Lock panels

[Acer Saccharum]

Love the lock moulding around this French fowler posted by Dave B.

http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=21674.msg206343#msg206343

It brings up a question about lock surrounds. In contemporary work, we often see a nice flat area all around the lock, tapering out nicely toward the rear of the lock, and rounded at the front end of the lock. Being builders, we often look to others work to see how they did it. Not having a lot of access to original work, we will look to other contemporary work. So like begets like, and now we have created a 'this is how it's done' trend.

I hesitate to use the words 'Lock Panels', because it implies a flat area all around the lock. This is seldom the case in European work, where the surround is very thin, most often rounded, very organic. Our modern work tends to look crisp and mechanical compared with the rounded forms of European work.

Our American guns were descended from this European heritage. I'd like to see more photos and discussion of European lock surrounds, and how this compares with American work of the the same or later time period.

Tom

Below, I'm trying to emulate what the surround might have looked like on an early PA rifle, a rifle with heavy Euro influence.

[smart dog]

Hi Tom,
Great post and thanks for introducing a topic that I have wondered about myself.  I think we simply have to be careful about generalizing any features as "the way it was done".  I've seen original guns from the 17th-19th centuries that demonstrate a spread of different treatments with respect to lock panels.  Some were as crisp as our modern ideals, others were so rounded and thin they virtually disappeared.  My impresssion is that during the late 18th and early 19th centuries, lock panels generally became a bit wider and the edges crisp.  Earlier, they tended to be thinner and often (but not always by a long shot) more rounded.  Of course there were also regional traditions at work as well that complicate any generalizing conclusions. American long rifles fit into a time period that encompasses most of those styles and evolved from a multitude of regional traditions so I don't think it matters which style a maker chooses unless making a bench copy.  I would love to hear Jim Kibler's views on this.

dave

[Stophel]

This German gun done in Spanish style has a VERY narrow flat around the lock.  The edge of the flat is sharper on the bottom edge, but it is smoothed over towards the rear and above the nose of the lock.  The sideplate side is perhaps "sharper", but there's no lock there.  It is smoothed off at the front and rear similar to the lock side.  

[Tom Currie]

Good topic from a builder standpoint. Lock panels are a detail that you often can tell an experienced builder from a less studied or experienced builder.  Delicate lock panels done right show a builders attention to detail for me.

As an example ,my recently posted Lehigh lock panel has the extended flat pointed area which I wish I had done better. I would have had the panel hug the tail of the lock closer , mimicking the shape of the tail.  It would have looked finer. Jacob Kunz' work is a good example of fine lock panels for Lehigh's. Over time I have developed a better eye for what looks right , the next step for me as a builder is to take that to execution.

[Jim Kibler]

I agree with Dave and couldn't have said it any better.  Thin rounded lock panels was standard treatment in 17th century baroque work.  This fits in with the rounded bulbous forms characteristic of this style.  This tradition carried through well into the 18th century in some cases.  As Dave mentioned, examples of both treatments can be found though.

A John Harmon English fowling piece from the 1750's which I studied extensively, still had this characteristic.  Harmon learned gunmaking in the second decade of the 18th century I believe and this earlier tradition carried through.  Here's a shot of a similar gun I built.



The gun Chris showed is another good example of this. I'd guess the gun was made maybe 1710-1720.  What do you think about this Chris?  It has a nice lock of typical 17th century form, including the bottom line with the extra curve below the pan.  The tabs on the rear of the lock panel moldings are beginning to extend and develop a bit which puts it into the 18th century, as does the raised grip rail guard.  My thoughts at least.  

This subject is a great example of how understanding European work can be a benefit even if your interest is focused on American work.  

[Jim Kibler]

Another small, but noticable detail is whether the shaping produces a point or is slightly rounded at the tail of the lock panels.  On less experienced work, you often see it come to a point, but it is more common  for this to be formed into a slight radius on period work.  There are originals where it comes to a sharp point (some Isac Haines comes to mind), but it isn't all that common.

[Acer Saccharum]

I have seen originals where the lock is barely sitting down in the wood, as in a roundfaced lock, and the surround tapers rapidly away from the lock. Most of these lock show sloppiness in the inlet to broken out surround. Much of this comes from the gun being fired with loose lock bolts, and very little edge support from the inlet. The edges of the lock are often wafer thin, which eventually leads to the lock cutting into the wood, and eventually through the wood. Good quality hardwood, with dense structure will help longevity of the piece.

