Author Topic: John Armstrong lock question  (Read 8353 times)

Offline Shreckmeister

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3757
  • GGGG Grandpa Schrecengost Gunsmith/Miller
John Armstrong lock question
« on: June 15, 2013, 11:03:17 PM »
Admittedly, I am a novice in the area of lock conversion.  There is a John Armstrong rifle in the ALR library that one of the committee members states
"This is certainly one of Armstrong's best rifles and that it has stayed percussion is nothing short of amazing, for it was made as such."  I see a sideplate with
2 screws, a lockplate that looks like the engraving around the nipple does not match the engraving around the rest of the lockplate and what looks like the
remnants of a pan between the nipple and the hammer.  Here is the link to the Armstrong, which by the was is one awesome rifle.  Somebody please help me to understand what I am seeing.

http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=5565.0
« Last Edit: June 15, 2013, 11:10:57 PM by Shreckmeister »
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Offline tallbear

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4017
  • Mitch Yates
Re: John Armstrong lock question
« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2013, 11:23:13 PM »
There is no sign of a frizzen spring on the lock plate even though there is evidence of a pan,so I believe the belief is that Armstrong made the lock and rifle as a percussion not as a flint.The amazing part is that it wasn't converted to flint thus increasing it's value in present times.

Mitch Yates
« Last Edit: June 15, 2013, 11:29:04 PM by aka tallbear »

Offline Buck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 899
  • A.F.A.M. # 934, Trinity Commandry #80
Re: John Armstrong lock question
« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2013, 12:59:35 AM »
Rob,
I have discussed this rifle with the owner and he stated it is original. Whenever I have questions regarding lock originality or long rifles in general, I always consult with this Gentleman. Mitch I have heard that Armstrong made only a handful of "original percussions" making these some of the most valuable. I remember the number 4 being thrown around, I would think that inaccurate since he died in 1842. I am not much of an expert nor much of a follower of his work since I can't afford it!
Buck
« Last Edit: June 16, 2013, 01:11:25 AM by Buck »

Offline PPatch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2456
Re: John Armstrong lock question
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2013, 04:59:53 AM »
He could easily have started with a flint lock plate he had in his parts bin.  I would assume that these guys would have used what inventory they had on hand.

My thought too, he used what he had on hand.

dave
Dave Parks   /   Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Offline Shreckmeister

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3757
  • GGGG Grandpa Schrecengost Gunsmith/Miller
Re: John Armstrong lock question
« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2013, 04:04:10 PM »
Thanks to all. The missing frizzen spring hole is the key. That is one fantastic rifle. I wonder if there is a connection between the maker and Col John Armstrong who lead the battle of kittanning in 1756
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Offline Gaeckle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
Re: John Armstrong lock question
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2013, 06:08:48 PM »
He could easily have started with a flint lock plate he had in his parts bin.  I would assume that these guys would have used what inventory they had on hand.

I also think this is true...........

Offline tallbear

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4017
  • Mitch Yates
Re: John Armstrong lock question
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2013, 07:13:00 PM »
Quote
He could easily have started with a flint lock plate he had in his parts bin.
While this is certainly a possibility we shouldn't over look the idea that  Armstrong made this lock during a time of transition of styles between flint and percussion. It is thought he died shortly after 1842 so he worked at the infancy of the percussion era when there was no set styles for percussion locks..It is possible he built this lock using the style he was familiar with(flint) and adapted it the new percussion technology.

No matter what it is a wonderful rifle.It's got everything one could want in a "golden age" gun. :) :)

Mitch Yates
« Last Edit: June 16, 2013, 07:17:31 PM by aka tallbear »

Offline jdm

  • member 2
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1389
Re: John Armstrong lock question
« Reply #7 on: June 16, 2013, 07:38:12 PM »
He made his own locks. It could be he made some in advance and was using up stock. Depending on what the custmor wanted ( flint or percussion) he had it.
JIM

Offline JTR

  • member 2
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4229
Re: John Armstrong lock question
« Reply #8 on: June 16, 2013, 07:50:39 PM »
If I'm not mistaken, that hammer style was used on other Armstrong percussion rifles as well.  

