Author Topic: back action locks. (Read 10188 times)

Tanselman · « **Reply #25 on:** March 10, 2019, 02:07:13 AM »

I acquired this well-made pistol in southern Indiana this past week with a back-action lock. Probably not everyone's favorite, but it is a better than average pistol, stocked in good curly maple, with attractive forestock inlay work, and undoubtedly of Midwestern origin. It is neatly stamped "J. Turk" in front of the rear sight, and may be the work of James Turk of Warren County, Ohio. However, I have seen several James Turk rifles over the years, and all were rather plain with faded maple and displayed little if any merit including the stock architecture. So I am hoping there was another "J. Turk" working in the Midwest who made better quality guns, but is perhaps less well known.

I picked up the pistol because of the forestock German silver inlays in the form of stylized eagles. I have only seen this particular inlay on one other rifle, a high quality, heavily decorated Kentucky full-stocked rifle by the Bell brothers of Bracken County, Kentucky and dated 1821. The Bell rifle's inlays were fully engraved, so the feathers and eagle's head were deliniated. The plain back-action lock has a very clean, crisp action, suggesting the pistol saw little actual use. The gun also has a nifty little German silver cap box in the butt. I thought seeing a new example of a back-action lock on a better-than-average firearm might add a little interest to this thread. Barrel is 11-1/4 inches, .37 caliber with seven-groove rifled bore. Shelby Gallien

Dennis Glazener · « **Reply #26 on:** March 10, 2019, 02:21:54 AM »

Nice looking pistol
Dennis

louieparker · « **Reply #27 on:** March 10, 2019, 02:36:01 AM »

Shelby that back action lock sure don't bother me .. Looks like it belongs there..Very nice pistol..Louie

ron w · « **Reply #28 on:** March 10, 2019, 02:56:58 AM »

to me, they look fine on a pistol,..as if they were designed to be there,....but they look out of place on a rifle.

Tanselman · « **Reply #29 on:** March 10, 2019, 05:28:31 AM »

Ron, I tend to think back-action locks look better on pistols as well, particularly when they "bend" with the curve of the grip as this one does. Shelby Gallien

smokinbuck · « **Reply #30 on:** March 10, 2019, 05:32:11 PM »

I have a collection of Christian Seibert rifles out of Columbus Ohio, that are predominently stocked with back action locks. All of them are 1870-1880 period and work as though they were made yesterday. I also have a contemporary rifle wit a back action L&R lock that is fast and reliable.
Mark

ron w · « **Reply #31 on:** March 10, 2019, 07:53:11 PM »

so,... to sum it up,.....what specifically made the back action lock be considered faster than a typical conventional lock of the era ?.

Hungry Horse · « **Reply #32 on:** March 10, 2019, 08:18:24 PM »

I think they had a shorter throw, and a stronger spring. I shot a Tryon for several years, and it seemed to be faster than traditional locks. That Tryon is the only production gun I ever regretted getting rid of.

Hungry Horse

Pukka Bundook · « **Reply #33 on:** March 10, 2019, 08:38:58 PM »

Ron W,

I don't think there is any difference in lock time between a bar or sidelock and a back action lock, if of the same quality and throw.

I know we cannot tell the difference without complex machinery, but to me there is no difference. If of good quality, Both are fast.

Best ,
R.

OLUT · « **Reply #34 on:** March 10, 2019, 08:40:01 PM »

Back to RON W.'s original question - I have many original percussion guns and see little lock speed difference between bar locks and other types if the guns are of similar craftsmanship. To quote W W GREENER, " With the muzzle-loader one was as good as another, the preference being given to the bar-lock on the score of appearance. With the breech-loader, the case is not the same; for the bar-lock more metal has to be cut away from the breech-action body, where it is badly needed. With the back-action lock this metal is left, BUT THE STOCK IS WEAKENED AT THE POINT WHERE IT IS MOST LIABLE TO FRACTURE..." (the capitalization is mine).
I once thought that the gunsmiths of the 1800's used back action locks due to a higher cost of purchasing bar locks, but the 1871 Great Western Gun Works catalog proved me wrong. Although steel bar locks are slightly more expensive than steel back action types, the prices are quite similar for both wrought iron and malleable iron bar and back action.

