big booger in the past along with frizzens made from?????????? at an
indifferent foundry.That Manton was and is the final conclusion to externally generated ignition systems
in guns and I recall reading these locks were a superb attempt to delay the onslaught of the up and
coming fulminate/percussion ignition.These attempts left us with some wonderful relics to try to emulate.
So far I haven't succeeded. >:(
Bob Roller
Mr. Roller, what was the improvement in these Manton locks over previously made locks? Was it the geometry of the frizzen and path that the cock rotated thru it's travel?
-
That Manton was and is THE final conclusion to externally generated ignition systems in guns.
These attempts left us with some wonderful relics to try to emulate.
So far I haven't succeeded. >:(
That’s amazing ... given the talent of you, Smart Dog and others here, that ‘we’ haven’t been able to replicate the performance of a Manton lock. Do you have any more thoughts on why this could be? Not debating, and most certainly not challenging anyone ... just questioning and trying to learn.
I wonder if it may be based in ‘craftsmanship’, but in meaning a LIFETIME OF IT, as in doing nothing else for a ‘day job’ but that task. I recall my Father, who was an old school craftsman in the locksmithing (keys & locks, not gun locks) trade for 60+ years and he could decode a wafer tumbler lock in seconds by eye, where ‘younger’ (in both age and experience) smiths would need decoding tools and still take many minutes, or even many key blanks, to do the same.
Thanks in advance for your thoughts!
You got me to thinking back,back to the 1950's when IRON* frizzens were being made by
a man in Ohio,Ken Roethlesberger I think.After dosing them good with Kasenit,THESE frizzens would produce a fierce amount of sparks bordering on flames
at times.What we have now are cast in steel,mostly 1095. I had 100 frizzens cast for a German project that I worked on from 52-100 or ball bearing steel.
After case hardening them and using a warm oil quench the were tempered to a light straw color and with a sharp flint they would ALMOST duplicate the
performance of Tom Dawson's Manton but not quite.This was in the late 1970's and early 80's and those locks are still in use in European competitions in
a replica of a Boutet pistol made by Helmut Mohr in Mayen/Hausen Germany.Maybe the trick is in the frizzen material as well as the near perfect match in
the curvature of the frizzen face and the fixed pivot of the cock AND the quality of the flint.A powerful,preloaded mainspring and a correct preload on the
frizzen spring is another big consideration PLUS the fact that these locks were the state of the art in that time frame and still are today.Another thing that
Tom Dawson told me was,"We are today trying to relearn the skills that were common over 100 years ago".This was the late 1960's when he told me that and he was right.
Bob Roller
*Some of the first good quality cast parts were offered by Ted Cole who lived in Wilkinsburg,Pa.
He had cocks,top jaws and frizzens cast from steel but I have no idea what it was as far as alloy or numbers are concerned.
He made the lock plates from sheet steel either 1/8" or5/32" thick and W.G.Sutter made the internal parts from 1095 for
springs and tumblers were made from torsion bars taken from wrecked Chrysler and Packard cars.
To my knowledge the first ALL investment cast locks were from Chet Shoults in LaPeer,Michigan and these parts are still
available from Jerry Devaudreuil in Wooster Ohio as far as I know.As I recall,all these parts were all 8620 and Shoults fitted them
and cased hardened them as well with Kasenit.
-
The L&R Dickert Lock I bought was a tremendous sparker right out of the box.
The L&R Durr's Egg on my .36 is as good, after Taylor re-hardened and tempered the frizzen.
-
I built a few flintlocks from scratch many years ago. In doing so I studied the English locks in trying to get the maximum speed of ignition. After about 10 years or so of experimentation this is what I concluded. Below is a photo of a fine English Flintlock. There are several things that contribute to the speed and maximum sparking ability. The tumbler hole is farther back on the plate than most modern flintlocks. This causes the flint to hit the frizzen with more of a scraping action rather than a straight on blow. Also the flint when the hammer is down is almost sticking in the powder. Then also the frizzen is slanted more toward the hammer this also causes more of a scraping motion. Then the frizzen screw is slightly lower on the plate than most modern flintlocks. This causes a faster opening of the frizzen and also more of a scraping motion. Note how the frizzen spring contacts the frizzen when closed stopping rebound. Besides all this all the English locks were pack case hardened. I used anywhere from 1075 to 01 carbon steel and pack hardened also. It worked well if I didn't get the frizzen too hard.
(http://jwh-flintlocks.net/english-flintlock-geometry.jpg)
-
Ok, I see now thanks! Similar to getting the right angle on a blade of a plane.
