Robert – great questions leading to a good conversation.
• Yes, the gunk or texture below and behind pan could disguise work there. Might also be oil and dirt that accumulate in low traffic areas. If a reconversion, this is a reasonable way to hide a weld, braze, solder or other work. This style of lock rarely is engraved, so we can’t tell if the engraving was filed away or impacted, and cannot compare engraving on old and new parts – that’s a clue on English import locks.
• Touchhole is clean, and there might be a plug there – from a drum, or not. I have been surprised to see recently such a “plug” on an Oerter rifle in original flint that did not see much use, and two more original flint rifles of that early period. An iron plug was installed (coned inside or ?) and touchhole drilled through it, off center. Possibly when the rifle was initially stocked? Why? There is more to learn here.
• Are you saying the foot of frizzen is heavy/thick? Old locks – especially trade rifles for the mountains, J J Henry rifles and similar often have heavy frizzens – almost military in style, and for the same reasons – minimal care and good service in a tough environment. We have so few known original locks to study. If I missed your meaning, sorry.
• Frizzen scraping barrel – good point. Might be as you suggest, or rifle has been retired for 100 years and someone just now playing around with it, scraping old gunk off. Good eye.
• Hammer – you mean the cock is very crisp? In those days the hammer was our modern frizzen. Yes, that’s what jumps out at me. Would like it better if edges more worn, seem to be file marks inside curve, on top jaw screw. But screws look good, and sear spring screw is in a different location than Siler and modern locks.
Dan – I always respect your posts. And thank you for the original post and link. I like your second reply here better than first - that we can’t learn too much from a single outside photo. I don’t see it as an obvious reconversion, nor do I see obvious Siler parts. Maybe the pan? Maybe the cock but I don’t think so, having used and modified plenty of these myself to make a Siler look more like an old lock. The frizzen with heavy foot, frizzen spring, plate are not Siler, nor anything else I recognize. The barrel texture does not show much use in percussion – nor does the wood around the breech. I note some muddy color above and forward of the lock – may be some wood replaced there.
Like Rich states, it’s a good job, and if modified, at least the guy knew what an old lock should look like, plus barrel at breech, etc. The rest of the rifle looks good. IF this was an 1830 rifle, we could worry about turning a cap gun into flint – but this is clearly a 1790 plus or minus a few years rifle, way before anyone was thinking of cap guns. And not excessively worn or beat up, so it’s possible it was retired as a flint rifle – possible.
As contemporary builders, if we want to build a replica of this period of rifle and a believable lock, we would do well to follow the style of this one – including no engraving.
I appreciate all points and questions. Often on this site someone will post a “I don’t believe it” kind of post with no backup. These good questions and arguments help us learn – and sure wish there were more known original flint locks to look at. I save all photos of locks that look good as a library, and study any old guns when possible. So few are real. Does anyone know who bought this rifle, what it sold for, who has it? They might tell us what they know.
Until then, more rifles and locks like this one, please. I guess I also like to see a fine rifle by a very good, and prolific maker who is not well known. If this had Dickert on the barrel, I’d be even more careful about details, assuming the name would have encouraged more work to raise its value.
Thanks for points and counterpoints - Bob