Tanselman · « **Reply #35 on:** March 11, 2019, 02:30:40 AM »

If anyone is interested in Midwestern guns, the curly maple stocked pistol I posted with the "J. Turk" barrel stamp has been identified. Thanks to researcher Jeff Jaeger of Indiana, who owns a fine signed and well-decorated William Turk rifle made in Putnam County, Indiana, the pistol appears to be the work of William Turk's oldest son, John Turk, who later moved to Missouri. He's not a well-known gunsmith, but he continued his father's tradition of attractive, well-made firearms. It helps explain why the pistol showed up in southern Indiana.

The pistol has several interesting details that tie it to his father's work, including a shield-shaped wrist inlay, non-standard rear pipe shape, tang and rear sight shape, etc. Also regarding a prior comment on back-action locks, this lock is mounted with the standard tail screw, but the front bolt actually goes in from the front and threads into the breech plug, anchoring the lock in place and not allowing it to work upward. As a result, there is no lock bolt showing on the back side. Instead, there is a German silver inlay, pinned to the stock and in the shape of the back-action lock plate on the opposite side. Unfortunately, that inlay is now missing from the pistol. Shelby Gallien

Tanselman · « **Reply #36 on:** March 11, 2019, 04:37:11 AM »

A comment may be in order to clarify the comment by W. W. Greener on back-action locks. Comparing a metal breeched shotgun to a Kentucky rifle is comparing "apples to oranges." Of course a shotgun wrist will be weakened if a back-action lock is installed due to wood removal in the wrist. But the original question was regarding a Kentucky-style rifle with wood at both the wrist and the breech, not a gun with a large metal breech. The question asked which area was more prone to breakage, the lock area if a front action lock was mounted, or the wrist area if a back-action lock was mounted. In that comparison, I still think the back-action lock does a little less damage to the integrity of the stock, and fewer stock breaks occur with a back-action lock than with a front action lock. Shelby Gallien

Pukka Bundook · « **Reply #37 on:** March 11, 2019, 05:29:29 AM »

Shelby,

I think you may be right concerning the strongest stock.

I traded a nearly brand new Spanish double 12 to an old mate (Back in the UK) for an old double with back action locks. (We both thought the other was daft!)
A while later he was in trouble with the new gun. He had hit a wounded fox over the head with this new gun, and bust the stock into five pieces. (!)
He said that the old gun never broke when he hit stuff with it!
Yes, I stuck his new gun's stock back together, and it was still going strong when he died, but it gave me a very clammy feeling to know he'd been bashing stuff over the head with what was now 'my" old John Blissett!

The stock is very slim, but has no cracks or looseness, despite my friends 'use' of it for decades.

The pisto you show should hold wel in the hand by what I can see. V nice!

Dave B · « **Reply #38 on:** March 11, 2019, 09:06:36 AM »

I really like this piece I picked up a long while back made by W. Everson who move from Kentucy to Indianna.
It needs attention for the ailment we describe. I love the architecture even with the back action lock.

the lock screw is not a phillips head but a flat cross headed screw

Tanselman · « **Reply #39 on:** March 11, 2019, 10:58:44 PM »

Dave, I'm not sure how much info you have on Washington Everson, but in case I can add something, here's what I have. Everson was born in Pennsylvania in 1811. Soon after completing his apprenticeship, he moved to Louisville, Kentucky where he is first documented as a journeyman working for Louisville's most prominent gunsmith at the time, Moses Dickson. He showed up in the 1860 and 1870 censuses in Dearborn County, Indiana where he was listed as a gunsmith. His son John was born in Kentucky and 22 years old in 1860. Unfortunately, I don't have census data on him for the intervening years. I think some people think his first name was "William," but in the Louisville City Directory of 1838-1839 the first name is clearly "Washington."

