Roller frizzens?

[Tenn Hills Guy]

I was wondering the advantages of incorporating a roller and was looking at web pics.  Didn't realize there were two types (perhaps others?), the roller in the frizzen cam/foot. and the roller built into the spring itself.  That raises the questions of relative eras/periods for each, and the best mehanical advantage of each. 

[flintriflesmith]

Tenn,
I believe you can find some studies of roller frizzens in Larry Pletchers research which is both in print and on the web.

There has been considerable discussion about many of the small "improvements" incorporated by British lock makers toward the end of the flint period and some fairly serious scholars have come to the conclusion that they were more marketing gimmicks than actual improvements.

I do remember reading in the ca. 1810 Virginia state records that they rejected any sort of roller on the frizzen or spring of the contract rifles because they were too likely to fail. If you study old rifles you will see that they were right and the rollers stopped rolling long before the rifle stopped being used.

Gary

[Tenn Hills Guy]

Thanks for the info!  I'll check out the research. Maybe they caught on for a time as a sales pitch.

[smart dog]

Hi Tenn Hills Guy,
I've built several locks from castings that included roller bearing frizzens.  They hold the frizzen down over the pan firmly offering substantial resistance to the flint.  Then when the frizzen is knocked forward 20 or so degrees, it snaps over with authority.  The motion of a roller frizzen feels really nice and positive.  Having said that, I don't believe they offer any real advantage over well tuned frizzens and feather springs without bearings with respect to "detectable" lock time and spark production, and they are more complicated, which risks failure over time.  Roller frizzens began showing up on English guns in the late 1760's.  During early development 2 systems were evident.  The first was a roller bearing on the toe of the frizzen, the second was a camming link attached to both the frizzen and feather spring.  Griffin, Twigg, and Bailes all made guns with roller-bearing locks in the 1760's and 1770's.  One of the earliest English guns with a roller was made by William Bailes in 1762.  In the 1790's or late 1780's, lockmakers began putting the roller disk on the feather spring, which became the dominant style in the 19th century.  I believe, Henry Knox was an early exponent of that design.

dave 

[Jim Kibler]

I'm currently building an English lock with that will incorporate a roller on the frizzen as well as one on the mainspring.  This is being patterned after one produced by John Harman from London.  I have little information on John Harman, but what I have indicates he is not found after 1760.  Stylistically, the lock in question and the gun it is from points to a date prior to 1760 in my judgement, but I'm certainly no expert.  It's silver mounted, but I can find no hall marks.  If anyone with more resources has information on John Harman, I'd love to hear from you.  In regards to the roller frizzen on the lock mentioned, at some point it stopped rolling properly and a flat on the roller along with a deep groove in the frizzen spring developed.  With care, a roller will likely work fine, but flintlocks used in this country often didn't get a great deal of attention.  In addition, export locks produced with roller frizzens or springs were often not of the highest quality from the outset.

[Dphariss]

A roller on the frizzen really needs a ramped spring to work well.

The frizzen rubbing on the spring  causes wear and gauling as well even with modern greases and oils.

By the 1825 the American Fur Company seemed to be specifying roller locks. Though not waterproof.
They seemed to have always specified "best" or "very best" locks for all orders.
Got this from a quick look in "Firearms of the American West 1803-1865".

Dan

[Jim Kibler]

A roller on the frizzen really needs a ramped spring to work well.

The frizzen rubbing on the spring  causes wear and gauling as well even with modern greases and oils.

By the 1825 the American Fur Company seemed to be specifying roller locks. Though not waterproof.
They seemed to have always specified "best" or "very best" locks for all orders.
Got this from a quick look in "Firearms of the American West 1803-1865".

Dan

I don't necesarily agree that a ramp is needed on the spring in conjunction with a roller.  Working properly the roller simply reduces friction if used with a standard spring configuration.  The ramp may help with pressure to keep the frizzen open / closed and allow for quick over center movement, but standard spring / frizzen designs work effectively as well.

Yes, a rollerless frizzen can cause wear and gauling, but if a rollered frizzen stops working properly, the narrow bearing surface of the roller will allow for much more rapid wear.

[northmn]

I had one with the roller in the frizzen spring that wanted to break at the roller point.  I have two that have rollers in the frizzen which I think are better.  None work any better than a Siler and I have a couple of old "Ashmore" locks with a beautifully designed spring that were very positive.  I do not believe rollers are faster, but they may ahve been more positive in opening and some claim easier on flints, kind of a snappier opening.  I put a roller in an old Italian Lott lock because it needed more tension on the frizzen and it worked more in that manner. 

