Why so few back action locks ?

[Skychief]

I wonder why more builders don't use back action locks on their rifles.   In reading Ned Roberts'  book, they seemed to be all the rage in the latter part of the percussion era. 

Any thoughts regarding the lack of builds using back actions?

Skychief.

[bob in the woods]

'Cause most builders aren't into the later part of the percussion era.

[stuart cee dub]

There is really only one commercially offered lock,one by L and R. So the choices are somewhat limited.
On this forum anyway flint seems to be the predominant ignition system preferred by the members but the title kinda gives it away.
In Ned Roberts day there were a lot of heavy bench shooters,those big guns were often just a barrel with a buttstock fastened on the rear .Perfect use for a back action lock.But this is not a heavy bench forum either .Besides they can also use in lines,under hammers of even flint in competition.I see a lot of flinters by those specialist shooters.
While I do build percussion guns I personally do not like back action locks.I tried one once.While it worked just fine it bothered me having to take wood out of the wrist,which ended up on the fat side anyway.An unsupported percussion drum is another issue.The hammer blows effect it after a while. So my issues with it were in part mechanical in nature.Anyway that is my theory anyway Skychief.
Regards Stuart

[rich pierce]

I'd guess that among the longrifle crowd here, less than 10% of the rifles we build are percussion, and of those, most are fur trade or Santa Fe trade era rifles.  The lines of guns with back action locks are not especially appealing to many of us.  The lock panels sort of don't exist.  There's not much romance to the late percussion period for many of us. On the other hand I guess swivel breech flintlocks are technically back action locks.

[Captchee]

 there were some earlier back action guns and not all were heavy  target guns
 but   i think alot of times folks either just dont know of them .
 i cant remember right now where i read it , maybe it was in Ned Roberts book . but i have read  then referred to as French action .
Also there is no need for a drum bolster , an improved breech works just fine . also why use a modern  lock when there are so many originals around at very cheep prices ?

 here are a couple earlier   pieces . earlier being 1840-1860
 Notice the  breech application on a couple of these

AW. Spies



Jacob Linn
50 caliber plains rifle with JACOB LINN  SAN ANTONIO TEXAS stamped on the top flat of the barrel.  The bottom flat of the barrel is stamped THURSDAY NOVEMBER 6 1851. This is the only rifle presently known made by Jacob Linn


Krauskopf
56 caliber plains rifle with E. KRAUSKOPF stamped on the top flat of the octagon barrel.  Krauskopf was located in Fredericksburg, TX, 1846 - 1881.  Krauskopf made many of the parts for his rifles including rifling the barrels,


here is a link with more of the above information  and a few other  back actions
http://www.texasguntrade.com/texassportingrifles.htm

 i would also agree with the comment of a thin wrist . however  i have seen many a later SXS with back action locks that did not have broken or cracked wrists , even with 2 locks inlet into  it

[Captchee]

sorry , here is the link for the above URL home page
http://www.texasguntrade.com

[pathfinder]

Once I get the 5 orders done,a 3/4"X46" .32 back action 3/4 stock is my "Dream" gun!

[caliber45]

I echo Stuart's sentiments on back-action locks. I built a rifle with one, and cringed at the amount of wood that had to be removed from the wrist -- the weakest part of a rifle. It worked fine, but I worried about the wrist breaking. -- paulallen, tucson az.

[Dphariss]

I wonder why more builders don't use back action locks on their rifles.   In reading Ned Roberts'  book, they seemed to be all the rage in the latter part of the percussion era. 

Any thoughts regarding the lack of builds using back actions?

Skychief.

 
 I don't care for the look. It does allow for a thinner  stock though if that is important.
The plate is flat. They were used a lot on lower quality shotguns so I suspect that Birmingham and Belgium were cranking out a lot of them so the price was likely lower.
And "The ML Caplock Rifle" is not the only place to look. Almost all the conventional rifles pictured in "The American Percussion Schuetzen Rifle" are side locks.
Rifles of the type on the cover have back action locks by design. No place for a side lock.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=360363138862&hlp=false
This price is a steal for the number of color photos of rifles and the information included about what was, prior to WW-I, the most popular and prestigious shooting sport in America.

Dan

[stuart cee dub]

     I love that comment Captchee,that the back action was called the ''French ''action .
(The French get blamed too much   for too many of the wrong things .)
    They did use a back action on their military minie rifles which might have something to do with it .
The Northern ordinace dept concidered the few French minie rifles that did come in as first class arms in the ACW (per Edwards ).
    I have also seen back action locks on the fluted butt French duellers which is closer to the period of the golden age of longriles .There is a plus side  of a backaction lock in use: because they are isolated from the breech and nipple they really do stay cleaner after shooting ,not getting hit with overspray.With non corrosive caps this is less of an issue than it would have been during the historical period were everything was corrosive.
   But I still will not use one again .