AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Antique Gun Collecting => Topic started by: Mike Brooks on December 08, 2010, 12:16:02 AM
-
Was wondering when lateral sears on dog locks went out of fashion. I recently aquired a breech loading example and am trying to set a date and loocation for something like this. I am assuming it was mainly the English using doglocks....am I wrong here? The real kicker here is that it is rifled, which I figured was the case , but only confirmed this when I got it home. I'm thinking something like ca. 1660-70's on this?
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2F0703%2FGunmaker%2FXBW149-Z-F2-L.jpg&hash=c3d46577c4e1cf7342cf18cdcb780d6b05e741d5)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2F0703%2FGunmaker%2FXBW149-K-CU2-L.jpg&hash=513732a916761b2135f0b57620d23f9b47dd2017)
-
And the pictures are where? ;D ;D ;D
A number of years ago I had a lateral sear doglock marked WR. What does this mean? Either it dated to post-1689, or it was an older piece retroactively marked. It didn't look as early as a 1660s-70s lock, at least I didn't think so at the time. Leonard Day was pretty impressed.
I have been absolutely no help whatsoever. :P
-
Hi Mike,
Yes, most doglocks were used by English makers. The Scandinavians made flintlocks with dog catches late in the 18th century but the lateral sear doglock was mainly a British device. According to Brian Godwin (probably the best expert on this), doglocks with laterally acting sears were made as late as the early 1680s. After that they mostly had vertical sears. The lateral sears were usually completely contained behind the lock plate on the later examples. If the sear pokes through the plate and engages the tail of the cock it was probably made well before mid century. Is the breech loading mechanism a screw plug (somewhat like a Ferguson) from the bottom of the stock or top of the barrel, or is it a turn-off barrel that unscrews? During the English Civil War, breech loading rifles were used for sniping and skirmishing with good effect.
dave
-
Thanks fellas. The locks parts are all internal and of surprisingly high quality. It has a plug (looks just like a modern day pipe plug) in the bottom of the barrel just ahead of the trigger guard. I'm embarresed to admit I don't when the english civil war was. Sniping seemsa likely use for this gun as it has a folding leaf rear sight with three peep holes for different ranges. It's mounted in brass with very "Dutchy" parts and a flat serpent side plate. It's also 1/2 stocked with a pair of "grasping nuts" out at the end of the stock. I'll see if I can get some pictures up later today.
-
Hi Mike,
The English Civil War was fought during the 1640's. Charles I was tried and executed in 1649. My guess is that your rifle was a high-end deer rifle made sometime around 1650. The lock is of the latest design for doglocks incorporating lateral sears. It is a wondeful piece and a great find.
dave
-
This same gun is pictured in "Sporting Guns" by Richard Akehurst. Was just sitting in the bathroom checking out the gun in this book minutes ago and low and behold I open up this thread and find the same gun! A wonderful gun!
-Jim
-
Wow - very cool English gun and one of the earliest, if not the earliest, English rifle I have seen. Very interesting in that it looks truly English in styling - the other few very early English rifles that I have seen seem to have more Continental influence in them - some very "Jaeger" like.
Guy
-
This same gun is pictured in "Sporting Guns" by Richard Akehurst. Was just sitting in the bathroom checking out the gun in this book minutes ago and low and behold I open up this thread and find the same gun! A wonderful gun!
-Jim
Ha! I have that book and it is indeed there! Thanks for pointing that out Jim. I don't think I have ever owned a gun that was in a book before. ;D
-
Hi Mike,
The English Civil War was fought during the 1640's. Charles I was tried and executed in 1649. My guess is that your rifle was a high-end deer rifle made sometime around 1650. The lock is of the latest design for doglocks incorporating lateral sears. It is a wondeful piece and a great find.
dave
Thanks for the info Dave, guns this early are generally out of my realm of exerience.
-
Very interesting indeed! Somebody tell me more about the "pipe plug" under the barrel just in front of the trigger guard. It's certainly the first one I've ever seen. -Tom
-
Holy Cow. Very interesting piece and - Nice Find. Give us more if you can. Like to see the back side of the lock.
