Trying to "get a handle" on English round faced civilian lock usage.

[Artificer]

Folks, I'm hoping the membership can give me some information on this subject and "square me away" on any ideas or speculation I have that may be incorrect. 

I have always "had a thing" for round faced locks.  I don't know if it is because I've gotten used to them from Brown Besses and a Navy Arms copy of a 1738 Land Service Pistol I've owned for years.  I don't think so because I've also loved the very small round faced lock hide out pistols and larger Georgian Pistols. 

So here are some questions and speculation I would appreciate information and input on. 

1.  Was the round faced lock originally French style and then accepted by the English and other European nations?

2.  Was the round faced lock done so as to strengthen critical areas of the lockplate and parts while other areas of the lock could be lightened to save weight?   Or was it mostly a matter of "style and fashion?" 

3.  Am I correct in my assumption that round faced locks were more expensive due to the extra lock filing required?

4.  Was the round faced style connected in some way to the iron making technology of the late 17th and early 18th century?   Abraham Darby I seems to be credited with coming up with the idea of how better to make iron using coke in 1709 in England and his son and grandson perfected it, but they kept it a secret.   Then Henry Cort came along in 1783 and perfected a more economic method of making wrought iron.  IOW, did this have something to do with round faced locks falling out of fashion in England after our Revolution when iron making improved?

Along with this, I don't really have a good handle on how thick civilian lock plates were for fowlers and rifles in the 18th century.   I imagine when iron making technology was not as good in the late 17th and early 18th century - that they may have used thicker lock plates and parts to overcome lesser quality iron and steel?

5  In the Armoury at Warwick Castle in Warwickshire during 1998, I was thrilled to see about 7 round faced flintlock pistols, one round faced lock carbine and maybe one other long gun with a round faced lock.  These all did not have the bridle for the pan and were dated from about 1715 to 1738 as I remember.  All these pieces looked like they were for civilian usage though they were on the plain side, I.E. not very expensively carved or decorated.  The carbine did have some carving and a some inlays I would not have expected to see on military guns.  I believe the last gun was a fowler - though I sheepishly admit I wasn't as interested in it at the time as I was the other guns. 

The reason I bring this up is because prior to that, I had sort of gotten the impression that round faced locks (with the exception of pistols) were more of military usage than civilian.  This was before I found out about Jim Chambers description of his round faced locks going back to the 1740's in Virginia and the Southron colonies.  Not long afterward when they became available again, I purchased RCA Volumes I and II. 

6.  Would the round faced locks been used more often or predominantly over the flat locks on rifles in the Tidewater through James River and possibly up through the Fredericksburg area of Virginia in the 1740's and 1750's?  I do NOT want to step on anyone's toes or anyone's research with this question as I'm trying to get more information.   I was thrilled to see Mark Silver's designed rifle kit in Jim Chambers catalog as having come from the James River Basin and that it has a round faced lock.  I assume their research has led them to believe round faced locks were used and I guess my question is would the round faced locks have been more predominant in this time period than flat locks in this area?  (I really, REALLY hope so, but I guess it doesn't matter as I'm sure they found evidence round faced locks were used here for rifles.  Grin.) 

7.  I'm also looking for more reference material on rifles of the 1730's through 1750's in Eastern Virginia.  I'm interested in what may be differences in stock design, furniture, etc. that would have been found here and or influences in styling.  I have a copy of "Long Rifles of Virginia" but most if not all of them are later guns.   Perhaps I should be looking for books that are more focused on English sporting arms of the period? 

8.  What I'm visualizing is if I were alive in Virginia in about 1740-1750 and went into a gun shop to order a rifle made not much further west than  Richmond, what would have realistically been my options?  I don't want to choose a trigger guard or buttplate for example, nor stock carving,  that was from a later period or totally out of place on a rifle made here or supplied here from England or Europe in that time period. 

I would very much appreciate any information or thoughts from the membership of this forum.

