Author Topic: Twigg Lock at 18th Century Artisans Show....Lewisburg (Read 15434 times)

M.D.H. Flintlocks · « **on:** January 22, 2012, 06:27:37 PM »

I'll b there also Don. Looking forward to a few days behind the table catching up with everyone. Stop by when you have a chance to see the new English lock I'm finishing up. Mirroring it off a Twigg lock.
M

Bob Roller · « **Reply #1 on:** January 22, 2012, 10:27:17 PM »

I hope you are not copying the internals of the current Twigg lock. I have a new one here that is not really useable because the sear is below thwe level of the lock plate at full cock and the mainspring is a horror story. I am finishing a short run of these externally good looking locks but am incorporating a bench crafted mechanism with the bridle on 3 legs and a redesigned much improved mainspring. At $300 apiece,it is for that 1/2% of the lock buying market.

Bob Roller

Jim Kibler · « **Reply #2 on:** January 22, 2012, 10:48:01 PM »

Bob,

Properly designed and built there is nothing wrong with internals appropriate for the period of Twigg Locks. They can work extremely well. As you have mentioned, the current production Twigg lock seems to have problems. I find it odd to even consider using mid 19th century internals on a late 18th century lock. Just my view on things.

Jim

M.D.H. Flintlocks · « **Reply #3 on:** January 22, 2012, 10:57:33 PM »

Can't say that I've liked the current production of Twiggs out there either. So I've been working on one that is modeled after some castings from a twigg. Can't say I'd want to put this much work into another lock again, but it will hopfully be worth it.
M

Bob Roller · « **Reply #4 on:** January 23, 2012, 05:44:40 AM »

Mid 19th century internals? The lock that gave me the idea to do this project was shown in the Double Gun Journal some years ago and was supposedly from the late 18th century and the bridle was on three posts or legs. One thing is sure and that is what I am doing to the Twigg makes it a better lock in both performance and appearence. As I said,it is aimed at a rare market in muzzle loading and that is the one I am interested in. At almost 76,I have no interest in any production jobs be it locks,triggers or parts for classic cars.
Pletch posted a picture of my version of the Twigg and maybe he can do it again.

Bob Roller

Jim Kibler · « **Reply #5 on:** January 23, 2012, 06:58:35 AM »

Hello Bob. Here's the link to the photos Larry posted. They can be found on page three of this thread.
http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=18929.30

I don't think any Twigg locks would have had a three screw bridle excluding the sear pivot point. Also I don't expect any would have had the sear rotate on a pin. The spring with the upper leaf extending to the rear of the bolster also strikes me as much more of a 19th century feature.

Your work looks exceptional. We've heard a lot about these locks, but I don't think it's been brought up about the internals not being patterned after those from original Twigg locks. I believe the designs used are considerably later than those used by Twigg. Perhaps not mid 19th century, but quite a bit later nonetheless.

Personally, this aspect of historical correctness in a lock is very important. Sometimes I get the feel that a bias towards 19th century designs is present. I feel the urge to defend the earlier work. Properly designed and executed, locks using these earlier designs can function wonderfully.

Others may not care if the internals are from a different time period than the rest of the lock. If it functions well, perhaps this is good enough.

Hope you understand where I am coming from.

Jim

Bob Roller · « **Reply #6 on:** January 23, 2012, 01:45:47 PM »

Good morning,Jim
My idea was and is to give the modern day flintlock rifle maker a fairly large,good looking and hopefully,high performance lock and from what I hear,I have succeeded. The Twigg as offered today should be retooled and a higher level of quality control used. This lock is an elegant vehicle that needs an engine. My concern is for the buyer and I don't worry about trying to replicate a mechanism that I see as inferior and won't knowingly offer one.
As I have said in an earlier post on this forum,I can look at someone's work and tell two things.
One is what does he think of himself and most important,what does he think of his customer. I am speaking here of well known "professional makers"of any given item,not of a beginner who lacks experience or expertise.
This "Twigg project" as I call it is coming to a conclusion soon anyway and will soon be forgotten.
On another subject,did Bill Large ever make a Hawken barrel for you? I have an E mail from a man that has one and it is marked "W.M.Large for J.Kibler".
Anyhow,thanks for the input on the Twigg.

