Pan Covers (protrusions)

[WadePatton]

Specifically those with the ledge that protrudes down into the pan.

I'm debating grinding the protrusion off.

But I won't if there is some performance/reliability advantage of having it there.  Is there one?  Does anybody think "man I wish my cover had a ledge on it" for any reason at all?

thanks

[J. Talbert]

To my knowledge there's nothing authentic about them.  They stick out like a sore thumb to me.
I have ground them off and will again if I ever use another one of their locks.

Jeff

[Bill Paton]

A full pan is discouraged as it is supposed to slow ignition of the main charge. With a partial filling of the pan (keeping the powder below the touch hole for fast ignition from the flash), especially when hunting, the powder can slide to one side or the other of the pan (either covering up the touch hole, or placing the entire prime a centimeter away from the vent), and giving a smaller surface area for the shower of sparks to ignite. The "protrusion" fills the empty top of the pan with steel so the small amount of powder in the bottom of the pan can't all go to one side or the other of the pan, thereby insuring a larger surface area of powder is exposed to the sparks. I would think that a vent placed just above the top of the pan and blocked by the side of a flat bottomed frizzen with no "protrusion" and no "relief" filed on the underside for the vent, the "protrusion" might be superfluous if the pan is kept shallow. I don't recall an original with such a "protrusion", but it wouldn't surprise me if somebody shows us one. I don't like their looks and am not advocating their use, especially on American long rifles.

[jamesthomas]

 I don't mind mine at all, IMHO it helps with waterproofing (water resisting?) the pan by making a seal, sometimes you do have to do a bit of filling to make it fit good an tight, But I've had to do the same thing with a large Siler lock I have.

[WadePatton]

I get that Bill.  I fill the pan lightly for targets, but that's why i fill my pan for hunting.  less shiftiness, and my flash hole is high enough to not be covered/affected.

Of course it's much easier to file good mating contact with that lump of uvula-like metal out of the way.

I doubt this one will see another day.

But feel free to continue the discussion, I have yet another lock with uvulistic cover.  (it's for 4th gun).

[Pete G.]

I do not like them one bit. Not only are they not authentic, but they make it almost impossible to fit the pan to the frizzen properly. I even had one that would keep the cover from sitting flush with the pan. This is one of the reasons I try to avoid those styles of lock.

Just a note: The famously reliable Siler locks have a relief for the vent formed into the bottom of the pan cover; exactly the opposite configuration. Given all of the development work on this lock you would think that others would learn from it.

[WadePatton]

I have no interest in non-English style locks.

I'll remove the uvula, no prob.  I bought these locks before I "met" Mr. Roller.  I will press them into service and learn as I go.  I do believe I have the worst of the lot mounted and shooting.  Two of the next three have the uvula.  The third is a Bob Roller.  I do expect to get a few more from Bob for certainly sure.

Yes i'm nuts about the pan/cover fitment and could only see this thing being a hindrance, and also not of original design.  I wonder what the actual thinking process was in the creation of such casting. 

enough talk, i've metal to shape.

[scurries off to shop]

[Acer Saccharum]

I have thought of, but not tested, a lump soldered on the bottom of the pan that covers the touchhole when the frizzen is closed. When the friz flips open, the vent is uncovered, no matter how much powder is in the pan, and no matter how much the gun has been toted around.

[B.Habermehl]

I have had one of the l/R Manton or Bailes locks on a squirrel rifle with a 3/4in breech for about 10 or more years. It is as reliable a lock as any lock I have used. Period. Although I normally use chambers locks most of the time this is one I would not hesitate to use again. It all depends on what each project demands. On a 3/4 in breech gun this is a highly viable choice. The tight slim dimensions of a properly built gun using a 3/4 in breech demand a compact lock for me the L/R suits admirably. BJH

[WadePatton]

I have had one of the l/R Manton or Bailes locks on a squirrel rifle with a 3/4in breech for about 10 or more years. It is as reliable a lock as any lock I have used. Period...

That's great that you like the lock.  Both the L&R's I have appear to be a bit better than the "other" lock I built my first rifle with.  I have read all the chatter and have but have no reason to complain about the locks I have in hand.  The mainsprings look better, the castings are no better or worse, the holes are square enough.  Just have to grind off that uvula*. I did this one without annealing.  I'll anneal the next one.

Did you leave the pan cover as delivered?  That's what this thread is about.  The uvula-equipped
covers.

*where we define UVULA as an apparently unnecessary thing hanging down from something.  Usually found in human throat (soft palette), but also a pendant metallic mass, found on some variations of reproduction cast steel pan covers.

Is an A-weight 3/4 of an inch?  I know nothing of these straight bbls. 

[PPatch]

3/4" would fall in "A" weight range Wade. "B" weights start at one inch - on swamped barrels. Straights?

dp

[WadePatton]

3/4" would fall in "A" weight range Wade. "B" weights start at one inch - on swamped barrels. Straights?

dp

I've got a .950/700/762" x 46"
and a couple of .950/668/715" x 44's to build.

as well as a 1.00/718/765" x 44  but i've not measured them, stole them numbers from published specs-which i'm not sure how the draw filing is accounted for there.  Plenty of that to be done.   

AS TO the OP (original post/original poster) I did compose a note to L&R inquiring of their metals and of the uvula.  I'll report here this thread when I hear back.