I do not have photos of a Washington Everson rifle for my ongoing Kentucky work and records, and I like the look of your rifle. It is very much in the style of a Moses Dickson rifle, back-action lock and all, of the late 1830s. Is there any chance you could re-shoot a few (4) pictures of your rifle for me? If so, I would greatly appreciate getting: 1) a good full length shot, 2) the standard half-length shot of the front showing out to about 10" past the lock, 3) standard half-length of the back side, and 4) shot of the barrel signature. I have found I can get very good pictures if I lay the gun on a concrete driveway (carefully) outside but in the shade...with the barrel pointing in the direction of the unseen sun. The concrete gives a solid, off-white background that is easy to photoshop out later on.

Thanks for posting your rifle. I really enjoy seeing a new rifle from KY, and particularly when I haven't seen an example of that maker's work. Would you mind posting the barrel length, bore size (approximately) and tang length...and if one or two screws in the tang? Thanks, Shelby Gallien

Dave B · « **Reply #40 on:** March 12, 2019, 07:38:25 AM »

Thank you for that information. I only knew that he had worked some where in Kentucky before moving north. I will get you the photos you requested this weekend maybe. We are supposed to get more snow the next couple of days $:-\$ . the barrel is 42.1/4" long, Just over an inch at the breach 1.010" and .950" across the flats at the muzzle, 7 wide lands and narrow groves, .42 caliber. Tang is 4 3/8" long with two wood screws. Just noticed some folksy engraving on the tang and the screws are engraved. Its funny how things show up under a good light.
Heres his signature stamp.

Feltwad · « **Reply #41 on:** March 12, 2019, 11:46:10 PM »

Enclosed is a image of a early back action lock patent by James Rowntree has a patch lock with a detach nose of 1810 four years later this gun maker built the first percussion gun using steel top hat caps for Joshua Shaw before he emigrated to the States in 1817 aboard the ship Electra .
Feltwad

Rowntree patent back action Patch Lock
l

Ky-Flinter · « **Reply #42 on:** March 13, 2019, 01:28:34 AM »

Here's some pictures of a back action lock I have. It's a left-hand lock and based on the engraving on the banner beginning with "&", I think it is half of a pair, I'm guessing from a double shotgun. The cycling is smooth as glass.

-Ron

Dave B · « **Reply #43 on:** March 13, 2019, 06:47:07 AM »

Thanks for the lock shots guy's. That left hand lock has very cool example of fine internals. They be no slipping that sear out of the half cock notch, no sir.
Feltwad, Do you have any photos of the internals of the James Rowntree lock?

Feltwad · « **Reply #44 on:** March 13, 2019, 11:06:27 AM »

Dave

Enclosed are two images of the lock internal ,notice the large mainspring and the simple device on the hammer nose for holding the separated patch holder
Feltwad

Bob Roller · « **Reply #45 on:** March 13, 2019, 04:06:48 PM »

That left hand lock is a work of art in steel or iron. That type of
assembly guarantees,along with a properly made mainspring
a very smooth working mechanism.Old time craftsmanship.

Bob Roller

Pukka Bundook · « **Reply #46 on:** March 13, 2019, 05:16:48 PM »

Feltwad,

That is a Very compact lock! Reminds me of the Spanish miquelet, Heavy and small.
I hadn't seen a lock anything like this one my old pal. Thanks for showing it.

Ron,
As Bob says, that is a Lovely lock!

Dave B · « **Reply #47 on:** March 16, 2019, 04:58:00 AM »

Thank you for posting the insides of your lock I have never heard of a patch lock before. I have seen pictures of this same style mechanism but assumed it was a metal cap that was used.

Feltwad · « **Reply #48 on:** March 16, 2019, 07:44:19 PM »

Quote from: Dave B on March 16, 2019, 04:58:00 AM

Thank you for posting the insides of your lock I have never heard of a patch lock before. I have seen pictures of this same style mechanism but assumed it was a metal cap that was used.

Both the patch lock and the tube lock did not reign long most were converted to percussion using the copper cap , for ignition using a patch and tube lock there is no difference to a percussion cap only the cap was more convenient . I liked the tube lock I did use my 6 bore tube lock for many years ago for fowling but with the lead ban for fowling I pensioned it off to my collection
It seems for that period very little if any crossed the pond .
Feltwad

News:

Author Topic: back action locks. (Read 10188 times)

ron w

ron w