New Rice lock

[bob in the woods]

There is an article in the latest Muzzleloader magazine describing a new lock from Rice, distributed exclusively by TVM  [ all / most of the writings by the author tend to promote TVM in some capacity, so I usually leave them for last when reading Muzzleloader ]   Anyway, the lock is supposed to have a centre located fly rather than the standard arrangement, which supposedly  promotes smoothness and speed .  Can anyone better describe how this works, and has anyone used this lock ?  It is suggested that the flint should be installed bevel down in order to fully engage the length of the frizzen . This alone makes me a tad reluctant to try one.

[Bob Roller]

There is an article in the latest Muzzleloader magazine describing a new lock from Rice, distributed exclusively by TVM  [ all / most of the writings by the author tend to promote TVM in some capacity, so I usually leave them for last when reading Muzzleloader ]   Anyway, the lock is supposed to have a centre located fly rather than the standard arrangement, which supposedly  promotes smoothness and speed .  Can anyone better describe how this works, and has anyone used this lock ?  It is suggested that the flint should be installed bevel down in order to fully engage the length of the frizzen . This alone makes me a tad reluctant to try one.

I have seen French locks with a fly in the center and can tell NO difference in speed and I'd
like to know what they base that idea on other than hyperbole.Bevel up or down means
little because there are only TWO ways the flint can be installed.I have made a lot of flint
locks and tested them both ways and while two locks may seem identical they will be "picky"
about flint position and another factor can be that no two flints are alike and that incudes
the high quality ones from Germany.Getting back to the "fly",back in the days when I made
double set triggers for Rolling Block actions the fly was in the center of the hammer which was
a two position system like a flintlock and on the first few I did mill a "V"into the side of the two
notches and fastened the fly with a screw.No difference in function or performance and the
slotting for the center mounted fly was easier to do than a "V"slot.Also they two systems were
equally smooth.
Bob Roller

[bob in the woods]

Thank you Mr Roller.  With the article in front of me, the lock is described as a "short action lock" designed with speed in mind. It has a narrow and deep pan to concentrate the flash and speed ignition.
The lock is claimed to be designed after the work of Henry Nock . It incorporates a roller on the frizzen spring as well as a stirrup on the main spring, again to reduce friction and contribute to a faster lock action.  I know that there was increased competition amongst gun builders/lock makers in the late flintlock period, and there were many "improvements" made with claims of achieving perfection by British makers in particular. I like the roller inclusion, but have never been a fan of stirrup equipped locks. I'm entirely satisfied with the incredible reliability of the Siler, and Chambers Colonial locks
Honestly , I haven't found any production lock that beats the Chambers late Ketland and use it when appropriate. 

[smart dog]

Hi Bob,
I have one and it seems to be a pretty good lock.  The small English design is fast but because of the short throw of the cock not because of the fly position. The fly sits in a slot in the middle of the tumbler and pivots on a pin through the tumble.  It is a very strong design and it contacts the center of the nose on the sear rather than one side.  That likely reduces risk of the sear chipping on one side where it rides over the fly. In my opinion, it is probably a better design but not essential by any means.  The lock uses the old cast spring from either the L&R Durs Egg or Bailes lock.  On mine, the sear screw threads in too far and pinches the bridle against the sear.  I will replace that screw.  I do not like the size or orientation of the sear spring.  The upper leaf is oriented horizontally rather than parallel to the tail of the lock plate. That means the bend is right at the edge of the tail of the plate.  Consequently, you cannot shorten or reshape the tail.  If the spring was parallel to the edge of the plate, you could shorten and reshape the tail end to create a better pistol lock. I suspect in performance, the lock is no better than Chambers classic Ketland or Kibler's late English flintlock.  It does have the fence separated from the pan, which is a nice feature. Assuming the stirrup is properly heat treated, I would not worry about its strength and it does provide mechanical advantage a little like a compound bow.  As far as copying an actual lock on a Nock gun, the similarity is somewhat superficial. They used parts from some of their other locks and designed some new ones.  However, the quality of assembly and finish is not up to the best English locks.  I have a mid quality late flint English fowler and the fit and finish of the internals on that lock are superior to the Rice lock.
 

dave 

[Bob Roller]

