English makers and flint positioning

[Larry Pletcher]

Recently I have been studying two books on English makers:  Great British Gunmakers 1540-1740 and Great British Gunmakers 1740-1790.  The later of the two books was especially interesting because of the effect the makers may have had on our own colonial guns - especially Twigg, Mantons, etc. 

The photos in both books showed lock variations which I will ask about in future topics, but  the placement of flints throughout these books caught me off guard.  In almost every instance the flints were installed bevel down.  In fact, photos showing a gun with the flint bevel up were rare - conspicuous in their absence.   Accustomed as I am to seeing flint guns with the bevel up, this surprised me.    Any thoughts or comments?

Regards,
Pletch

[flintriflesmith]

Larry,
There are at least two things that make me think that "bevel down" was the excepted practice:
(1) On the 1st model Brown Bess cock forgings they have a depression formed in the lower jaw to receive the spall shape of the English flints used in that period.
(2) Some late English locks (like the Richardson third from the top on this web page) http://www.flintriflesmith.com/antique_gun_locks.htm
have the top jaw extended out noticeably beyond the lower jaw. I believe this was done to strengthen the contact between the top jaw and the flat side on the flint so the flint wouldn't snap off square with the two jaws. Once I noticed this feature I found it on several English locks.
I believe the modern practice of putting the bevel up came about from using locks that didn't cock back as far as they should at halfcock.
Gary

[Dphariss]

Recently I have been studying two books on English makers:  Great British Gunmakers 1540-1740 and Great British Gunmakers 1740-1790.  The later of the two books was especially interesting because of the effect the makers may have had on our own colonial guns - especially Twigg, Mantons, etc. 

The photos in both books showed lock variations which I will ask about in future topics, but  the placement of flints throughout these books caught me off guard.  In almost every instance the flints were installed bevel down.  In fact, photos showing a gun with the flint bevel up were rare - conspicuous in their absence.   Accustomed as I am to seeing flint guns with the bevel up, this surprised me.    Any thoughts or comments?

Regards,
Pletch

My perspective.
Thats how they are supposed to be installed. Sometime back someone had posted here or elsewhere that their lock would only spark with the flint bevel up. I posted that I would fix the lock and I would.
Some research will likely find directions specifying bevel down dating to the FL era, I am thinking some military manual but I am running on memory on that. I think George mentions flint installation in "English Guns & Rifles". Bevel up the flint chips differently since they are formed in the same manner from flint to flint in relation to how the flint flakes. IE its impossible to make a flint by trying to spall or flake the flint in the wrong direction so every flint will flake differently and about the same way, upside down as opposed the right side up. Nor can it be efficiently spalled to sharpen it when upside down since the rock flakes differently.
A friend, who has been making flintlock rifles since the 1950s just figures, as I do, that people putting flints in bevel up are putting them in upside down.
I think a lot of this comes from some modern locks having cocks too large for the lock or being otherwise malformed and the flint being too high and/or at the wrong angle when installed right side up. OR cheap mass produced locks with weak coil spring or weak cast leaf springs.
The flint spalls differently upside down this effects chip scatter when pieces of rock break off as the flint scrapes the frizzen. The chips come off the flint at what is now the top and fly all over the place including back toward the shooter's face according to a the same friend who tried it over a clean surface a couple of weeks ago to see where the chips landed. A lot more chips landed behind the lock when bevel up but I was not present and have no details.

And as always, your mileage may vary. But I think documentation will show that historically bevel up is wrong.
Dan

[Jim Filipski]

Ever since I have used my first flintlock gun I have always put the bevel side down. It engages more of the frizzen surface on the way down and flints last longer because they seem to self sharpen ( I think Dan mentioned this sharpening effect) because the flint tends to flake off at the proper angle almost like it was being knapped. Now granted I have always been fortunate to have used good locks  & yes if I did work on a cheap lock for someone I would fix it so the flint could be installed bevel down ( properly).
Just my opinion & experiences
Jim

[Larry Pletcher]

Thank you for your thoughts.  This bevel up/bevel down stuff took me back to a different time. 

Some 20+ years ago I began timing locks - the first time was at Bowling Green.  Gary B. was in on that first attempt.  Shortly after that I timed two L&R locks for a MuzzleBlasts  article.  (Jan. '90) 

I used to time every lock 20 trials bevel up and 20 trials bevel down.  In this case the locks were a Durs Egg and a Manton.  The Manton had a slight preference for bevel up, but not nearly so pronounced as the Durs Egg.  The Durs Egg had a decided preference for the flint installed bevel down.  This showed up in both speed and in consistency.  Its variation was cut in half when the bevel was installed bevel down.

The fact that the English seemed to like bevel down brought this back to me.  I should add that I haven't timed a lock since with such a decided preference as that Durs Egg.

