OPINIONS NEEDED ON A LOCK

[WESTbury]

I was asked by the owner to remove the photos from this posting.

I'm posting this in the Gun Building because of the nature of the lock in question. It is fitted to an otherwise nice but unsigned antique long rifle. To me it almost looks as though it is a modern made piece, aged of course. The decoration on the lockplate looks cast as well as that on the cock.
The frizzen spring looks a little "bulky" to me.

The fit of the lock to the mortice in the stock looks questionable to me.

As 95% of my experience is with Springfield Flintlock Muskets, I thought I would ask the Gun Building experts.

Thanks in advance for your input.

[Clint]

I don't think that the lock is new, details like the filing on the frizzed spring and the counterbored screw are unique and would be easily picked out on a modern production lock. Check out the engraving with a loupe and look for chatter marks in the cuts before you decide if it is cast in or not. Even high quality modern locks will show casting marks on the parting edges, and although the flintlock might be a replacement it looks like an old repair. Can't say anything about whether the lock as a whole is replaced with out looking inside to see the sear placement, lock bolt hole and wear from internals. We would like to see the whole rifle if you have pictures.
Clint

[Jim Kibler]

To me the plate looks right, but I’m not too sure about the rest.  Especially the goofy shaped pan and rather odd frizzen spring.  Engraving on the cock doesn’t seem to be as good as what’s on the plate as well.

[WESTbury]

Guys,

Thanks for your responses. As of right now I cannot post any full length photos, only because I do not yet own the rifle and you may recognize it and know the current custodian of the gun. Be assured that the rest of the rifle is very nice and original.

Sorry for the intrigue, I know it's exasperating.

[bama]

I believe that this is a reconversion, the cock, pan, frizzen and frizzen spring are replacements. Many locks have been reconverted over the years, some better than others.

[bgf]

I believe that this is a reconversion, the cock, pan, frizzen and frizzen spring are replacements. Many locks have been reconverted over the years, some better than others.

That is my thought too, for what little it's worth.  Jim is right about the engraving on the hammer, the pan is weird, but i think the plate is a good fit that sunk in due to compressing the wood over the years.

[WESTbury]

Yea, I agree with all of the comments as I was thinking along the same lines. When I buy a Springfield flintlock musket, I insist on seeing the inside of the plate and lock mortice. That was not an option in this case, at least so far.

I can spot a Springfield recon from across the room, but my experience with civilian locks is limited. Especially when I do not have direct access to the gun.

Thank-you much for all of your insight, appreciate it.

[rich pierce]

I’d not worry about it. If reconverted it’s a nice enough job. And most are reconverted.

[bama]

I do not have a problem with reconverted locks. The problem lies with how the conversion was done. If the proper parts were used and the welding well done then that is great but many were converted back to flint that did not use correct parts or the workmanship was not done well. The lock you shows falls into the middle of this group. The pan in this case I think is the part that looks out of place, although the workmanship appears to be well done. I would not let this bother me to much if I was sure the rifle was an original flint gun.

As with a lot of things these days the quality of work being done today is better than it was 50 years ago on locks. I feel that is due to the amount of information that is available and the knowledge of the craftsman that are doing this type of work.

I hope you get the rifle and do not let the comments about the lock ruin it for you, it looks like it will be a good gun.