Hi Bob,
I have one and it seems to be a pretty good lock.  The small English design is fast but because of the short throw of the cock not because of the fly position. The fly sits in a slot in the middle of the tumbler and pivots on a pin through the tumble.  It is a very strong design and it contacts the center of the nose on the sear rather than one side.  That likely reduces risk of the sear chipping on one side where it rides over the fly. In my opinion, it is probably a better design but not essential by any means.  The lock uses the old cast spring from either the L&R Durs Egg or Bailes lock.  On mine, the sear screw threads in too far and pinches the bridle against the sear.  I will replace that screw.  I do not like the size or orientation of the sear spring.  The upper leaf is oriented horizontally rather than parallel to the tail of the lock plate. That means the bend is right at the edge of the tail of the plate.  Consequently, you cannot shorten or reshape the tail.  If the spring was parallel to the edge of the plate, you could shorten and reshape the tail end to create a better pistol lock. I suspect in performance, the lock is no better than Chambers classic Ketland or Kibler's late English flintlock.  It does have the fence separated from the pan, which is a nice feature. Assuming the stirrup is properly heat treated, I would not worry about its strength and it does provide mechanical advantage a little like a compound bow.  As far as copying an actual lock on a Nock gun, the similarity is somewhat superficial. They used parts from some of their other locks and designed some new ones.  However, the quality of assembly and finish is not up to the best English locks.  I have a mid quality late flint English fowler and the fit and finish of the internals on that lock are superior to the Rice lock.
 

dave

Actually I did see this lock at the CLA Show in Lexington and again at Friendship at the Fall shoot.
I thought the mainspring was too close to the lower edge of the plate and the tumbler arm looked
too thin when the strength of the spring is considered.the chance of a sear catching the edge of a
tumbler if the fly is right is zero IF the sear is on a precisely fit screw or smooth pin and can't
go into an angle on the way down
The Nock influence is much stronger and almost identical in the locks I sent to Helmut Mohr in
Germany and is close in appearance to the current L&R small Manton.I had an original Nock from
Lynton McKenzie and I was really surprised at how closely it resembled the lock I was just starting
to make for Mohr.These were made from old dies to make the cock,frizzen and plate.There were were
internal parts available but I thought they were flimsy and rejected them in favor of my own parts
and these have been in use for over 40 years now.
I did try to maintain a good level of finish right up to the last locks I made which were two flints based
on the external parts of th L&R Durs Egg,a Hawken with a plate and hammer reproducing a J&S lock
and a "Bridger"style with a "3 pin"English style mechanism.Not traditional but slick working and ONE of
a kind .
Right now all I want to do is make some double set triggers for Hawken and lighter rifles and that is IT.

Bob Roller

[bob in the woods]

Taking the Siler lock as an example, I have two main rifles which I use for target shooting, and they have thousands of rounds through them. I have taken the locks apart dozens upon dozens of times over  the years for cleaning , checking for wear points etc.  So, my question is:  how much does the use of a stirrup complicate the dismantling/ reassembly of a lock, and, is it worth the extra trouble in terms of real performance ?    I have avoided them for the past 30 +years  based on what I saw at our local BP matches when I first began using flintlocks.

[Bob Roller]

Thank you Mr Roller.  With the article in front of me, the lock is described as a "short action lock" designed with speed in mind. It has a narrow and deep pan to concentrate the flash and speed ignition.
The lock is claimed to be designed after the work of Henry Nock . It incorporates a roller on the frizzen spring as well as a stirrup on the main spring, again to reduce friction and contribute to a faster lock action.  I know that there was increased competition amongst gun builders/lock makers in the late flintlock period, and there were many "improvements" made with claims of achieving perfection by British makers in particular. I like the roller inclusion, but have never been a fan of stirrup equipped locks. I'm entirely satisfied with the incredible reliability of the Siler, and Chambers Colonial locks
Honestly , I haven't found any production lock that beats the Chambers late Ketland and use it when appropriate.

I fully agree with your assessment of the Chambers Late Ketland and have used the externals to install my own
linked spring mechanism.The Brits abandoned the sliding spring and tumbler in favor of the link and called it a
anti friction swivel which it was, I went to it in new locks in 1970 and never went back.
In my small library I have a copy of The American Gun that is one of 3 published in 1961.There was supposed to
be 4 but I have never seen it nor heard of anyone who has.Anyhow there is a fine  article titled "Fuses,Flints and
Pyrites" and expounds on the extreme efforts to maintain the flintlock as THE system to cause a firearm to discharge.
The idea was in some circles that the new fulminated ignitions would not be "sporting" and would make war even
more horrible than it already was.These lockmakers produced what were and still are considered the finest externally
generated ignition systems ever made but they WERE replaced by the cap and nipple in spite of superb obstructionists.
Today were are relearning the ideas and trying to copy the lockmakers of London and other nations as well.To me it was
fun seeing how close I could come but am found wanting in all but materials.
Bob Roller