[Mike Brooks]

Too many questions but.....
1) yes
2) style....copying french/dutch
3)I doubt it, they were hammer forged into dies.....we're talking english mfg here.
4) no, thickness wasn't an issue because of iron....they wern't as thick as what we often use today.
5) I think you answered your own ?
6) round english VS flat german? Talk to Wallace Gusler.
7)No documented guns from that period.
see # 7

[smart dog]

Hi Gus,
I can only contribute to a few of your questions with my own speculation.  I think the English copied the round faced lock design from French and Dutch makers during the last half of the 17th century.  The fashion lilkely was initiated when many French Huguenot and Dutch craftsmen emigrated to England.  Look at the work of Andrew Dolep, Jacques Gorgo, Harman Barne, and Lewis Barbar as examples of makers skilled in continental European fashions that set up shop in England after the re-establishment of the monarchy. They revolutionized a rather morbid English gun industry that was numbed by the civil war and the subsequent Cromwellian protectorate, which was why the London Gunmakers Guild was so hostile to them.  Anyway, they pumped life into the English makers, who adopted many of the European fashions including round-faced locks.

I don't think round-faced locks saved on metal.  Most that I have used are a bit heavier than comparable flat-faced locks.  Also, they could not have been terribly costly to produce because even the late English ordnance matchlock muskets had round-faced locks.  I think they were a popular fashion and there were those like you and me that really liked how they look. 

Many English makers of civilian guns between 1700-1760 frequently used round-faced looks. Benjamin Griffin, James Barbar, William Turvey, Humphrey Pickfat, James Griffin, and James Freeman to name a few.  It was a popular fashion.

I don't think the supply or production of steel or iron was a factor influencing the design.  With respect to plate thickness, think of the iron Scottish pistols.  I have castings for one and the lock plate metal and stock metal are quite thin.  Scottish pistols made in the late 17th and early 18th centuries were fashioned from relatively thin iron.  They were tough and reliable so I don't think quality of iron or steel played much part in lockplate design.  I think it was 99% fashion.

dave

         

[Artificer]

Too many questions but.....
.
5) I think you answered your own ?

On question number 3, good point, should have thought about them using hammer forging dies.

Grin.  On question number 5,  I didn't want to make too much out of so few original pieces, but yeah I understand.  

The answer on no doucmented guns of that period is very good information.

Thank you for taking your time to offer input.  Really appreciate it.

[Artificer]

Dave,

Really enjoyed your thoughts from your first paragraph.  Though it isn't connected very much, it reminds me of one of my visits to Jamestown.  Another visitor asked why there wasn't a more robust colonization effort in the middle of the 17th century.  The guide got a somewhat sly and devilish look on his face and remarked, "Well, they were slightly distracted with the little thing known as the English Civil War.............(pause)....."   Five or six of us laughed heartily at that including the person who asked the question.   Then the guide had to explain it more for the rest of the crowd, but he used the question to further expand the information he was passing on.   After the guide was finished, I made a point of thanking the guide and so did the visitor who had asked the question.  We all chuckled about the guide's answer.

Thank you for adding names of other English gunmakers at the time.  I'll try to research their work more.  I'll break out my books on European guns and see if I can find examples of their work.  

Great point about the Scottish Iron pistols as to lock thickness.  Considering how they made so many Scottish pistols out of bronze as well, that's a great point.

Really appreciate your thoughts.

[G-Man]

I think the round faced locks on Georgian fowlers and pistols was purely a stylistic choice to reduce the amount of flat surfaces on the gun - especially on pieces where they chose to use round barrels.  When you look at English Georgian period guns (I should refine that to "early-mid" Georgian,  ca: 1720s-60s, I guess, since George III lived up into the 1800s) there are very few, if any, truly flat surfaces on them.  When you study how they shaped the moldings, sideplates, etc. it seems a deliberate attempt to make everything with a radius to keep the visual flow.

As Mike pointed out, we have no documented pre-1750 surviving Virginia rifles.   According to research by folks like Wallace and Gary, we know that rifles constituted a relatively smaller proportion of the gunsmiths' output at Williamsburg.  Keep in mind, "James River Basin" potentially covers a huge area of Virgnia - and based on surviving later pieces, there were significant differences between rifles made in the far upper reaches of the James and those made farther downstream, near the tidewater area. (Question for Gary - isn't the "Faber" rifle thought to have been made somewhere down near Richmond?) 