Bob Roller

Don Getz · « **Reply #7 on:** January 23, 2012, 04:33:11 PM »

How did we get off track here? Bob, why not come up to the show in Lewisburg and show us those new internals. I
have a gun which is my rendition of an english sporting rifle, complete with a "Twigg" lock, and John Shippers engraving,
take a look at it. I believe Gary Fatheree (The Leatherman) will have his english rifle at the show, complete with John
Schippers engraving. We are less than two weeks away, make your plans now.............Don

Jim Kibler · « **Reply #8 on:** January 23, 2012, 05:00:31 PM »

Don,

Sorry about derailing your topic. Hope you are doing well. I would like to make it to your show sometime, but I've got started going to Mel's so it's sort fo tradition. Perhaps next year. I've heard good things about it.

Bob,

Your internals are beautiful and I suspect you are right that most won't care if they are period to Twigg's work. Don't know about the Bill Large Barrel. I never had bought anything from him. Must be some other J. Kibler. Interesting though.

Jim

Bob Roller · « **Reply #9 on:** January 23, 2012, 06:11:37 PM »

Jim,
So far no complaints. I have a new Twigg here that I may redesign the mechanism in by stripping the current one out and the making a simplifed one to replace it. Just a thought right now but I may make a sorta/kinda prototype and see how it does.

Bob Roller

Dphariss · « **Reply #10 on:** January 23, 2012, 07:48:04 PM »

Quote from: Jim Kibler on January 22, 2012, 10:48:01 PM

Bob,

Properly designed and built there is nothing wrong with internals appropriate for the period of Twigg Locks. They can work extremely well. As you have mentioned, the current production Twigg lock seems to have problems. I find it odd to even consider using mid 19th century internals on a late 18th century lock. Just my view on things.

Jim

Jim
I find it odd that anyone would even worry about better internals in a lock.
Late 18th century English lock internals were often identical to English 1850s locks. Not surprisingly Joe Manton Flintlocks have the same internals as Purdey Percussion guns made decades later they probably bought locks from the same family of lock filers.

I find it interesting that upgrading is frowned upon but downgrading internals and/or screwing up the designs function seems to generate no comment.

Dan

Jim Kibler · « **Reply #11 on:** January 23, 2012, 08:39:20 PM »

First, it goes without saying, everyone is certainly free to use whatever internals they feel fit on a lock. As I mentioned, many couldn't care if they are appropriate to the rest of the lock.

Great British Gunmakers goes into great detail about Twigg and the locks he produced. Many photos of locks and internals are shown. You might want to reference this. Twigg only worked independently until 1788 after which he worked with Bass. He was dead by 1790. Based on surviving examples I don't believe Twigg ever used a bridle with three screws and a pin for the sear. As I said, the mainspring with a long upper leaf is a latter style as well. All of the Twigg locks I've seen were the standard two screw bridle variety. This difference shows on the outside of the plate as well. The internals in question are significantly different and later in style than those used by Twigg in my view. Look at surviving examples of Twigg work and I think you will agree.

I don't quite know what you mean by "upgrading being frouned upon but screwing up the designs function seems to generate no comment".

My personal choice and view is to have lock internals appropriate to the lock being built. I have built locks and go to great pains to accomplish this. I build the absolute best lock I can within the appropriate historical framework. Yes, many production locks are neither designed or constructed well.

I can assure you that a Twigg lock built to original standards will function exceptionally well without any "upgraded" parts. Flintlocks worked well before the 19th century. Reference my post on the 1670's French lock by Thuraine.

As I mentioned previously, this point of internals was brought up since we have heard a great deal about these locks by Bob, but no mention of internal appropriateness has been mentioned. I believe this is a significiant aspect to many when evaluating a lock. If this hadn't been brought up, many would likely not have realized this point.