-
Very interesting indeed! Somebody tell me more about the "pipe plug" under the barrel just in from of the trigger guard. It's certainly the first one I've ever seen. -Tom
Unscrew the plug, dump powder in to barrel, then toss in a ball and screw plug back in. Pretty much just a cruder version of the Fergie.
-
Holy Cow. Very interesting piece and - Nice Find. Give us more if you can. Like to see the back side of the lock.
I plan to take some pictures to share but since the move I haven't got our main computer up and running yet and I don't think I can edit pictures on this little lap top.....In fact, I haven't seen my camera since the move either! :o
I also have come up with a 1730 Dutch export fowler to share, similar the the "Sluer" gun in Grinslades book.
Gotta find that camera....... ???
-
This same gun is pictured in "Sporting Guns" by Richard Akehurst. Was just sitting in the bathroom checking out the gun in this book minutes ago and low and behold I open up this thread and find the same gun! A wonderful gun!
-Jim
#@!! $#@*!
Was in the same room(different house of course), with the same book, looking at the same gun just a few minutes ago and now sitting here reading this thread.
I saw this thread earlier today before the pictures were added and when looking at the book I was thinking "there's another one with a plug in the barrel bottom" when it's the same gun.
Nice picking Mike. Looking forward to more photos of both guns.
-
Mike whatever you do keep that gun out of the bathroom until we get this figured out. Mysterious forces are at work.
Jim Kibler, James Rogers, who will be the third in the triangle? Jim Chambers, what have you been reading in the bathroom lately?
-
Hi Mike,
I believe your rifle is also pictured in Neal and Backs "Great British Gunmakers 1540-1740" and if it is the same gun, it was once in Keith Neal's collection. In his description of it he mentions that the lock is a later addition although it is contemporary with the original lock. He mentions that the rifle came from Timsbury Manor near Bath England and was made in London around 1670. He attributes it to John Tarles (Senior) who was admitted to the Gunmakers Company in 1670 and was still active in the early 1700s . I would love to see more photos when you have the chance.
take care Mike,
dave
-
Hi Mike,
I believe your rifle is also pictured in Neal and Backs "Great British Gunmakers 1540-1740" and if it is the same gun, it was once in Keith Neal's collection. In his description of it he mentions that the lock is a later addition although it is contemporary with the original lock. He mentions that the rifle came from Timsbury Manor near Bath England and was made in London around 1670. He attributes it to John Tarles (Senior) who was admitted to the Gunmakers Company in 1670 and was still active in the early 1700s . I would love to see more photos when you have the chance.
take care Mike,
dave
Well this just keeps getting better and better! The lock looks compleatly legit except for the front hook. It has a hook to secure the front as the breech loading "lump" is in the way for a frontlock bolt. the lockfits perfectly in the stock and the mortice appears cut for this particular lock. Did he give any clues as to what to look for or why he thought the lock was replaced?
-
Hi Mike,
No I am afraid Neal and back do not give any more details on why they thought the lock was a replacement. Again a wonderful gun Mike. I love the reinforced muzzle. That was a common fashion on many 17th century guns.
dave
-
Thats a pretty cool gun! Does the hook to the rear of the cock function like a half cock in that it holds the cock off the frizzen and is released as the cock is drawn to full? Is it loaded through the breech via that pipe plug? How does that work?
Robby
-
Mike,
I agree, that's a very cool gun!
I assume you didn't find it at some back woods auction since it's pictured in at least a few books!
So just what is that thing up at the muzzle, and what's the purpose of the 'grasping nuts' as you called them. Kinda hard to type that without thinking of the TSA! :D
So are they just something to hang on to while shooting, or for some other purpose?
If the lock (lock plate) is a replacement, it's a darn good one.