[WadePatton]

I have thought of, but not tested, a lump soldered on the bottom of the pan that covers the touchhole when the frizzen is closed. When the friz flips open, the vent is uncovered, no matter how much powder is in the pan, and no matter how much the gun has been toted around.

Sounds properly conceived, when you going to do it? I would do it after I have the mating surfaces squared up.

[Bob Roller]

At the CLA SHOW yesterday,I delivered a Chambers late Ketland to a Canadian friend that had no protrusions or projections on the pan cover and it fit together like it grew that way.I have often wondered if these projections were a way to cover a botched fit of frizzen to pan.
  Bob Roller

[Bob Roller]

Bill Cox at L&R told me that they were using 52-100,bearing steel for the frizzens on all their locks and Bill told me that he wished he had done it sooner right after I told him about it.It is an improvement and they are also using forged mainsprings.

Bob Roller

[WadePatton]

Bill Cox at L&R told me that they were using 52-100,bearing steel for the frizzens on all their locks and Bill told me that he wished he had done it sooner right after I told him about it.It is an improvement and they are also using forged mainsprings.

Bob Roller

Thanks Bob.  oh and hey:

Been reading up and oh my that 52100 has a bit more complicated recipe for heat treatment than many steels, for blades anyway.  What do our frizzen needs require?  

[Bob Roller]

The thing I like about 52-100 is that it must have high impact resistance.Think of a wheel bearing and race and what happens there when a pot hole is hit.Quite a jolt.It has enough carbon to work as an external ignition system for our needs and I imagine L&R has that boosted a bit.I have used frizzens from 52-100 for over 30 years and used the common bonehead method of heating with a "B"cylinder torch.Kasenit and quench in warm oil.Most of these locks,about 120 or so went to Germany and are still in use as competition pistol locks.
The hit of a sharp flint driven by a good mainspring can't be as violent as a wheel bearing with a heavy vehicle trying to destroy it so I'll leave it there for now.

Bob Roller

[David Rase]

I have often wondered if these projections were a way to cover a botched fit of frizzen to pan.
  Bob Roller

I agree,
David

[B.Habermehl]

My lock was used as delivered, with the extra steel on the bottom of the frizzen. Some late period locks had touch hole covers or wipers. The v pan late English locks had frizzen a with v shaped bottoms that definitely covered the touch holes. Just a conversation maker, not a attempt to argue. BJH
PS my touch hole is mostly covered by the lower extension of the frizzen.

[Jim Kibler]

The protrusions on the bottom of frizzens that roughly fit inside the pan cavity are not historically correct.  Just a way to block light and make it seem the frizzen fit is good.  A bad idea in my view.  I would cut them off.  As to powder banked against the touch hole, I believe Larry Pletcher's experiments showed this was no problem at all.  I think this condition was found to be slightly faster than having powder cleared from in front of the hole.  Perhaps he will comment.

[WadePatton]

Well, here's what I got back from L&R today.  No mention of 52100, so I inquired further.  I also included a link to this discussion.

Here's the reply to my inquire wrt metals and uvulas from L&R's Tim Thompson:

We appreciate you using our products. As for the steel we use there are several different ones. The plates, hammers, top jaws and bridles are 8620. Tumblers, sears, stirrups and frizzen springs are 6150. Frizzens are 1095* and the mainsprings, sear springs and flies are forged from 1070 spring steel. Now the part of the frizzen that you have ground off without knowing what is for are there top help seal the pan and keep your powder from accidentally falling out so not a big deal if you do not want them on your lock. Let us know if you need anything else.

*previously, now 52100.

[WadePatton]

The protrusions on the bottom of frizzens that roughly fit inside the pan cavity are not historically correct.  Just a way to block light and make it seem the frizzen fit is good.  A bad idea in my view.  I would cut them off.  As to powder banked against the touch hole, I believe Larry Pletcher's experiments showed this was no problem at all.  I think this condition was found to be slightly faster than having powder cleared from in front of the hole.  Perhaps he will comment.

Yes, this was recently re-quoted, but then i lost it.  Summary as i recall: No such thing as "fuse-effect", banked away is slowest.  Null B is fastest, 7f not fast...etc.

The main reason I wanted metals information is so that I can most appropriately anneal and re-harden frizzens and covers for uvula removal as well as general fitment and other parts processing.

[Jim Kibler]

Probably easiest to just grind and stone it off.  Won't require heat treatment.

[Jim Chambers]

Let me give you guys a little history of how that projection (or dingle berry as I call it) came to be.  One year at Friendship I was talking with Bill Cox at his booth, and we were laughing and joking about the "Friendship test."  At that time it seemed like everyone shopping for a lock there at Friendship would pick up our locks, close the frizzen, hold the lock up to the sky to see if they could see light through the pan.  Often, they would judge the quality of the lock based only on that test.  We named it the "Friendship test."  Jokingly I suggested to Bill that we should make a small projection on the bottom of the pan cover that would prevent those guys from seeing any light no matter how bad the frizzen fit the pan.  I was just joking, but next thing I knew Bill had added the projection to his frizzens.
Historically, I have seen several locks with a raised lip around the pan that is recessed into the pan cover portion of the frizzen, but I have never seen anything like the projection hanging down.

[bgf]

Wow.  I never thought much more about that dingleberry other than that it must have been copied from something or other.  The recess formed in the pan cover does attract and hold fouling and makes it harder to clean out.  For waterproofing it would make more sense to have the dingleberry on the pan and have the cover fit over it.