Yes, we have all had this discussion at one point or another. The usual method is to place your flint so that the lock sparks the best, and that's how your flint should be installed. Right?
I was reading this topic over, and several members are talking as if BEVEL DOWN is the way to go. How ca this be? Gary Brumfield says the English lock was designed for bevel down. Dan Phariss says flint will not flake properly bevel up, because of the grain structure of the rock. Filipski says flint will self sharpen when mounted bevel down. Pletcher chimes in and says he gets most consistent results with bevel down.
Both Phariss and Filipski say that if a lock won't work bevel down, they fix it so it does!
Inconceivable!
My question is: If one were to go about 'fixing' his lock, what would that look like? What does it mean?
Regards, Tom
First let me say that how someone clamps a rock in the cock of the flintlock is really not important to me. I look at things from the historical perspective and this is important when people try to make things as they WANT rather than how they were. Historically, from everything I see the flint was used bevel down and the locks were DESIGNED for this. If not they would have made the frizzens smaller to save carbon steel.
Some one mentioned using bevel up shortens the cock. This is true. It ALSO changes the ANGLE the flint contacts the frizzen. Something accomplished by changing the angle of the cocks lower jaw, if needed, when tuning a lock.
But if the flints were to be used upside down why are the frizzens so long? If the flint is to be used upside down and the flint then strikes the middle of the frizzen?
If I look at the Manton I made from TRS castings the flint bevel down strikes high on the frizzen. But the frizzen is SMALL compared to either Siler.
If the flints are supposed to be put in upside down why are the frizzens made for right side up?
All the drawings in Georges book except one doglock with a very small frizzen are drawn bevel down. All the photos are bevel down as well.
George was a writer, at least 3 books on firearms before WW-II, collector and student of firearms who was killed by a sniper in 1942, .
I suspect he had seen quite a few flintlocks by the time he wrote "English Guns & Rifles". Thinking someone has gone through all the museums and collections in England to change all the flints from bevel up to bevel down is simply silly.
Not to mention that some locks may have the top jaw screw hitting the frizzen with an upside down flint.
Most locks today have weak springs. Strong springs do not break flints if the lock is right.
The Manton copy listed above has very stiff springs, I set it up this way INTENTIONALLY, making a mainspring and reaching the frizzen spring. It almost NEVER requires knapping the flint. Nor is it all that hard on flints. But when it fails to spark the flint is shot, knapping will only give 1-2 more shots before more missfires. It has reasonable flint life 30-40 shots maybe and is VERY reliable and consistent. The only lock I think I could buy right now and not expect to have to either make or reshape the springs is the Chambers Siler.
MOST ORIGINAL LOCKS HAVE COLLAPSED SPRINGS. So if someone makes a lock by casting the original spring it will be weak on 2 fronts, its a cast spring and its cast with far less preload than the original lock had when NEW.
Then people wonder why they have to jump through hoops to make the lock work.
Couple this with cast parts that are perhaps a little "off" either from bent waxes or
changes made by people who make locks but don't understand how they work and more problems result.
If the lock will not spark with the flint right side up and the frizzen appears OK I IMMEDIATELY increase mainspring tension and usually do the frizzen spring as well OR modifiy the cock. For example the frizzen spring DOES do more than just hold the frizzen shut. Anyone who believes otherwise needs to do more study. Such as why the better quality English locks are set up with significant ramps and/or rollers that greatly increase resistance. Almost any lock will spark without a frizzen spring, but that does not mean it works BEST this way. Not to mention that weak frizzen springs can break flints or cause chatter marks on the frizzen face.
It is also impossible to say this lock needs this or that changed without having it in your hands and trying it.
But I can say that most locks respond very well to rearching or making new stronger frizzen and mainsprings. The mainspring in many "cast from original" locks has FAR less preload than would be found on an original lock.
I have a lock made by a friend of mine has an original "modern" shotgun lock spring bought in bulk years ago that has over 1/2" of preload to compress to hook it to the link. These locks were bad to eat flints. BUT at the makers recommendation I changed the frizzen to the L&R 1700 and it CURED IT. The frizzen has a DIFFERENT CURVE TO THE FACE. The one he was buying in the 1970s was flat and simply broke flints far too often.
Back in the late 60s (?)Muzzle Blasts there was an article in which the author(s) wrote of making an adjustable lock in which they could change frizzen angles etc etc to find what worked best. It was very informative.
But people buy a lock with weak springs, perhaps other "problems". They put it in a lock and it won't work. Many possible reasons, cock sets at the 1/2 cock position is one pet peeve. This is an energy thing. The flint needs some speed (energy) when it contacts the frizzen. If the full cock is in the wrong place (too low) so the cock cannot accelerate much before the flint contacts the frizzen face.
I have recently used 2 of the same locks from a major maker. One of my projects for today is making a new sear for one I have in a pistol I am finishing. To make this lock work right I have, so far, rearched 2 springs, welded and redrilled the tumbler hole and reworked the cock (removing over 1/8" of metal) so the flint comes down to the proper point when the cock is at rest. The majority if people who would buy this lock either lack the ability to do this or would not even know it needed to be done in the first place. Its a GREAT lock once its fixed. But its an assembled kit when purchased. For a late flint gun or pistol is really nice, lock does not even jar a pistol when "fired". The other one I used about 6 months ago needed everything noted but welding the lock plate.
Would I use one again? If I needed this style lock I would use it in a heartbeat. I LIKE the lock.
One more thing. While looking for the MB article above I came across a Russ Hamm ad with a Bedford with a big, too big to work in the lock, upside down flint installed. But it also appears to have no leather or lead jaw pad and could have been done by a photographer (?).
I have Hamilton and Emery's "Eighteenth Century Gunflints from Michilimackinac and other Colonial Sites" I guess I need to read the whole thing and see if this is mentioned there. For me its a difficult read.
I would point out that a GREAT many flints of the 18th century were spalled rather than flaked and had no real bevel.
And, rather than saying fixing locks is "inconceivable" I see it as par for the course.
But the locks have to work. The pistol I am making will surely be used as a pack along piece by its owner while hunting in "occupied Grizzly Bear habitat", it has to work. A man was killed and mostly eaten by a Gbear in an area he frequents June 17.
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_f40ecce6-7b15-11df-aed5-001cc4c03286.htmlDan
