AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Gun Building => Topic started by: Tommy Bruce on October 11, 2012, 08:08:44 AM
-
I have recently picked up a 13/16 .45 barrel and given that I live in SE Ohio I'd like to try an early Ohio gun. There is a picture of on built by John Lowmaster of Fairfield County on the Ohio longrifle Association frontpage that is a flintlock. It doesn't have much detail. What flintlock would you guys recomend for something like this. Mr. Lowmaster was listed as living in Fairfield county as a gunsmith between 1830 and 1832.
-
I've used L&R's Manton Flintlock and Percussion Lock with 13/16" barrels. They are good locks.
-
Would a Twigg lock by Davis be to large?
-
The small L&R Manton/Bailes or whatever it's called would be
OK for an Ohio rifle or a square tail Ketland but I forget who"s
making them.Mine cost a good bit more and cost is a determining
factor in most projects.
Bob Roller
-
Chambers makes a late Ketland that would work for a any late American rifle.
Dan
-
Would a Twigg lock by Davis be to large?
......yes..........late Ketland is better or a Manton
-
If you want to be particular, a Chambers late Ketland is probably pushing it a bit for time period. What would likely be more appropriate is a cheap, late period Birmingham import styled flintlock. Don't think anything like this is really available. With that said, I don't think many are that particular with an Ohio rifle. I'm sure some work could be don't to the late Ketland as well.
-
I agree with Jim Kibler, but Chambers Late Ketland is probably the closest to that time frame without being modeled on something super rare here. I think it could be made to look later by some file work to the plate and pan. Two other touches that I think might help are a stubby dual-throated cock (they seem to have become popular in the later flint period, but the cheap ones are not graceful) and some flashy engraving based on a lock of the period. Vol. II of Shumway's Muzzleblast articles has some articles on locks over time and pictures of the engraving styles. Those are the only attempts at such a survey/study that I've seen, but it would be a good area for someone to investigate further, as I suspect it is cursory at best. I don't think there is really any option except either making a lock oneself based on the original they are copying or picking the closest available lock and modifying it the best one can.
Please note, I'm not an expert or pretending to be such so these are only opinions, but I have thought about this type of thing quite a bit in relation to flint locks used on Southern rifles, both early and late.
-
Hey Tommy - On the AOLRC web site check out the article on Lowmaster listed under "publications". Rifle #3 appears to be the gun you mentioned with close up photo of the lock. If you do your homework concerning lock dimensions typical for the given time frame ( based on the historical info in the article) you could then compare what you need with what's commercially available and consider how much modification you'd want to do. A set of castings may be an option too.
A link to the article -
http://www.aolrc.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/vol-xxviii-noe280a6-feb-2005.pdf (http://www.aolrc.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/vol-xxviii-noe280a6-feb-2005.pdf)
-
The No. 3 rifle doesn't have a dual-throated cock (though nos. 1 and 2 do), but the engraving is exactly the style that Shumway shows as late.
Also, I've been tempted to conclude that the pointed tail made a sort of comeback on 1830's and later flintlocks. It seems to me that the ones from the teens and twenties tend to be rounded more often. Perhaps the resurgence of the pointed tail was because flintlocks were slowly being phased out as primary lock choices, in favor of the large round-tailed, flat plates (for percussion) and so they were again made in the older shape to work also as replacements for much older flintlocks? Wild conjecture, I know, and fashion does not strictly require logic :)!
-
Thanks for all the replies everyone. Don't post often but when I do it's always a learning experience. Ian the gun that I was referring to is actually really plain looking. No patch box, butt plate almost looks like it could be a late lancaster style. I may end up going with "close enough" on a lock. My metal working skills are still lacking.
-
[
There is a picture of on built by John Lowmaster of Fairfield County on the Ohio longrifle Association frontpage that is a flintlock.
Ian the gun that I was referring to is actually really plain looking. No patch box, butt plate almost looks like it could be a late lancaster style
. I may end up going with "close enough" on a lock. My metal working skills are still lacking
Tommy - again, take a look at the link - http://www.aolrc.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/vol-xxviii-noe280a6-feb-2005.pdf (http://www.aolrc.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/vol-xxviii-noe280a6-feb-2005.pdf)
Skip over the "Teaff Family" article and look at the "John Lowmaster Master Gunsmith" article by Warren Offenberger. Compare the rifle in illustration #3 to the Lowmaster gun pictured on the site's front page. Same gun. Close up of lock.
almost looks like it could be a late lancaster style
If you look at that same article, it indicates that Lowmaster was born in York PA and is thought to have some association with Martin Fry. Could be what you are seeing in the gun. To me it's always interesting to try and find out things of this nature when planning to build a rifle, you can usually trace features found on later pieces back to earlier work, often much earlier than the lifetime of the particular builder you are studying.
-
Thanks Ian, I don't know how I missed that the first time. I definately see the York connection in these rifles. Admittedly this is not my strong point, but that lock looks very similar to others of the federal period or shortly after. That gun is a lot more detailed that the small pick on the Ohio longrifle's home page.