-
My preference leans toward good, strong springs both for the hammer and the frizzen. The problems of weak springs is something I can appreciate. An accident that cost me a nice buck is a good illustration of how important spring strength can be. I was in my stand when a fine 8pt stopped maybe 25 yards right in front of me. The lock in question was a Chambers Golden Age with excellent springs. Yet there was only a "snick" when the trigger was pulled. A quick look showed no prime in the pan. Even with a strong spring powering the frizzen, it had gotten snagged open enough in route to the stand for the prime to exit. The only soft frizzen I've experienced was quickly replaced with a good one. Just a FWIW.
-
Dave,
I have one of the Davis Colonial locks. When I got it, the center of the cock was not inline with the center of the frizzen.
The flint would have to be offset in the jaws. I perceived this as a flaw and with the cock placed in a vise, I heated
and bent it a little. It all lines up now.
Did your lock come like that? I am wondering if I fixed something that did not need to be fixed.
Thanks
Hi,
My lock had the flintcock jaws pretty well centered on the frizzen. It really is not a big deal if not too far off. You can just offset the flint. My recent experience with the Davis colonial American, Twigg, and English late flint locks suggest to me that they have some serious quality control problems.
dave
-
Dave
Just out of curiosity why do you rate the round face Chambers lock over the Early Ketland. There is certainly less bounce in an Early Ketland due to lighter hammer and frizzen. my experience shows that both locks when well tuned throw a great shower of sparks. Tim
Hi Tim,
I don't rate it lower with respect to performance. It has the same internals and basic design as the round-faced English lock. I just don't have as much experience with it shooting in a variety of conditions. I do rate it lower with respect to design because to make it look right for a British gun the lock plate needs a better defined bevel or stepped molding, or it needs to be slightly rounded. The flintcock definitely needs better shaping of its edges.
dave
-
Dave,
What specific points on the frizzen and cock did you attach the pull force gauge to get your data? Also, did you pull on a plane parallel with the bore, or some other way?
Thanks, Bill
Hi Bill,
I hook the scale on the frizzen about half way up the face and hook the flintcock around the top jaw screw head. I pull the force parallel with the barrel as close as possible.
dave
-
I like this post a lot. A lock makes or brakes a build in my opinion. Every barrel I've used would shoot better than me but locks can be a problem. Thanks for all the info.
-
Dave,
What specific points on the frizzen and cock did you attach the pull force gauge to get your data? Also, did you pull on a plane parallel with the bore, or some other way?
Thanks, Bill
Hi Bill,
I hook the scale on the frizzen about half way up the face and hook the flintcock around the top jaw screw head. I pull the force parallel with the barrel as close as possible.
dave
Thanks Dave!
-
Dave,
I have one of the Davis Colonial locks. When I got it, the center of the cock was not inline with the center of the frizzen.
The flint would have to be offset in the jaws. I perceived this as a flaw and with the cock placed in a vise, I heated
and bent it a little. It all lines up now.
Did your lock come like that? I am wondering if I fixed something that did not need to be fixed.
Thanks
Hi,
My lock had the flintcock jaws pretty well centered on the frizzen. It really is not a big deal if not too far off. You can just offset the flint. My recent experience with the Davis colonial American, Twigg, and English late flint locks suggest to me that they have some serious quality control problems.
dave
That Twigg lock is an abomination and copying was a bad idea.
I made up 14 of these using only the externals several years ago
and they seemed to be OK but even then I wasn't 100% satisfied.
Internally there isn't as much room as really needed and that big
frizzen and hammer takes a good mainspring to move them.
Bob Roller
-
Dave,
Very interesting and informative report! Thank you.
My go-to lock has always been the Chambers Golden Age lock. But, I find I have to modify them as I tune the lock.
I find with most commercial locks that the "tail" or "arresting lobe" on the frizzen is too long and too low for my likes. As cast it does not allow the frizzen to rotate forward enough to prevent bounce- back. Bounce-back is caused by the tail hitting the frizzen spring before the majority of the mass of the frizzen is forward of the pivot. The momentum of the frizzen depresses the frizzen spring and the spring rebound causes the frizzen to move back towards the cock. I have found that by reducing the tail in thickness or reforging the shape of the tail I have been able to eliminate frizzen bounce-back because it allows more of the frizzen to be forward of the pivot before the tail hits the spring. On the French original pistols I have the frizzens rotate until the pan cover is completely vertical. None of them bounce back. The French seemed to like frizzens that ended up with the pan cover vertical after the shot whereas the British locks and copies of them don't seem to open as far.