Regards,
Pletch

[Don Getz]

Many years ago when L.C.Rice was still in the lock business, I approached him at their booth at Friendship and asked him
what size flint I should use in one of his Durs Egg locks.   His answer was, "doesn't matter, it will chew it down to size" if
its too big.............Don

[Mike Brooks]

The photos in both books showed lock variations which I will ask about in future topics, but  the placement of flints throughout these books caught me off guard.  In almost every instance the flints were installed bevel down.  In fact, photos showing a gun with the flint bevel up were rare - conspicuous in their absence.   Accustomed as I am to seeing flint guns with the bevel up, this surprised me.    Any thoughts or comments?

Most likely these flints were placed in the jaws long after their period of use. Probably in the last 30 years or so. Collectors and modern day people who don't shoot wouldn't know which way to put a flint in.

[smart dog]

Hi Mike,
You are probably right about many collectors but Keith Neal and David Back were shooters who definitely knew how to set up a flint gun.  It is their books that Larry is mentioning and most photos in those books were of guns in Neal's collection.

dave

[James Rogers]

Much of Neal's collection was acquired directly out of family gun cabinets where they had sat dormant for many years since their retirement. Many had been preserved with a tallow coating and left like they were when they were put up to be used no more. I imagine many of his finds could have had the flints left in them as they were originally. He also shot any gun he had that he thought was safe to pull the trigger on.
2-300 years is a lot of time for anything to be mucked with though.

[Dphariss]

Thank you for your thoughts.  This bevel up/bevel down stuff took me back to a different time. 

Some 20+ years ago I began timing locks - the first time was at Bowling Green.  Gary B. was in on that first attempt.  Shortly after that I timed two L&R locks for a MuzzleBlasts  article.  (Jan. '90) 

I used to time every lock 20 trials bevel up and 20 trials bevel down.  In this case the locks were a Durs Egg and a Manton.  The Manton had a slight preference for bevel up, but not nearly so pronounced as the Durs Egg.  The Durs Egg had a decided preference for the flint installed bevel down.  This showed up in both speed and in consistency.  Its variation was cut in half when the bevel was installed bevel down.

The fact that the English seemed to like bevel down brought this back to me.  I should add that I haven't timed a lock since with such a decided preference as that Durs Egg.

Regards,
Pletch

Hi Pletch
Didn't the three locks in your "Timing II" perform better bevel down?
I think looking at the flint strike patterns on old used locks would be illuminating in this discussion.

Dan

[flintriflesmith]

...I think looking at the flint strike patterns on old used locks would be illuminating in this discussion.
Dan

Dan,
That idea hit me like a brick--one of those "Why the h### didn't I think of that?" moments. I have some original flintlocks and once I dig them out of storage I'll see if they tell a tale of how they were actually used over their life times.
Gary

[Larry Pletcher]

Hi Pletch
Didn't the three locks in your "Timing II" perform better bevel down?
I think looking at the flint strike patterns on old used locks would be illuminating in this discussion.

Dan

Hey Dan,
Dang if you're not right.  I had to go back and look the article over.  Maybe you and I are the only old guys who hoard MuzzleBlasts for 20+ years.  The locks were Davis:  the Yeager, Early Large Flintlock, and the Twigg  (names used by Davis at the time.)

The Yeager  and the Early Large Flintlock were both better bevel down.  The Twigg's speed was not much different, but its consistency was quite a bit better bevel up. 

In going back and rereading the article I recalled something I had not thought about in many years.  I compared photos and using measurements from the lock and the photos I could determine that the Twigg was accelerating as it traveled down the frizzen. The Yeager was slowing down, as one would expect.  The trick here was pics fired by computer that were .002 sec apart.  A proportion was set up and the distances were converted to fps.   

That's not much of an explanation and I'm too tired to do a better job.  It's in the Sept '92 article if you keep your old magazines like Dan and I do.  BTW, I was most impressed by the Yeager. With the bevel down it compared well with smaller locks.

Thanks, Dan for jogging my memory.
Regards,
Pletch

[Jim Filipski]

Larry,
There are at least two things that make me think that "bevel down" was the excepted practice:
(1) On the 1st model Brown Bess cock forgings they have a depression formed in the lower jaw to receive the spall shape of the English flints used in that period.

Gary

Gary,
 Here is a 1761 Hastings 1st model Bess lock With that weird depression in the lower jaw.
 Is this what you were talking about above?
Jim

[flintriflesmith]

Jim,
That's it -- although I was looking at it in the rough die forgings we had to study when I was writing the article on lock making for Volume I of JHAT in 1984.

One of those forgings was later illustrated on page 82 of Volume V of JHAT, June 1993.

Gary

[Acer Saccharum]

Why did they put barbs down in the pocket? Seems like a wasted effort, since the pocket itself is doing all the work.

Tom

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

...because the chisel was cutting so well!  ...couldn't stop.

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Guild labor......??

[Jim Filipski]

Why did they put barbs down in the pocket? Seems like a wasted effort, since the pocket itself is doing all the work.

Tom

Tom,
If you think about it, why wouldn't they put barbs in in the pocket. The lead or leather wrap still will press against this area even if it is a recess and just makes it hold that much better in my opinion
Jim