Jim

Bob Roller · « **Reply #12 on:** January 24, 2012, 01:57:32 AM »

My one and only concern was to offer a lock of quality beyond the current production of the same lock. The R.E.Davis company knew what I was doing and that I was aiming at an upscale market. Period correctness was not a factor and with me never will be. Most people will look only at the outside of any lock and that is all they look at. Last Fall at Friendship I showed a Schuetzen lock I made for Helmut Mohr on an L&R plate with an elaborate mechanism and one man that looked at it couldn't comprehend what I had done and only could see it was an L&R plate and said it WAS an L&R lock. As far as I am concerned,the mechanism IS the lock regardless of the plate,hammer or any thing else. This lock was period correct but not by intention,it just worked out that way.
I will not apologize for my lack of interest in period correctness and so far,not one purchaser has complained and they are the ones that matter to me because they laid out the deposits and as the locks were made,the remainder.
As I said earlier,I have an "as sold" Twigg lock here and may work up a simpler mechanism but I will not worry about it copying any relic I think is inferior.
Bob Roller

JTR · « **Reply #13 on:** January 24, 2012, 02:50:00 AM »

Interesting discussion!
One thing that I've noticed while collecting guns, and gun parts, is that almost none of the old original lock parts are interchangeable. True, most flints were made before the industrial revolution and standardization became the norm, but even late period percussion locks from different makers have very little interchangeably between them.
But whether flint or percussion, bridles have various shapes and screw hole placement, no two tumblers seem to be identical, sears are different lengths, shapes and sizes, as are mainsprings, frizzen springs etc.
Basically, all the different locks are made slightly different, and consequently have a little different geometry that governs their operation. Obviously some work better than others, but all seem to work pretty darn well, despite the design differences.
John

Jim Kibler · « **Reply #14 on:** January 24, 2012, 07:33:59 PM »

If period correctness is not your primary concern, you shouldn't apologize for anything, Bob. This aspect is important to some so i just thought it would be good to mention. Here are a couple scans from "Great British Gunmakers" of Twigg locks. My personal opinion is that this work is fantastic. I don't think performance would be an issue and don't think any "upgrades" would be necessary. For the sake of the discussion, the sliding safety on the second example can be ignored. I believe these are very typical of the work of Twigg.

Bob Roller · « **Reply #15 on:** January 24, 2012, 08:42:20 PM »

Jim,
The Twigg without the sliding safety appears to be what is being reproduced today but somewhere along the way,it got into trouble.
HOW does the bridle stabilize? It appears to have one screw at the top and the sear pivot screw and that's it. Is there a small dowel pin at the top that goes into a blind hole like some militarys locks have or what? I prefer my three screw with sear axle because I am making for the modern shooter of today and want the rigidity it offers. I have wondered over the years about the fine old locks that came from England and Europe and how would they hold up to today's users/abusers,especially competition shooters that practice a lot. I have heard,and maybe you have too that one reason these locks are found today in good to excellent condition is because they were on status symbol guns that were either rarely or never used at all.
Thanks for sending these pictures and you are right about them being of superb workmanship but the decorative filing adds nothing to performance or strength of the mechanism.

Bob Roller

D. Taylor Sapergia · « **Reply #16 on:** January 24, 2012, 08:56:47 PM »

Bob, you've hit upon a serious and important thing regarding today's use of such a lock. I and many others subject our locks to many times more abuse than these locks are likely to have seen during their day. Not so much in the form of abuse, per se, but in plain use. One of the fellows for whom I built a half stocked flint rifle, is on his third frizzen in five years. He shoots every sunday, and often on Monday as well, and fire around 80 - 100 rounds each outing. In a year his rifle fires thousands of rounds, which I think is far more than original locks were subjected to, though I don't know that for certain. There cannot help but be wear and tear on parts, and it is a testament to how great our locks are today, that parts replacement is so rare.
As for the Davis Twigg lock, I love it. I think it only needs a heavier mainspring, not necessarily a redesigned one. I built a 20- gauge fowling piece several years ago, and used the Davis Twigg lock in it. I worked beautifully - sparked like a cutting torch. But this recent acquisition; the one Bob is referring to, has a pathetic mainspring and does not spark at all.