The ability of a flint to generate a spark on a frizzen is proportional to the force per unit area between the flint and the frizzen face. A sharp flint increases the force per unit area by reducing the area of the frizzen edge. (Grooving the face of the frizzen does the same thing - look at original blunderbusses.) And like Jerry showed, the frizzen has to be at an angle towards the flint so that the impact is a scraping action. (Jerry I saved that photo!) The flint is shearing off bits of steel that are white-hot due to the friction of the shearing blow. I often have found that I had to slightly bend the cock of a lock to ensure that the flint did not hit the frizzen "square-on". Going back to my French pistols, all 1720 to 1780, they all will spark without a frizzen spring. This has led me to believe that the frizzen spring tension on commercially available locks today is too stout. They are "hard on flints". I often lighten-up the frizzen springs when tuning up a lock, so I guess I am different than most.
For what it might be worth, I used a Chambers Golden Age lock, modified as described above, on my Journey rifle. It has shot 50 round matches several times with one flint that was never cleaned or sharpened during the shoot.
Best Regards.
JMC
John Cholin
-
the lock Jerrywh shows is pure mechanical eye candy. I am still dumbfounded that in this 21st century locks are still being produced with bad geometry and yet the prices keep going up. We have better metal(s) to work with supported by all kinds of technology. Yes spring tension is a challenge but surely it can be resolved. Wonder where this would take us.....would a really good lock cost $400 or more yet? Yes I remember Chet Shoults, but at the time was too young to appreciate what he was doing. I thought then Bud Siler locks where the cat's meow after fiddling with so many other dismal production locks.
-
the lock Jerrywh shows is pure mechanical eye candy. I am still dumbfounded that in this 21st century locks are still being produced with bad geometry and yet the prices keep going up. We have better metal(s) to work with supported by all kinds of technology. Yes spring tension is a challenge but surely it can be resolved. Wonder where this would take us.....would a really good lock cost $400 or more yet? Yes I remember Chet Shoults, but at the time was too young to appreciate what he was doing. I thought then Bud Siler locks where the cat's meow after fiddling with so many other dismal production locks.
After Chet Shoults lost control of the moulds needed to make this lock I started
getting parts made in Michigan from Harold Hess who obtained these moulds from
the foundry.He paid off the bill owed of $777.77 cents and the lock then became public domain.
I made a lot of them along with the Russ Hamm Maslin that was also supposedly in default as
well.At first we all thought the Shoults lock was being made by a machinist but it later came
out that all the lock was castings except the screws.I think all of this started in 1962 with my
involvement but the Shoults moulds were made in 1956 and cost a lot because they were
milled cavity,polished and not plastic or bubble gum as some referred to other moulds as
being made of.These parts have been available for years from Jerry Devaudreuil in Wooster,Ohio
if anyone is interested.
Bob Roller
-
What Mr. Barker said.....
"I like this post a lot. A lock makes or brakes a build in my opinion. Every barrel I've used would shoot better than me but locks can be a problem. Thanks for all the info."
-
the lock Jerrywh shows is pure mechanical eye candy. I am still dumbfounded that in this 21st century locks are still being produced with bad geometry and yet the prices keep going up. We have better metal(s) to work with supported by all kinds of technology. Yes spring tension is a challenge but surely it can be resolved. Wonder where this would take us.....would a really good lock cost $400 or more yet? Yes I remember Chet Shoults, but at the time was too young to appreciate what he was doing. I thought then Bud Siler locks where the cat's meow after fiddling with so many other dismal production locks.
Hi,
First, there are some very good locks made today with good geometry. I listed those models by Chambers that are fine locks. I would certainly add their classic or late Ketland to the list of good locks with good geometry. However, my experience teaches me that all can be improved from their performance right from the maker. Look closely at the lock in Jerry's photo. Look at the bottom of the face of the frizzen and you will see a little seam line. That frizzen has a hardened steel sole attached. That may be one reason it works well because the sole can be shaped and hardened optimally for producing sparks separate from the frizzen. It also adds some mass to the frizzen that may help provide initial resistance to movement when struck also enhancing sparks.
dave
-
The lock on the fine Leonard Meadows rifle recently shown has the plate,frizzen,
cock and top jaw from the Shoults lock.The frizzen spring is one I made with the
screw coming thru from the inside.Other than the frizzen spring this is what the
Shoults lock looked like.
Bob Roller
-
To spark, one must machine a nice long HOT curly chip out of a reasonably hard hammer/frizzen/steeel face.
The "horsepower" to do this comes from the main spring.
Since I was a wimpy pre-teen unable to cock that flint musket I'da liked to shoot I kinda noticed the flint guns were harder to cock than the percussion.