For a gun that going to used a lot, use a lock with a good amount of edge contact in the inlet. Perhaps leave a little more wood on the surround.

[Jim Kibler]

Inletting the bridle to a good fit helps as well.

[Acer Saccharum]

Jim, good point. The exacting inlet of the English work may very well be more functional than one might first assume.

[Stophel]

The lock on my gun looks like something from the 1690's, but I'm going to say that the gun is probably from around 1720.  The lock has "SVLA' stamped inside, which apparently is a mark for the city of Suhl.

I have another German (?) gun from about 1760 in rather rougher shape, and it looks like the panels were made a LITTLE more "crisp"... maybe, it's pretty worn, so it's hard to really say.  Looking at old guns can be tricky because of wear.  I believe, though, that it was made basically like this, with the sharp edges of the flat lock panels knocked off ever so slightly.




And no, that mess around the pan area is not my fault!    I bought it with someone's "reconversion" already done with a Siler pan on it.  I put this one on, and eventually I'll get around to finishing it up and at least making it look more presentable...

[Lucky R A]

   From my study of Bucks Co. originals I see most of the lock panels very tight to the lock and rounded.  I have always assumed that some of this rounding of the outer edges of the lock panels was the result of 200years of wear and a re-finishing or two.  None the less the lock surround started out quite close to the lock and the very rounded tail certainly is evidenced in the work of this school.
    Tom, a question;   You used the term "organic" to describe early work.  I have seen this term applied to gun building before, but even after looking up the word I do not see how it is applied to gunbuilding.  Could you amplify on this terminology as it applies to gun work?  

[Stophel]

This Schinzel rifle, in much better shape than anything I have, shows a much more distinct flat around the lock panel, even having a little "teat" extending back into the teardrop, echoing the lockplate.  Even so, the edges are not razor sharp, and I think that the edges were purposely knocked off just lightly.

[Stophel]

   Tom, a question;   You used the term "organic" to describe early work.  I have seen this term applied to gun building before, but even after looking up the word I do not see how it is applied to gunbuilding.  Could you amplify on this terminology as it applies to gun work?  

I'm not Tom, but I'd say "organic" refers to being bulbous, rounded, flowing, growing, plantlike.  More natural looking, not ultra flat, super square, or machine-made in appearance.

[James Rogers]

A couple with flats then going to rounded. First is Italian and second one is German.

[bgf]

Cool thread.  Some originals are "crisper" than others, but I've never seen any that are as precise to the extreme as you see on many contemporaries.  I always assumed that's what gets the most points at Dixon's or whatever criterion people use to decide how to do these things.

I came to the same basic conclusion as SmartDog one time when I surveyed as many American rifles as I could after seeing a contemporary copy that had flawlessly crisp, sharply delineated panels; it looked nothing like the (southern ) original which was quite fetching despite being almost amorphous in that area!  I feared, however, that many believed it had improved on the original (a couple may have said as much), a concept which I find difficult to comprehend, so I set out to see if there were any "right" way.  I found a lot of variety even in the same schools/period.

[James Rogers]

Here are a few I had quick access to. Not too many early ones in these but I will try to get more up later. I am of the same opinion as Dave has so eloquently stated prior so I will forego my sintillatin sillabuls of segasitashun.

mid 18th century English, James Freeman


Also James Freeman mid 18th English


Thomas Richards mid 18th English


Turvey mid 18th English


In the late 18th century English, many are making the rear area pinched in like this


Benjamin Griffin


Gerard .c1760 French


Steinweg, c1690

[MarkEngraver]

Very interesting thread !
Thank you and keep the pictures coming, it sure helps.

