Pistol lock - help with date and where made?

[DaveM]

I am hoping that someone on this forum may be knowledgeable with the ketland family and their locks.  I have seen reference books on the subject, but never found very detailed information and it is somewhat confusing.  For example, some locks were made made in England, others in Philadelphia.  Can anyone help me to nail down the date of this lock and possibly where it was made?  It is a pistol lock and the overall length is approximately 4-9/16 inches.  Thanks for any help!
Dave

[Jim Horn]

Dave, 1822 till early 1830's, according to Tom Grinsdales' book Flintlock Fowlers?
Jim

[Dphariss]

Looks to be a little better than low end Birmingham lock. It does have an internal bridle.
Locks were very cheap at the time this was made, this lock probably sold in Birmingham for a shillings or 2 at the most.
While he does not specify the lock type, percussion of flint. W. Greener in "The Gun" from 1835 states that Birmingham locks "if you know how to go about it" could be had for "1/2 Crown a bushel". Locks with steel "scears and tumblers" could be bought for three shillings six pence a *pair*.
This book is available online on Google.  It has a lot of early 19th Century "science"/opinion that is laughable today but like all old books on guns by people who made them it has things of interest.
Dan

[JTR]

Dave,
That's a nice lock!
If you own it, congratulations.
If it's for sale at a reasonable price, buy it.
Finding honest old locks in very good condition is not all that easy.
John

[HistoricalArmsMaker]

This lock is earlier than that. I will look in my research materials, but I think its much closer to 1800 and definitely made in England.
Is this yours?
Susie

[DaveM]

Hi all - thanks for your input so far.  Yes, it is mine and actually from a pistol that I own.  It appears to be a period replacement lock on the pistol, and I am trying to determine when the replacement was made (assuming that the lock was new when put on the gun).

[Dphariss]

This lock is earlier than that. I will look in my research materials, but I think its much closer to 1800 and definitely made in England.
Is this yours?
Susie

It could date to the last of the 18th century. By the 1820s one would expect a link type mainspring and a roller frizzen spring. But this is not set in stone either, military flintlocks never did adopt the roller for the frizzen etc. This lock is basically the same shape as the British pattern 1823 Infantry Rifle lock though it is smaller of course. Thus shape, features etc. is not really a way to date the lock to 1800. But I have no real references to Ketland's products, how they were marked in a given period etc.


Dan

[JV Puleo]

Thomas Ketland was in partnership with his brother John from about 1798 to John's death in 1800. Thomas and John were married to the Mead sisters. After John's death Thomas traded under his own name but returned to England as some point around 1809-1810 with his wife and sister-in-law. He continued in the trade, however, because in 1816 he placed a joint advertisement in several American papers with his brother William of W. Ketland & Co. The address given in the advertisement is "Birmingham, England."
All of the locks are English, i.e. Birmingham "Black country" made. I very much doubt that any of the Ketlands actually worked at gunmaking in the American sense. The locks came in a wide assortment of quality from very cheap to very expensive although most seen here are in the middle somewhere. The Ketlands were merchants on a grand scale and guns and gun components are only a small part of what they handled.

[HistoricalArmsMaker]

Hi all - thanks for your input so far.  Yes, it is mine and actually from a pistol that I own.  It appears to be a period replacement lock on the pistol, and I am trying to determine when the replacement was made (assuming that the lock was new when put on the gun).

Dave
Can you put up a picture of the pistol itself? Could help me to compare it to some others I have had in here. The post on the Ketland history is excellent and correct. One other interesting note; I find it interesting that a lot of pistol locks don't have the great attention to mechanical detail the rifle locks did and make them appear earlier because they fail to have the updated internal designs consistent with rifles, smooth guns and fowlers.
Susie

[DaveM]

Susie, I attached links to a few photos and am interested in your thoughts and anyone else who is familiar with early pistols. The stock is a fairly plain maple.  The gun is about 12-inches long with a 45 cal 7-inch octagon to 16-sided to round smoothbore barrel with wedding bands.   The barrel tang is attached with a screw from below the trigger guard which looks original.   I believe that this lock was added in the period and not modern era - there is no recent cutting on either the mortise edges or inside and original patina and age exists in these areas.  The bottom forward half of the mortise edge was very slightly expanded as was the lock on the same edge.  The lock screw holes are original and not expanded.  Though someone did a reasonable job fitting this lock with minimal mortise work, it is obvious that it is not the first / original lock on the gun.  When this lock was fitted they lined up the original lock bolt holes.  Though I am fairly certain that the other features such as the barrel, trigger and trigger guard are original to the stock.  Looking at the inside lock mortise it appears that the original lock was narrower or pointier at the rear and the mortise was expanded at the top, end and bottom of the rear 1/3 of the mortise.  The original rear mortise was a little more symmetrical with the drop in the handle to the rear based on the inside mortise carving.


http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z228/DaveM_bucket/pistol034.jpg
http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z228/DaveM_bucket/pistol029.jpg
http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z228/DaveM_bucket/pistol010.jpg
http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z228/DaveM_bucket/pistol043.jpg
http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z228/DaveM_bucket/pistol038.jpg
http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z228/DaveM_bucket/pistol067.jpg

[westbj2]

Notice the two file slashes at the bend of the mainspring used by the forger to determine bend position when the spring was hot.
Jim Westberg

[Michael]

I'm with Jim on the file marks at the bend in the mainspring. My question is; were the file marks there to control the bend, or were they done as part of 'decorating' the spring when it was finished?

Michael

[westbj2]

The file marks were put on the spring material while is was flat.  They simply allow you to see clearly where the bend wants to be while the material is red.
Jim

[HistoricalArmsMaker]

Dave
Got some thoughts here, but this is an odd pup. I've got to base my thoughts here on the pistols I have seen that were definitely 95%+ original. This one does not comply with others I have examined. It looks like an old re-stock, but I believe this original set of parts is on a stock possibly done in the 1950's or 60's+. The rod appears older than the stock but that may be because of the use. The parts appear are legitimate. As for the marks on the mainspring the comments may be right, but in all my research, I have never seen the marks turn out to be right in the bend before. May be I just haven't seen enough, but I have physically examined over 1610 now, so I do have something to base that comment on. Normally, these are makers and assembly marks; which may or may not be the same. If you take the lock apart, you should find marks which will/should match in number and style to marks on the plate, bridle, sear, sometimes the sear spring, frizzen, hammer and on occasion, the tumbler (but get out your magnifiers!).
If you find a difference in the marks, it is a repair; no argument, and common to replaced parts on a well used arm. I would guess this to be a restocked arm by a contemporary maker who had adequate skills, but not exceptional. That would explain its unusual shapes and contours different to original pieces, even cheaper trade arms.
Susie