DP

[smart dog]

Hi Jim,
John Harman worked between 1714 - 1744.  Your gun would be a very early example of the "anti-friction" (as they were called) frizzen and feather spring if it was not a later addition.  Sometimes older locks were upgraded with rollers. 

dave

[Jim Kibler]

Thanks for the information Dave.  Not knowing the information you just gave, I would have put the gun at around 1750 if I had to guess.   Interesting that he only worked until 1744.  Can I ask where this information came from?  There is no doubt that the roller on the frizzen and the mainspring were original to these components.  The only possibility for an upgrade is if the frizzen and mainspring were completely replaced with the upgrade.  This seems pretty unlikely.  Stylistically the lock compares well to other mid eighteenth century dated pieces.

Thanks,
Jim

[smart dog]

Hi Jim,
The information came from Neal and Back's "Great British Gunmakers 1540-1740".  Actually, after reading their listing again it is somewhat unclear.  Here is a quote from the book: "He was working in the Strand until after 1744."  I am not quite sure what they mean by "until after".  It could be a mistake that was missed by the editors.  Anyway, Blackmore shows a reference to him in the Gunmakers Guild records for 1760.  What that reference is I have no idea.  However, he may have quit working in 1744 and the guild had admin positions that they often gave to retired members who needed some income.  All of the guns by Harman shown in references that I have (Neal and Back's 3 books on British gunmakers and Burgoyne's book on turn-off pistols) are dated before 1744.   

dave 

[James Rogers]

Harmon apprenticed to Henry Antonison (James Freeman did as well). He was turned over to John Shaw in 1707 and was made free of the company in 1714. His shop was a" at the Cross Guns over against Norfolk St. in the Strand" from 1718-1745. He was gunmaker to Frederick, Prince of Wales from 1729-1736.
Neal and Back's Great British Gunmakers 1540-1740

For a discussion of his life and work see John Harmon, c1693-c1760, London Gunmaker, Howard Blackmore with De Witt Bailey; puplished in the Eighteenth Park Lane London Arms Fair catalogue, pp31-36, Spring 2001.
This loosely from a footnote in Burgoyne's "The Queen Anne Pistol 1660-1780"


I have always thought the piece we are talking about was a 1750 gun as well. I have not seen enough information to show that Harmon stopped producing guns in 1745.  I have always interpreted the sentence in Neal's book to suggest that Harmon continued in the Strand after the 1745 date but maybe the record Neal was using for his information covered the time frame up to that point. Since the book was covering 1540-1740 guns, he may not have felt the need to proceed with further research on Harmon.

Maybe if someone can procure the above mentioned article it will help with some of the questions.
 

[Larry Pletcher]

Gary is refering to an article that Fred Stutzenberger and I worked on together for MuzzleBlasts in 2005.  I dealt with testing and Fred wrote the article. 

In one phase I timed a lock in which Fred made modifications in stages.  Fred first widened the pan to provide a larger space for sparks to land.  We noted a gain in speed.  Next Fred installed a roller.  The speed decreased.  Later modifications made gains that brought the times back to where we started. 

It's hard to draw conclusions when the ending times were the result of multiple changes.  I remember thinking that adding a roller just to do it probably wasn't worth it.   If the roller is added  in conjunction with appropriate changes in geometry, the result may be successful.  My gut says that geometry with and without a roller are 2 different things, but beyond that I'll be speculating.

Regards,
Pletch

[James Rogers]

Hey Jim,
The Harmon gun does not have a roller frizzen does it?
It the Richards that has the roller correct?
I would  think the Richards piece is surely 1750's

Maybe I am going crazy.

[Jim Kibler]

The Harman gun has a roller frizzen and roller mainspring.  The Richards gun has neither.

[James Rogers]

Thanks Jim,
Finally found the pictures of both.

[G-Man]

I will add that the lock on the Harman piece in question has about the smoothest, most "oily"  feel to it when you cycle it, that I have ever noted on a flintlock.

Given Harman's date of completing his apprenticeship, he was likely born around 1690 give or take a few years.  The wire inlay work on that gun is so finely detailed it seems to me to have certainly done by a master working in his prime.   But I guess with some of these well known London shops there could have been a specialist doing some of this rather than Harman himself.    However, given Harman's clientel, he was defintely playing around with innovative features (check out the break-open breech-loading shotguns from 1730 in the Neal book) that were well beyond what was representative of things that would be found on common guns for many years after.  

So I would lean toward a 1740-50 +/- era estimate for that piece.  It is 100 percent Georgian and definitely has lost the "baroque" or continental influence you see on English guns up through around 1730.  Conversely, it seems to pre-date some of the decorative themes that became so popular later in the century after around 1760.  

I think the decoration on this piece  makes a powerful statement of a strong sense of an English national and military identity, reflecting the attiude of power and expansion as England fought and conquered it's foes on British soil and abroad during the period.   The closest things I have seen to it are decorative motifs on tombs and memorials for military officers and political figures in places like Westminster Abbey, some of which go back into the 1600s with similar motifs.