Mark

[smart dog]

Hi,
This is turning into a great thread!!  Thank you James, Jim, Chris, Tom, and Acer for posting those wonderful photos.  James and Chris, those examples are particularly great and thank you.  Ron, Chris provided an excellent definition of organic as applied to muzzleloading guns.  Please forgive me for elaborating a little on that because it is actually central to why I build muzzleloading guns and not modern ones, and the lock panel area is a critical feature demonstrating the term "organic".  In my opinion, certain things stand out as examples of the nearest humans can come to creating perfection.  Three of those examples are sailboat hulls, suspension bridges, and muzzleloading guns, particularly English fowling guns and American longrifles.  Each of those objects is high on my list because they are "organic" in that they appear to be living things.  They flow naturally without articifice or contrived design.  A muzzleloading gun flows naturally from barrel to stock as if it is a single organism.  Modern guns are often a lump of industrial steel sitting on top or wedged between wood.  No matter how you embellish them, they still don't look like a living, breathing thing.  But a long rifle stock flows from the barrel like a tree limb.  It is an almost perfect melding of natural form with function and it deserves decoration that compliments that living, breathing vitality.  Hence, lock moldings that look like a growing leaf or vine surrounding the lock.  Scroll work and leaf carving that grows naturally and seemlessly from the wood.  That is what I mean as organic.  It all works together as if it was it was a living thing.

dave     

[Jim Kibler]

There is no doubt that wear can cause the edges to become somewhat rounded.  With this the case, it's hard to tell whether a gun had slightly rounded panel edges when built or it is just due to abrasion.  With that said, there's no doubt some guns were built with the panels purposely rounded off.

Thanks for all the great examples James.  One question....  The Steinweg being put at 1690 seems a little early to me.  Any idea where this date came from?  The raised grip rail guard and extended tab to the rear of the lock panels are the features that make me think it's later. 

Thanks,
Jim

[James Rogers]

I think that's the way the gun was tagged. I will try to find where I got it. Maybe an earliest possible date for the maker was given. What do you think, maybe subtract about 25 years?

[Acer Saccharum]

   Tom, a question;   You used the term "organic" to describe early work.  I have seen this term applied to gun building before, but even after looking up the word I do not see how it is applied to gunbuilding.  Could you amplify on this terminology as it applies to gun work?  

Stophel is on the money, especially about not being Tom.

'Organic' is appearance, yes, but it is also feel. How the gun feels in the hand. Consider a bird or a fish. Every shape and contour is for a natural reason. So, too, is a gun.

One area blends into another naturally, flows with seamless purpose and intent. This is why the hardware choice is so critical on a gun, for the hardware actually determines the shape of the stock. The barrel determines the bulk of the gun, the lock dictates the panels ant the depth and breadth of the breech area, how much bend at the wrist. The buttplate determines the bulk of the buttstock. The area between the lock and the buttplate is up for some interpretation, with some constraints posed by your choice of guard: will this be a step toe, fish belly, or straight stocked gun?

I'm rambling again.

But when I say organic, it's the soft, rounded and flowing aspects of the creatures of the earth embodied into the firearm's form. Everything has a purpose on the gun, and it must be in proper relation to its neighboring part and piece and form. All the elements must work together to form the object we know as a gun.

My goal is to make that perfect, flowing object, that has a radiant presence, an object with a life of its own. This might be easy for some builders, but for me, I challenge myself at every one of the thousands of little choices that present themselves before and during a rifle build. I try to tune in to the deep well of the subconscious, the cultural, regional and historical aspects.

Will I ever make that perfect gun? I don't know, or really care. It's the chase that is so fascinating.

I think I just talked myself to death, or I need more coffee.

Tom

[Acer Saccharum]

I guess I just killed the thread. 

Anyway, the above is all part of my theories about building these guns. If I didn't have this kind of attraction, I'd be bored, making just a nice looking thing that shoots. It's far more than a job for me, it's personal expression mixed with the traditions of the centuries, I guess it's an attempt to make connections with others of like mind, from this age and the ages past.

Got guys from the past looking over your shoulder, telling you how to do stuff?

No.

All I have is original work, you guys, and my own imagination.

[Vomitus]

  Acer,that's real Deep,man!

[rich pierce]

I think this is a great discussion.  There are major differences between early work (18th century) and later percussion era stuff.  For example, we expect a Hawken lock panel to be flat and to have some width outside the lock.  On longrifles we like to see the top of the sideplate side lock panel line up with the top of the side flat on the barrel more or less.  But many percussion era guns have a lot less taper from the tang down to the lock panels.  Well, many builders who started off during the late 70's and 80's built our share of percussion guns then got bit by the early bug.  And unconsciously it's easy to carry over some of what we learned was "right" on later guns when we vbuild earlier guns.  It's harder to unlearn than learn sometimes.

[Acer Saccharum]

"Needs to study original work"

A lot of unexplained meaning behind that Dixon's Fair judge's comment.