Wallace makes distinction for those guns thought to be from the headwaters and forks of the James region, which is sort of south and west of, but not far from, the Shenandoah Valley.  Germanic/ continental style locks as well as English style locks crop up on guns from the late 1700s in the Shenandoah Valley, which is not surprising based on the demographics of the settlers and trade routes in those areas.  Of course, these areas were settled later than the tidewater.  But, and this is just my opinion, I would not be surprised to see a Germanic style lock crop up on an early longrifle from the far upper James area, but I would expect to see mostly English style locks on guns made over in the tidewater area.

Guy

[Artificer]

Guy,

I truly enjoyed reading your post and thank you for taking the time to write it. 

Gus

[flintriflesmith]

As Mike pointed out, we have no documented pre-1750 surviving Virginia rifles.   According to research by folks like Wallace and Gary, we know that rifles constituted a relatively smaller proportion of the gunsmiths' output at Williamsburg.  Keep in mind, "James River Basin" potentially covers a huge area of Virgnia - and based on surviving later pieces, there were significant differences between rifles made in the far upper reaches of the James and those made farther downstream, near the tidewater area. (Question for Gary - isn't the "Faber" rifle thought to have been made somewhere down near Richmond?)  

Wallace makes distinction for those guns thought to be from the headwaters and forks of the James region, which is sort of south and west of, but not far from, the Shenandoah Valley.  Germanic/ continental style locks as well as English style locks crop up on guns from the late 1700s in the Shenandoah Valley, which is not surprising based on the demographics of the settlers and trade routes in those areas.  Of course, these areas were settled later than the tidewater.  But, and this is just my opinion, I would not be surprised to see a Germanic style lock crop up on an early longrifle from the far upper James area, but I would expect to see mostly English style locks on guns made over in the tidewater area.

Guy

The question about what a pre-1750 longrifle might look like goes WAY beyond Virginia. Documented American rifles made anywhere before 1760 are scarce and, if you toss out the ones with questionable documentation, signatures, or origin, they come down basically to a few parts found in archaeological sites, also sometimes of questionable origin. Based on documents, we know that both short rifles and long rifles existed in the pre-1750-60 period but nailing down a few surviving examples would be a wonderful breakthrough in research.
On the Williamsburg Virginia production of rifles: there are no know examples from the Colonial period or any time in the 18th century for that matter. There are some unfinished parts from the Geddy site that lets us know they were probably making pistols and fowlers. (The blank sideplate casting pattern they found could have been for a rifle.) There is documentation that the Geddy brothers were offering to rifle barrels in 1751, but they do not mention making rifles.
The only known surviving  civilian firearm made in Williamsburg appears to be a screw barrel pistol by John Brush (he also made muskets while still in London and may have made a few here in VA). Brush died in the 1720s.
When we talk about rifle making in the James River basin that refers to the south central part of the Valley of Virginia where the streams drained east into the James River rather than north into the Shenandoah River.  At the Forks of the James the many branches of the upper James come together and pass through a gap in the Blue Ridge at Balcony Falls.
The term Shenandoah Valley is confusing because it is often/generally  used for the entire valley between the Blue Ridge Mountains on the east and the Appalachian Mountains on the west. When you drive south down the path of the Great Wagon Road (Rt.11 and I-81) from the Winchester area toward the Roanoke area you are in one continuous valley defined by those two mountain ranges. By that definition the upper James, AKA James River basin, from Augusta Co. to Botetourt Co is often considered part on the Shenandoah Valley.
Guy, the Farber was probably made in Augusta County – not east of the Blue Ridge. The Kleete was make farther east between Culpepper and Fredericksburg and maybe that is that you were remembering.
Gary

[G-Man]

Thanks Gary - it gets confusing because over the years, some of the famous rifles out there have been variously described under different terms, that cover overlapping geographic areas in Viriginia.   That's before you even begin to get into the whole evolution of the counties - that adds another confusing dimension, as some of the counties ( Augusta, Botetourt, Finacastle, etc.) covered huge areas at one time or another as they were split off and evolved, which was going on throughout the period of longrifle building in Virginia.  I guess part of it is also that the understanding, and theories, about where and when they were made, have evolved and changed over the years.  For me, it gets especially confusing when trying to pick up on the nuances of  James Basin, vs. Rockbridge-Augusta, vs. upper Valley, or a Botetourt County vs Forks of James vs. James Headwaters.