[rich pierce]

Excellent question and I expect different responses. Why the stirrup? Most commercial flintlocks are copies of originals. The stirrup arose as an “improvement” as did rollers in frizzen toes or frizzen springs and waterproof pans. I’m not strong in physics so couldn’t say how a stirrup might reduce friction or transfer force or torque better to the tumbler. But stirrups are characteristic of better quality English locks after the Revolutionary War (not sure of date) and became standard by the mid 2800s even on hardware store quality locks. I’ve got original percussion locks with no half cock notch but with a stirrup on the mainspring.

[Mike Brooks]

All of those "speed gimmicks" are really nifty, but the fastest lock on the market today is the Chambers early Ketland. It has none of the "speed gimmicks" but is hands down the fastest. probably has something to do with geometry. That being said, I do use other locks with out hesitation and will use this new lock from Rice. Another really fast lock is the Zornes "Albrecht". It's somewhat crude on the inside and each one I have had in my hands feels different when you work it, but it is very fast and dependable. There again, probably has something to do with geometry.
 Actually I'd rather not have a lock with rollers or stirrups, just more stuff to maintain and fool around with that don't do more than look cool. Just keep it simple, fast and durable for me.

[Bob Roller]

Rich,
When I made my first linked flintlock tumbler in 1970 I noticed a difference in speed.
The old style that I call slip and slide doesn't have the leverage the long arm and link
on the later tumblers and heavier preloading was easier as well and on a flintlock that
is the "secret"of performance.
As far as single position caplocks are concerned,they were common on American guns
and very few gunmakers outside of a few in the Northeast cared about a quality lock
and few are found today with one.I had a new Goulcher and that would not rise to the
level of junk but that is what was wanted back in the day and well into the present day
as well.I MIGHT have been the first to offer what could be considered as an upgraded
caplock and while it was liked,few would pay for the time it took to make it.
I heard frequent stories about some legendary old man that was still working for 9 cents
an hour that made good locks and I always challenged them to give me a name but none
did because they knew it was a lie.
Presently I do not miss lock making and am content with the money from triggers and our
combined retirement plans.These plus no debts beyond monthly utilities that are usually paid
the day we get them.
Bob Roller

[smart dog]

Hi,
All of the British and American rifled muskets used in the Civil War had stirrup tumblers so the design can be strong, reliable and there is no more fuss taking the mainspring out or putting it in.  There was a problem with L&R locks because they did not permanently pin their stirrups.  They just rest in a cradle on the tumblers and could easily fall off during disassembly.  Then the owner often reinstalled them backwards and they broke.

dave

[Bob Roller]

Hi,
All of the British and American rifled muskets used in the Civil War had stirrup tumblers so the design can be strong, reliable and there is no more fuss taking the mainspring out or putting it in.  There was a problem with L&R locks because they did not permanently pin their stirrups.  They just rest in a cradle on the tumblers and could easily fall off during disassembly.  Then the owner often reinstalled them backwards and they broke.

dave

Linked locks were used almost exclusively in the bloodiest war in our history
and until about 1892 when the repeating rifles replaced the trapdoor Springfield.
These English flintlocks which  were the last ditch stand of obstuctionists are
certainly magnificent relics of a day and time when there was money to buy
them and skill sets to make them.In other words The Golden Era of black powder.
Bob Roller

[bob in the woods]

Thank you for your post , Dave. I didn't want to refer to any particular maker's lock when I referenced the experiences from attending those matches so many years ago, but there were more than a couple of locks that failed during those shoots due to the stirrups breaking. The L&R Manton had a following back then amongst or local target shooters, but I never was convinced. Many others preached the benefits of the small Siler and I gravitated to that bunch     Perhaps the stirrup equipped locks are better made today, but I still see it as a weak link [ pardon the pun ]  so will happily stay with my Chambers, although I am anxious to try the latest CNC produced locks.

[Bob Roller]

That  Chambers Ketland has a Siler mechanism and I will bet it had a linked main spring
when it was new.Poor workmanship and poorer materials has been the downfall of a lot of
locks.I never hear of one of mine breaking but I will not say it can't happen.There WAS a
reason Manton and others abandoned the slip and slide tumbler in favor of the linked ones.
Bob Roller

[sdilts]

What I love about the Rice lock other than it being really fast is you can't lose the fly. Anyone who has ever fooled with an L&R lock knows what I'm talking about.