Harman's work was obviously appreciated by the Royal family.  Frederick was the father of George III if I am not mistaken. He did not become king as he died before his father (George II).  Harman also is known to have made guns for Frederick the Great, who I believe was a cousin of George II.

Guy

[Artificer]

Just wanted to say I really enoyed reading this thread.  I always wondered if using a roller or two rollers on a lock did enough to make it worthwhile to do it. 
Gus

[JTR]

Whether they do any good or not I can't say, but they do look kind of cool!
John

[Ryan McNabb]

Whether they do any good or not I can't say, but they do look kind of cool!
John

Speaking of questionable advancements in lock design, one big reason I only use Chambers' Late Ketland lock is that the mainspring doesn't have a stirrup attaching it to the tumbler.  It does have a roller frizzen, but that's less problematic.

[BrentD]

It would be great if there were some pictures of these.

Ryan, why do you dislike a stirrup? 

[keweenaw]

I've had two modern locks in the shop that were modified with a small roller in the toe of the frizzen. The owner shoots the guns a lot, maintains the locks carefully and neither roller was frozen in position but there was a groove in the frizzen spring on both locks where the roller obviously didn't always roll.  Since there has been all this discuission about the Harmon lock, I thought I'd post some photos of it.  I'll agree that for a nearly 300 year old lock, it operates about as smoothly as any I've ever handled. 




Tom

[Jim Kibler]

Thanks for photos Tom.  A few notes about the lock...  There has been a little work done on the cock, so the profile you see is likely not quite what it was originally.  As Tom and Guy mentioned the lock quite slick in how it operates even though it is pretty heavily worn.  The geometry is good on the lock, and nothing is rubbing the plate etc, but I think the roller on the mainspring is largely responsible for the nice feel. 

[Dphariss]

A roller on the frizzen really needs a ramped spring to work well.

The frizzen rubbing on the spring  causes wear and gauling as well even with modern greases and oils.

By the 1825 the American Fur Company seemed to be specifying roller locks. Though not waterproof.
They seemed to have always specified "best" or "very best" locks for all orders.
Got this from a quick look in "Firearms of the American West 1803-1865".

Dan

I don't necesarily agree that a ramp is needed on the spring in conjunction with a roller.  Working properly the roller simply reduces friction if used with a standard spring configuration.  The ramp may help with pressure to keep the frizzen open / closed and allow for quick over center movement, but standard spring / frizzen designs work effectively as well.

Yes, a rollerless frizzen can cause wear and gauling, but if a rollered frizzen stops working properly, the narrow bearing surface of the roller will allow for much more rapid wear.

The ramp is not necessary but it sure helps a lot and will help control frizzen rebound.
The gauling is not a matter of can they all do.
But if the rollers are properly hardened there is no problem. BUT if not they WILL flat spot. So the roller needs to be one of the hardest parts on the lock. Temper it to a spring temper and its too soft. It must be well casehardened if made of mild steel. So if the lock has soft parts they need to be hardened and/or repaired and hardened properly.
Folks need to remember that a lot of locks sold to American gunstockers in the 18th and 19th century were made as cheaply as possible and were apparently marginally hardened if at all. The makers then apparently installed them as they were received.
THEN we have the fact that a significant portion of reproduction locks were designed by people who did not understand anything more that that they can make money selling locks.
Locks cast from originals with the moulds made by people who did not understand the way the lock actually worked means that the relation between the mainspring, link and the tumbler are generally subtly different due to the cast parts being slightly different in dimension. Link or "plain" mainspring no matter it effects both. The subtle changes can make a lot of difference in how the lock functions.
So painting all "frictionless" locks with the same brush shows a lack of understanding I think.
It simply is not possible to make a tumbler/mainspring that RUB against each other as FRICTIONLESS as the link.
The older style will make an excellent lock and in service, sparking etc, may be indistinguishable from a lock with a link tumbler and roller frizzen.
BUT.
They NEVER are as SMOOTH all things being equal. I have BOTH, I have used both for DECADES and there is NO lube, oil, high tech grease etc that will make a rollerless frizzen contact point, for example, move as smooth as one with a roller. One part or the other always wears, usually the spring which must be SOFT enough to wear or it BREAKS.
They actually require MORE lubing and maintenance than the roller locks I own to prevent dragging and excess wear to the spring.

Dan

[Jim Kibler]

I'm pretty much with you here Dan.  One thing though is regardless of heat treatment, if the roller stops rolling, it's goign to do damage to itself or the spring.  Make the roller full hard and it will just wear a groove in the spring.  This is not to say that they can't be set up to work quite well.  Heck I'm building a lock with rollers right now!  As I mentioned before many of the later English export locks were not of the highest quality initially.  Couple this with less than perfect operating conditions / maintanence and troubles can arise.  It's no different today with some products being produced.