back action.

[ron w]

what did the back action have in advantage over the more typically arranged lock ?.

[Hlbly]

Nothing.

[Hungry Horse]

Faster lock time, fewer parts, readily adaptable to multibarreled guns. There may be more reasons, but those are the ones I can think of on short notice.

   Hungry Horse

[David Rase]

Weaker wrist.
David

[smart dog]

Hi Ron,
I don't think a back action lock has any advantages with respect to performance.  However, according to Howard Blackmore (British Military Firearms 1650-1850), the famous Enfield master armorer, George Lovell, designed a back action lock for the new percussion rifles and muskets that would replace the flintlocks.  His rationale for the change from a more conventional sidelock was that the back action was lighter and required fewer parts, and thus was cheaper to make.

dave

[Mike Brooks]

Weaker wrist.
David

Limp wristed guns?

[Hungry Horse]

Weak wristed, only  because about half of the old ones were installed wrong. If they were inherently weak you wouldn't have seen them on virtually all the big bore cartridge rifles later on.

  Hungry Horse

[ron w]

Ok.....I can see the reduction of parts being important in certain instances and the reduction of lock time justifying an advancement in lock mechanics.  the comments that suggest a weak wrist was the first thought I had about them as well.  thank-you.

[Hungry Horse]

The failure of backaction equipped longrifle at the wrist happens most often when the foreword part of the lockplate doesn't make contact with either the bottom of the snail, or the bottom of the powder drum. When this happens, the force of the hammer lifts the foreword part of the plate when the hammer contacts the nipple, and puts undue strain on the wrist. Foreword lockbolts that don't pass through a bolster under the barrel tang has the same effect. Backaction locks must be carefully, and precisely mounted.

  Hungry Horse

[smart dog]

Weak wristed, only  because about half of the old ones were installed wrong. If they were inherently weak you wouldn't have seen them on virtually all the big bore cartridge rifles later on.

  Hungry Horse

Hi,
Yes, but the British went back to a traditional side lock, and Blackmore notes the weak point of Lovell's new percussion guns was the back action lock.  Moreover W. W. Greener comments "The sportsmen of Cape Colony object to the back action lock, for subjecting their guns to much rough usage, the stocks are often broken unless very strong in the grip and furnished with front-action locks."   

dave

[Bob Roller]

Weak wristed, only  because about half of the old ones were installed wrong. If they were inherently weak you wouldn't have seen them on virtually all the big bore cartridge rifles later on.

  Hungry Horse

Hi,
Yes, but the British went back to a traditional side lock, and Blackmore notes the weak point of Lovell's new percussion guns was the back action lock.  Moreover W. W. Greener comments "The sportsmen of Cape Colony object to the back action lock, for subjecting their guns to much rough usage, the stocks are often broken unless very strong in the grip and furnished with front-action locks." 
dave

Fewer parts. Let's see. Hammer,plate,tumbler,bridle,sear,fly,main and sear springs.Some BA locks use the
lower limb of the mainspring but that creates a problem if that thinned out part of the mainspring breaks off.
I have seen some exquisite BA locks but never had an interest in copying one.Last month's Muzzle Blast had
an article about back action locks and claimed fewer parts but apparently the author over looked the sear spring.

Bob Roller
 

[ghost]

Maybe keeps the main spring out of the ram rod channel or barrel channel?