Acer Saccharum · « **Reply #17 on:** January 24, 2012, 09:10:37 PM »

This topic is following the vein of a recent thread on gunstock finishes: what's traditional and what's modern.

It comes down to your personal preferences, and what's important to YOU in your gun. You can't successfully argue personal preferences, tho' many have tried.

You can be a total traditionalist, a complete committed modernist, or somewhere in between. Who is right?

Jim Kibler · « **Reply #18 on:** January 24, 2012, 09:11:55 PM »

Bob,

The bridle is stabilized by a blind pin near the upper screw and there is a leg that extends down from the bottom of the bridle that has a pin going into the plate as well. So there are two pins and two screws. This is the case with any quality English lock of the period and I would bet the house on it that these features are on the Twigg locks. In fact in the first set of photos the bottom leg can barely be seen.

A lock with three screws in the bridle and a pin for the sear may be slightly more rigid, but I can assure you that a properly built lock with two screws and pins will work well even with hard repeated use. Give gunmaking priror to the 19th century some credit and respect

Jim

Jim Kibler · « **Reply #19 on:** January 24, 2012, 09:14:07 PM »

Quote from: Acer Saccharum on January 24, 2012, 09:10:37 PM

This topic is following the vein of a recent thread on gunstock finishes: what's traditional and what's modern.

It comes down to your personal preferences, and what's important to YOU in your gun. You can't successfully argue personal preferences, tho' many have tried.

You can be a total traditionalist, a complete committed modernist, or somewhere in between. Who is right?

If it makes you happy it is right! I just think it's good to identify something for what it is. Afterall tradition is an important aspect of this stuff, at least to some degree. Right?

James Rogers · « **Reply #20 on:** January 25, 2012, 12:06:32 AM »

Quote from: Jim Kibler on January 24, 2012, 09:14:07 PM

Quote from: Acer Saccharum on January 24, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
This topic is following the vein of a recent thread on gunstock finishes: what's traditional and what's modern.

It comes down to your personal preferences, and what's important to YOU in your gun. You can't successfully argue personal preferences, tho' many have tried.

You can be a total traditionalist, a complete committed modernist, or somewhere in between. Who is right?

If it makes you happy it is right! I just think it's good to identify something for what it is. Afterall tradition is an important aspect of this stuff, at least to some degree. Right?

I think it most critical to identify. There is no problem with either facet of the hobby but no need to confuse already blurry lines. When an opportunity to distinguish a period historical procedure, feature or design from a more modern approach presents itself, I want to be in the loop.

In truth, it is this very element, albeit in various levels per individual that separates us from plastic stocks, centerfire, and laser dots.

Acer Saccharum · « **Reply #21 on:** January 25, 2012, 04:43:48 AM »

At your request, I will split this topic, if appropriate, as I see a strong second topic surfacing.

One topic is the Twigg lock details, and the second could be modern methods vs traditional ...

Ian Pratt · « **Reply #22 on:** January 25, 2012, 05:23:18 AM »

Which topic will this post be in?

Swampwalker · « **Reply #23 on:** January 25, 2012, 08:08:42 PM »

Jim, on the subject of the Twigg lock details, is the second 'leg' extending from the bottom of the dependant scroll of the bridle below the tumbler? It is difficult to see.
What great locks!

Jim Kibler · « **Reply #24 on:** January 25, 2012, 08:29:41 PM »

In looking at the photos in the book it is a little more clear. Yes, the lower leg on the bridle is basically just directly below the tumbler shaft, but just a touch to the right. More or less just at the bottom of the bridle.

News:

Author Topic: Twigg Lock at 18th Century Artisans Show....Lewisburg (Read 15434 times)

M.D.H. Flintlocks

M.D.H. Flintlocks