small lock for very early southern rifle

[54ball]

I was going to build my present project as an early percussion southern mountain rifle.  After my vacation I'm having second thoughts.
 
   We went to Kings Mountain, Cowpens, Guilford Courthouse, Williamsburg, Jamestown and Yorktown.
 
 These are the details of my project so far. It is a early pattern Mathew Gillespie stock circa 1810 from Dennis.  It has a 44" swamped Colerain C bbl in .54.  The barrel is inletted and the ramrod hole is drilled.  The buttstock and the rear of the  lock panels are roughed out.  It is not inletted for a lock.
 
 I had planned to use a mountain style percussion lock and drum but I feel this rifle is begging to be a flintlock.
 
  This 1810 stock is still pretty much a blank canvas.  I feel it has enough meat on it that I could push it back to 1780 with the right mounts and lock.  
 
  My selection of locks is limited for this stock.  The larger locks are just to big.  To use an Early Ketland I would have to cheat it forward some on the breach" not what I want to do" and would have no room for the lock panel behind the tail.  The same goes for the other large English locks.
 
  The Chambers late Ketland fits perfect but is post 1800.  The Chambers Small Queen Anne is about the same size as the late Ketland has enough room for good shaped lock panels.
 
  My question is would this " the Queen Anne Pistol" be a good lock for a slim 1780 Overthemountan Rifle?
 
  I've made paper templates and it seems I might be able to pull it off.  I just need some opinions.      

 John Gillespie was a veteran of Kings Mountain and I thought it would be to build a very very early Gillespie.

[northmn]

I think Dennis would be the best guess on this one, but a few of these used imported locks from England.  David makes a good one with a rainproof pan, as does L&R with their Durs Egg.  The Manton might be too small.

DP

[rich pierce]

I know we'd all like to see 100% English locks on early Southern rifles, but some Germanic locks were used also.  That would open up your selection.  But as you make decisions, remember that "slim" and "early" don't necessarily go together easily.  Stophel and others have shown how to "English-up" a Siler lock with some judicious filing and polishing.  The Chambers Gunmaker's lock, assembled, might be a good starting point.

[54ball]

 Thanks,
I have even thought about French Locks. As the French had a Fort in Central Alabama until 1763.  Also  New Orleans was still a French city but under Spanish control.  Mobile another French city was was under English rule from 1763 to 1783.

 Also there is East and West Florida the 14th and 15th Colonies that many forget about because they remained loyal to the Crown.  I wonder just how much influence these areas had on the Carolina Back Country, North Georgia and South Western Virginia.

 Using paper templates on the stock it is just hard form to visualize the finished product.  The Queen Anne looks a little smallish but so does the late Ketland which is perfect on a finished rifle.

 Do you think that Queen Anne pistol lock is just too small for an early rifle?

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Are you concerned most about length or height of the lock??

[54ball]

 I am most concerned with the length behind the fence. The smaller lock is thinner and I worry about overall architecture.   The larger locks almost run off the lock panel.  I have been working with lock size templates from a TOTW catalog on a tracing of the lock panel.  So far the results look promising for the small lock.  I'll know a little more when I have the lock panels drawn in.
 I wish i could post some pics but I'm on an old machine after my PC crashed last week.

[Ken G]

You can take a small siler and make a pretty good English looking lock out of it with a little effort

[Mark Elliott]

Davidson used Germanic locks and he built rifles following the revolution.    You could use a large Siler as it is or rework the pan, cock and tail a  bit.   With the barrel you have chosen,  I really think you need a lock larger than the small Siler.  Also, could you take enough off the tail and nose of Chambers Early Ketland to work for you? If you look at some of the southern guns in RCA,  the locks look like a shortened Early Ketland.   

Mark E.

[Larry Luck]

The lock that came to my mind was the Davis Twigg lock (here's the TOTW link):
http://www.trackofthewolf.com/Categories/partDetail.aspx?catId=14&subId=148&styleId=821&partNum=LOCK-TWIGG

It looks a lot like the locks on a couple Lauck rifles in Butler & Whisker's Long Rifles of Virginia (pp. 41, 45) for example.   Track places the lock 1760-70, but the Lauck rifles are later.

Good luck,

Larry Luck

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

I have just altered an Early Ketland lock and you can shorten and round the tail quite a bit (3/8")and take almost 1/4 " off the nose as well. 

[bgf]

Just an idea, there's also the L&R John Bailes, about the same size as small Siler, if I understand correctly.  Pretty nice looking English-style lock:
http://www.trackofthewolf.com/Categories/partDetail.aspx?catId=14&subId=148&styleId=576&partNum=LOCK-LR-1700
That's all I know about it, but the date for use here is what you were aiming for, at least according to TOTW. 

[smallpatch]

The Bailles lock is probably the ONLY L&R lock I'd ever use.  Great little lock.  BUT very small.  A great little pistol lock.  I have used them on several.  I think it would be awfully small for your use.  Probably the Durs Egg, or the Twigg would make more sense.

[flehto]

Here's a Davis Twigg lock on a 1-1/16 wide bbl. It's a fairly large lock...Fred

[54ball]

Exact size drawings of lock and stock.  Clickable thumbnail...Click to view full size.
 

 

[54ball]

 These are two rough sketches that I was able to post at my Mother In Laws.

 The first is a rubbing of the stock with a tracing of the Queen Anne pistol lock.  I know its just a sketch but do the proportions look right?