John
John Robbins

Offline Shreckmeister

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3757
  • GGGG Grandpa Schrecengost Gunsmith/Miller
Re: John Armstrong lock question
« Reply #9 on: June 16, 2013, 08:57:43 PM »
Regarding the transition period. Is someone credited with the development of percussion caps and locks? Were they first developed for the military?  What's the earliest known maker to use them on civilian rifles?  Wiki says joshua shaw invented them in 1814. I would think they would have sold like hotcakes.  Princeton says it was alexander forsyth patenting them in scotland in 1807. I tend to believe princeton over wiki
« Last Edit: June 16, 2013, 09:06:41 PM by Shreckmeister »
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Offline jdm

  • member 2
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1389
Re: John Armstrong lock question
« Reply #10 on: June 16, 2013, 09:37:30 PM »
 I remember reading some where Henry Derringer was making some perrcusion guns in 1922-23.
JIM

Offline Buck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 899
  • A.F.A.M. # 934, Trinity Commandry #80
Re: John Armstrong lock question
« Reply #11 on: June 16, 2013, 09:51:08 PM »
Browsing through "Maryland Longrifles" there are 3 Armstrong rifles pictured in percussion mode. 1 of the hammers is identical to the piece in the library and the other 2 are slightly different but appearing to be the primitive or early design of the end result. On page 250, the last of the percussion rifles, the butt plate has been removed and the stock is signed John Armstrong  ------------- 1836. Possibly this is where the quantity of 4 came from. All of the lock plates look as thought they were flint period plates fashioned for percussion era ignition. That being the case, he must have had a tremendous amount of product laying around to last him 10+ years into the percussion era, and he must have been producing a large body of work during the flint era. To have that much prefabbed product lying around is bad business, money lost.   
« Last Edit: June 16, 2013, 09:54:56 PM by Buck »

Offline jdm

  • member 2
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1389
Re: John Armstrong lock question
« Reply #12 on: June 16, 2013, 10:22:25 PM »
Buck,  I'm the one who found the Armstrong on page 248 of that book. Percussion gun on a flint plate. Armstrong hammer. That is the way it was made. It was pictured later in one of Jim Johnsons books as one of the few Flint Armstrongs. Odd how that happens.
JIM

Offline Buck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 899
  • A.F.A.M. # 934, Trinity Commandry #80
Re: John Armstrong lock question
« Reply #13 on: June 16, 2013, 10:51:53 PM »
Thinking more on the subject of a large amount of "over stock" lying around I looked up the recession and depression list for the United States and is as follows:
#1 Copper Panic of 1789, 1789 - 1793 duration 4 years.
#2 Panic of 1797, 1796 - 1799 duration 3 years.
#3 Recession 1802 - 1804.
#4 Depression of 1807 - 1810
#5 Recession of 1812
#6Depression of 1815, 1815 - 1821, duration 6 years.
#7 Recession of 1822, 1822 - 1823, duration 1 year.
#8 Recession of 1825, 1825 - 1826, duration 1 year.
#9 Recession of 1828, 1828 - 1829, duration 1 year.
#10 Recession of 1833, 1833 - 1834, duration 1 year.
#11 Recession of 1836, 1836 - 1838, duration 2 years.
#12 Depression of 1839, Late 1839 - Late 1843. This is considered a recession but business in the US was operating at a staggering -34.3%.
In a 54 year period the country was in a depression or recession 53% of the time. Maybe he projected the flint ignition to remain forever, this would lead me to believe he was more of an artisan than a business man or innovator in his field, or maybe gunsmithing was not his only source of income. Here is 1 other thought, do you think what appears to be a fixture for the pan could possibly be an early attempt at a flash guard? That would make more sense than a large quantity of Flint lock plates, collecting dust. I would think people from that era would purchase stock for the next fiscal year in retrospect of the previous years business volume.
Buck
Buck    
  
« Last Edit: June 16, 2013, 11:05:56 PM by Buck »

Offline Buck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 899
  • A.F.A.M. # 934, Trinity Commandry #80
Re: John Armstrong lock question
« Reply #14 on: June 16, 2013, 10:53:50 PM »
Jim,
Is that the one that was hanging on your neighbors wall across the street?
Buck

Offline jdm

  • member 2
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1389
Re: John Armstrong lock question
« Reply #15 on: June 17, 2013, 04:53:01 AM »
Quote from: Buck

Is that the one that was hanging on your neighbors wall across the street?
Buck
[/quote

Yes, Thats the one!
JIM

Offline Shreckmeister

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3757
  • GGGG Grandpa Schrecengost Gunsmith/Miller
Re: John Armstrong lock question
« Reply #16 on: June 17, 2013, 02:32:17 PM »
This sounds like an interesting story and one I hope to hear.
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Offline jdm

  • member 2
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1389
Re: John Armstrong lock question
« Reply #17 on: June 19, 2013, 01:29:34 AM »
Rob. I will tell you about it sometime . I had bought old guns before but that was my first Kentucky rifle. Somewhere around twentyfive years ago.  Jerry Noble says I'm the only guy he knows who started at the top and worked down.
JIM

Offline Shreckmeister

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3757
  • GGGG Grandpa Schrecengost Gunsmith/Miller
Re: John Armstrong lock question
« Reply #18 on: June 19, 2013, 04:33:30 AM »
Looking forward to it, but i hate to see a grown man cry and i have a feeling it has a sad ending. 
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.