John
-
Hi,
Believe it or not, I think the same gun is pictured in John George's book on English guns and rifles published in 1947. He dates it to the English Civil War period so I guess there is a lot of uncertainty about when it was made. Robby, the dog serves as a safety for half cock (some locks had no half cock notch just the dog) and drops back when the cock is pulled to the full cock position. The barrel is loaded by unscrewing the plug, pouring in the powder and then dropping in a ball. The screw is replaced and the gun primed and fired. The ball fitted tightly in the bore to make a gas seal like a modern bullet. Thus, the gun shot accurately and delivered a lot of knock-down power. They were slow to load; however, for deer hunters, they offered the advantage of loading while lying down and killing at great ranges. That is also why they were popular during the ECW for sniping. There are stories of English officers (parlimentary and royalist) being gunned down by hidden shooters just like during our Civil War. The muzzle ring serves to strengthen the muzzle but perhaps more importantly, it serves as a sight ramp. Look at the severe swamp in the barrel and you can see how it would need a very high front sight to compensate for the taper. If my books are accurate and the gun is the one pictured, it should be 12 bore with well worn rifling. According to George, the chamber had the capacity for 6 drams (165 grains!!) of powder, however, he does not say if that included the bullet. The barrel wall thickness must be pretty thin near the muzzle, hence the reinforcing.
dave
-
Thank you Dave. Would they have machined an actual chamber, with rifling starting just ahead of the loading port, enabling the use of an oversize ball to fill the rifling grooves?
Robby
-
Hi Robby,
Probably yes. I can only describe my Ferguson, which uses the same principle. It has a powder and ball chamber slightly larger than the bore so there is a shoulder against which the ball sits and cannot roll out the muxzzle. When the gun is fired, the ball makes a gas seal as it is forced into the rifling like a modern bullet. How the chamber was made or how it is shaped on Mike's gun, I don't know. However, I suspect it is not much different than the Ferguson, which was drilled or reamed out from the breech. Possibly instead of a shoulder there is a taper.
dave
-
I was in the same room today, different house of course, and never saw that photo. ;D
There might be some historical doglock info in 'The Flintlock' by Torsten Lenk. I'll do a little digging.
-
I have had the breech plug out of the barrel an it does indeed have well worn rifling, and is around a 12 bore. It also has a monster powder chamber, I wouldn't be surprised if it did hold 165 gr. powder and a ball.The breech measures 1 1/2 to 1 3/8, depending on which flats you measure across, there is quite a bit of runout at the breech too. The ring at the muzzle appears to be a screw on affair.
After 35 years of looking at old guns I'd be surprised that this isn't the original lock for this gun, looks right in every way.
Thanks for all your help Dave!
-
Mike,
In looking at the write-up on this piece in GBG 1540-1740, Neal lists the gun as "unsigned".
He also states that the monster side-plate is "restored" as well as stating the lock, although from the same period as the gun is a "replacement".
By delving into his writing over the past few years, I believe the restoration of the plate and the replacement of the lock was carried out by Neal himself , therefore there would be no need to explain why he thought the lock was a replacement.
He had acquired this gun in the first quarter of the 20th century. He had it on exhibit at The British Sporting Exhibition at the Imperial Institute, South Kensington, in 1938.
I will email some other info.
James
-
Hi James,
Neal list it as unsigned but he includes it below the name of John Tarles, which I assume means he attributed the gun to him. In other places in that book when a maker was unknown, Neal and Back write that the maker was unknown and don't write that it was just unsigned. It does make things a bit confusing.
dave
-
Correct Dave that's the format as I understand it as well. An "unknown" is listed on the page (or two ) prior.
Just pointing out that it was attributed only in case Mike uncovers something new.
It's a heck of a book. I held off due to price for a while but finally coughed up the bucks a few years ago. Glad I did.
-
So Mike, When are you coming out with the Kit? ;)
-
Interesting Mike. The rear sight looks like a tradegun rear sight. Can't see the whole sight in your picture.
-
So Mike, When are you coming out with the Kit? ;)
NEVER! ;D I don't think any barrel maker in his right mind would make a breech loadingbarrel like this! :o
-
Interesting Mike. The rear sight looks like a tradegun rear sight. Can't see the whole sight in your picture.
Common sight style on early fowling guns....except for the folding leaf with the peep holes.
-
Why not? It is obviously robust enough to survive for centuries and have worn rifling.