 I'll try the same with other locks.

 The Track catalog had been a good tool for this.  It has a guts side view of the lock showing where you can file.

 Drawing is one thing actually making the wood behave, I fear is a different matter.

[54ball]

That is a great looking rifle Flehto

[northmn]

As you are using a C configured barrel I would suggest that smaller locks like the small siler and the Bailes lock would look a bit out of place as would a pistol lock.  Chambers Ketland lock or the L&R Dur Egg would be best for making a slim rifle.  For a C configured barrel your dimensions are controlled by the thickness of the barrel which is about 1 1/16 at the breech and the ramrod which you would likely drill at 3/8.  Either lock would permit the slimness you would desire and look appropriate.  I am using a Durs Egg on my creation and it is about 9/16 from the gate to the pan center whcih would be quite usable in a Colerain barrel with a .55 Breech depth.  Most rifle were built with the back of the gate even with the back of the breech but some snesk thme forward so that they can drill in a 1/4" vent liner in front of a 3/4 breech.  Precarved stocks can be a limit.

DP

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Well if you trim the tail aon the Queen Anne i looks pretty proportionate to me....... but hey I used to like Nash ramblers....

You might check out the size on a Caywood Wilson Trade Lock.. it is early. It is big....but yhe fence is further forward than a Chambers round face by nearly 3/8".  I have one on a very slim English style fowler......

[G-Man]

I would suspect the Chambers Queen Anne Pistol lock will be too small with your barrel, both visually and not enough space between the pan and top of the mainspring to allow you to place it correctly on the stock. 

Also  - keep in mind on these locks - the plate length is one thing, but they also all differ on spacing from the pan to the sear, which affects your trigger placement and wrist-comb architecture and pull if the gun is already cut for pull length.

The Chambers Early Ketland and the Twigg are  longer in this distance than the Large Siler.  

The large Siler, Dale Johnson, Chambers late Ketland, and Durs Egg are all about the same size in this distance.  

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

One thing to think about regarding the size of your lock panel...almost for certain, there is more wood than you will need.  As you remove wood, you lengthen the panel toward the butt.  It might be small or large, depending upon the thickness of the lock's bolster.  This removal of extra wood will allow for a much larger lock than you might now think.  Considering your barrel dimensions, I agree that a larger lock plate is required, for the sake of being compatible with the barrel and the architecture of the lock area.

[54ball]

I made another template and drawing.  This time I used the large Early Ketland with the tail shortened.  It will work very well.  The area between the top of the lock and the tang is much more pleasing.  I feel there was just too much wood there with the smaller lock.  As I see I can use the larger size locks I'm going to mock up some others.

On the small Queen Anne the top of the lock was even with the center of the side flat.  This left an
awful lot of wood between it and the tang.  I think it would be very humpy.

 On the Early Ketland the top of the lock behind the fence continues with the top of the side flat much better.

 I do not know if I have enough wood for beaver tail finials.  They would have to be very shallow.  Thanks.   

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

The beaver tail finials are cut into the wrist behind the panel...not out of wood left over from the panels.  Then the wrist ground is reduced to leave the beaver tails proud by about 1/32"...lots of wood there for that.

[Gary Tucker]

Another lock I think you should consider is the Ditchburn lock that Stan Hollenbaugh is making.    It is small in size and is a perfect copy of a lock used by J. P. Beck.  I have used several of Stan's locks and just love them.

[Dennis Glazener]

54ball,
I once used a L&R Durs Egg on a Gillespie but it was built from scratch and not one of my patterns. I ground the "teat" off the back of the Durs Egg and was able to take a fair amount of metal off the nose also. I forget but it seems I shorted that lock at least a quarter inch. I wasn't real please with the final shape but it was a great lock, best L&R I have ever used.

The John Balies/Manton lock will easily work but its probably too small for a .54 on  a C profile.

If you have one of TOW catalogs you can trace some of the locks onto a piece of notebook paper then cut it out and see if it will fit the mortise.

Just a side note when I made that pattern it was a perfect copy of my Mathew G flint rifle. Had a customer rushing me to get 2 of the stocks so as soon as I finished it I sent it up to my stocker and had him dup 2 stocks for the guy. He was using late Ketlands and he called me and said he could not get the late Ketland on the lock panel!! I told him to send me both stocks he was right. I checked the pattern against the original (again) and it was the same. I ended up having to get my pattern back and adding another 1/4 inch to the rear of the panels to make it long enough for a late Ketland!! The original lock was shorter than the late Ketland by about 1/4".
Dennis

[J.D.]

I was going to build my present project as an early percussion southern mountain rifle.  After my vacation I'm having second thoughts.
 
   
 
  This 1810 stock is still pretty much a blank canvas.  I feel it has enough meat on it that I could push it back to 1780 with the right mounts and lock. 
 

I don't know how important historical correctness is to you, but, IMHO, it would take more than just mounts and lock to push an 1810ish SM stock back to 1780s.  I suggest that you research some rifles that date to that time period to compare the architecture and thickness of the stock before you begin to acquire new furniture.

I suggest building it as you first envisioned, then research and build a proper 1770s-1780s rifle for your second build, otherwise, once you become interested in a period correct rifle, the you may become disillusioned with a "pushed back" southern rifle that really doesn't fit anywhere in history.

God bless