[mountainman70]

Any pics of this lock? Inquiring mind wantsta Kno. Dave

[rich pierce]

It’s the Nock lock. https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=54932.25

[bob in the woods]

I mentioned in my original post that TVM is the exclusive dealer for these locks, however I neglected to say that they are priced at $ 225.00 each + shipping.
All of the photos show the lock at what I assume is 1/2 cock. I'm wondering if the cock will be resting /stopped by that fence when at rest ?    If so it will take a beating , and I wonder how it will stand up to the thousands of shots that my Siler has survived .

[alacran]

I saw that lock last June at Friendship. I had a good conversation about the lock with Liston Rice. It was still in the prototype phase. Liston is a great Salesman as well as a great lock builder. At first glance I thought it would make a good pistol lock, but being bigger than an L&R Manton I changed my mind on that. If he would have had any for sale at the time. I would have bought one. It is a well made lock. I wish the L&R Manton had the fly configuration that this lock does. same can be said of the Durrs Egg.  I  would like to see what the production lock looks like. I think Rice's lock will make a good rifle lock.

[sdilts]

The cock does not contact the fence when at rest.

[smart dog]

Hi Bob in the Woods,
The flint cock does not rest on the fence.  It has a shoulder that rests on the lock plate bolster like the Chambers. The lock plate is about 4.75" long but if I can replace and reorient the sear spring, I think I can get it down to 4.5", which should make a decent pistol lock. The lower leaf of the mainspring bends upward at the middle when the lock is at full cock. The main bend in the spring needs to be tighter and the lower leaf arced downward.  That should result in the lower leaf being straight when the lock is at full cock and also raise the lower leaf further above the lower edge of the lock plate when the lock is at rest.  As produced, the mainspring runs right along the bottom of the lock plate and the stirrup comes very close to the edge. I am curious about the original lock used as the model.  The lock is small for a fowler and rifle lock and large for a pistol but is typical for locks used on double guns.  I wonder if the original was a from a double and they simply filled in the lock bolt hole.  Anyway, I eagerly wait for the day somebody makes a nice pistol lock.

dave   

[Jim Kibler]

Threads like this are always tricky for me.  I would encourage those who want to learn about locks to study originals.  Since making locks I've been surprised at how little most know about historical design and proper lock function.  Even those locks which are often considered to be quite good, often fail in my view.  To be fair, I didn't understand locks for a long time.  I've built a number of locks from scratch which helped a lot and I've worked hard to improve the function of locks over the years.   Consider that understanding a lock is as involved as understanding an entire longrifle.  There is a lot to appreciate.  Well meaning folks often offer suggestions or opinions which aren't based on much real knowledge.  There's also a tendency to defend locks they have used in the past or happen to be on guns they own, like and appreciate.  A lot is also just repeated.

So with all this said, I have to be honest.  I've seen this lock and I think it's lacking in quite a number of ways.  Yes, I make locks so you might say I'm biased, but I consider honesty to be most important.  Which brings up the fact that many have held their thoughts as to not offend manufactures over the years.  This is tough for me, right or wrong.

I could and am tempted to discuss in detail why I feel the way I do about a particular lock, but I'm pretty sure people would be offended.  Maybe in time...

[rich pierce]

I understand and appreciate the quest for quality. I have one of Chris Laubach’s locks and it feels different than any lock I’ve ever cycled. I’m not even talking appearance here. Blindfolded you could hand me a dozen locks and I would know this one by feel and sound as I bring it to half and full cock, snap the frizzen closed, and dry fire it. This lock is in the jewelry class by appearance but the action is equally astounding. It’s too good a lock for a fella like me to use, basically.

At the same time, style usually dictates what locks I use. I know many others like Smart Dog who do the same (not suggesting I’m in his class as a builder). Then tune it till it works as needed.

One of my next projects is a bridle-less trade gun lock for a 1750s Wilson trade gun. Because that’s what belongs on that gun.

[bob in the woods]

There are only two things that I ask about a lock, apart from the style/historical appropriateness for a given gun.  First is, how does it spark, and 2nd is, how does it hold up .   The bench mark for me continues to be the Chambers Siler I have on my .54 which has literally thousands of rounds through it.
I don't think it is unfair to critique locks in terms of how they compare in terms of function, since that is what the average buyer wants to know, since that has always been the standard criticism re flintlock vs percussion.  The views held by others at our club when I started shooting BP is why my first couple of rifles were percussion. 

[Robin Henderson]

I have in my stash both....Chambers on top.