I have a few assorted M1816 muskets converted from flint to percussion.
To me they all seem to have stiffer mainsprings than do a couple of muskets with similar, albeit original percusson locks: M1842 Springfield; Springfield M1863, Type II.
Not well measured, just "it seems to me". Still, back when it mattered very much that your gun went BOOM I suspect the Armory knew a heavy main spring was needed for a flint. And that heavy spring tended to smash the percussion nipple - look at the so-called Belgian conversions of M1816's used in Mr. Lincoln's war.
My $0.02
-
Just be thankful that we have such a wide variety of styles of locks available today. Sure, some are better than others, but when I became interested in flintlocks, Dixie locks were common, and other than that Siler locks were on just about everything from southern guns to fowling guns . Same as barrels....a swamped barrel was rare. Now we have available almost everything you can imagine in terms of being historically appropriate. The most popular kits which are historically correct , such as Chambers, Kibler, Dunlop, Cabin Creek etc use these various styles of commercial locks to good effect and customers can end up with a decent firearm. The locks work well , and meet the expectations of most of the folks who purchase them. For those who demand better, you can put in the time and effort to "perfect" them , but $1000. locks will simply kill this industry and sport IMO
-
Hi Bob,
Unfortunately, your comment has no relevance to do with this thread. It is better suited to the thread on "Flintlock Anomalies".
dave
-
Dave,
I’m late to the game here on this post, but thank you for sharing your knowledge and the way you think about this subject.
I recently had some self-generated issues with a lock that got me thinking about speed vs reliability, and was arriving at the same approach that you have. We all talk about speed, but I think repeated reliability over multiple shots is a must.
You might argue that different applications have different priorities.
The hunter who might only fire one, two or three shots in a short period wants speed.
He can then clean out the frizzen, pan etc while waiting for the next round of game.
The soldier firing a musket wants reliability to shoot all day long without stopping to clean, with speed being secondary.
These are simply my own musings, and not intended to refute your priorities. I think I share your view.
IF ( big IF) you can’t have both speed and reliability on a long shot string with fouling, moisture etc etc, then maybe the lock design should tailor to the priorities.
I don’t have enough experience with original locks to say whether the good ones had both qualities.
Norm.
-
I am really enjoing this thread as I love shooting my flinters. Last week a freind who is building a Beck ask me to caseharden his Davis lock. I cooked it for about 3 hours at 1330 F in a crucible with a Stevens 44 project in 2:1 wood to bone charcoal. I cooled it about 50 degrees below critical for 30 minutes to prevent warpage and brittle spots. However when I tried it there were few sparks so I heated the face of the frizzen red hot with my torch and quenched it. Now it sparks like crazy. Here are some photos and a link to our Muzzleloading club web site, they posted the video of it in slow motion. You have to scroll down to photos.
https://www.saskatoonmuzzleloadingclub.com (https://www.saskatoonmuzzleloadingclub.com)
(https://i.ibb.co/3Fvvfg6/IMG-1208.jpg) (https://ibb.co/PWMMTqX)
(https://i.ibb.co/qBnN33T/IMG-1209.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fMSkzzj)
(https://i.ibb.co/3m5Kk9C/IMG-1210.jpg) (https://ibb.co/s9p7tdV)
(https://i.ibb.co/HGsF3fz/IMG-1211.jpg) (https://ibb.co/qmfyV3s)
(https://i.ibb.co/JpND2Bh/IMG-1212.jpg) (https://ibb.co/6t2jbnd)
-
I built a few flintlocks from scratch many years ago. In doing so I studied the English locks in trying to get the maximum speed of ignition. After about 10 years or so of experimentation this is what I concluded. Below is a photo of a fine English Flintlock. There are several things that contribute to the speed and maximum sparking ability. The tumbler hole is farther back on the plate than most modern flintlocks. This causes the flint to hit the frizzen with more of a scraping action rather than a straight on blow. Also the flint when the hammer is down is almost sticking in the powder. Then also the frizzen is slanted more toward the hammer this also causes more of a scraping motion. Then the frizzen screw is slightly lower on the plate than most modern flintlocks. This causes a faster opening of the frizzen and also more of a scraping motion. Note how the frizzen spring contacts the frizzen when closed stopping rebound. Besides all this all the English locks were pack case hardened. I used anywhere from 1075 to 01 carbon steel and pack hardened also. It worked well if I didn't get the frizzen too hard.
(http://jwh-flintlocks.net/english-flintlock-geometry.jpg)
Thanks Jerry
Dan
-
Exquisite!