But its a fun challenge to try to learn this stuff.  Thanks again!

Guy

[Artificer]

Gary,

Thank you for adding the information on rifle production in the Eastern Part of the Commonwealth.

Yes, it does get confusing recognizing the areas of Virginia today that were variously mentioned in the 17th and 18th century.  Gary, your post did me personal great service as to explaning the geographical locations and I've called Virginia "home" since 1973.  Thank you.  Stafford County, Falmouth, Federicksburg and to a lesser extent Spotsylvania County were my "old stomping grounds" for many years.  Even though I've been stationed and lived in the Eastern Part of the Commonwealth, I've done some traveling along old State RTe. 11 and down through and beyond Roanoke.  So your explanation made things much clearer to me.

I've heard of the Kleete rifle, but have to admit I don't know much about it.  Was it made by an ancestor of Fredrik Kleete, who worked at Rappahannock Forge?  Is it listed in RCA volume I or II?

When you mention it was made between Fredericksburg and Culpepper, could that have been in the area of Germanna Forge?  I'm purely guessing here because of the German settlement there and the iron production in that area.

Fredericksburg and the surrounding area have done much to preserve as much 18th century history as possible, especially as Federicksburg was such a sleepy little town when I fist arrived in the 1970's.  However, I have always found it such a sad state that there is so little evidence of Rappahannock Forge and 18th century sites in and around Germanna Forge.  Still, for a kid who grew up on the banks of the Mississippi in Iowa and was so interested in the 18th century, Fredericksburg was an historic treasure trove when I came here and contiues to to have a warm spot in my heart.

[smart dog]

Hi Gus,
I was reading Neal and Back's "British Gunmakers - Messrs Griffin , Tow, and Bailes" and found some details that may relate to a perception that round faced locks were a feature on military or quasi-military guns.  In the case of Benjamin Griffin, between 1740-1754 most of his guns, high-end and utility, had round-faced locks.  Between 1755-1759 his high-end guns often had flat lockplates but the rest usually where fitted with round-faced locks.  Between 1760-1769, only his "livery" guns had round-faced locks.  I think "livery" meant guns built for gamekeepers and militia units who worked for the lord of the estate or were under his sponsorship or command.  Many of those guns were patterned after the official military styles.  I suspect other well known makers at the time did the same. Consequently, there probably are a lot of mid-late 18th century "livery" guns still in existence that look military and have round-faced locks.

dave

[Artificer]

Dave,

That is very interesting.  I would agree that livery in that case means those who served/worked for some one else who had at least the money (if not the social position of some form of the nobility).  Guns were so expensive back then, it was a diplomatic way to say what we might call a more utilitarian grade of gun - especially when speaking with and trying to find favour with richer customers.   

Livery also meant/means "uniformed," and could be seen as a more modern adaptation of the medieval "Man at Arms" or soldiers accountable to the lord's household.   

I am no scholar of the Militia in Britain in the late 17th and early 18th century, though I know a little about it.  It seems the County Militia's were commanded by the County Lord Lietenant (who often was nobility) but that position seemed to have become more of an honorary title than an active position even before the English Bill of Rights of 1689. With that act, all Protestant Male subjects were authorized to "have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law."  Though the Militia in England was supposed to be required to form for training occasionally, it seems it was almost never done.  I don't know if the militia in England was required to have a suitable arm and accoutrements provided by himself or
if they relied on the local nobility to hand out firearms when the threat of Spanish or French Invasion seemed likely.   

However, round faced locks were the norm on British Military Pattern Small Arms from the 1720's onward and well into the early 19th century, discounting some Sea Service arms and pistols.   

Your information does show how the round faced lock was falling out of favor and fashion in a chronological order.  That fleshes out the oft quoted information that after the Revolutinary War, the round faced lock had fallen out of general use in Great Britain, so almost none were imported here,after that.  Sounds like another book I have to get for the library.

Thank you.