Author Topic: Early Ketland lock...bridled or unbridled? (Read 3543 times)

JLSawyer · « **on:** July 16, 2020, 02:37:01 AM »

Hello All,

I have decided to try my hand at reproducing rifle #91 in RCA Volume II attributed to George Shroyer. It appears that going with one of Chambers Early Ketland locks is my best bet but my question is should I get the bridled version or the unbridled version? I can’t really tell if the original lock is bridled. It appears as though it might be but with a different appearance than that of the one Chambers produces. I’m looking to order the lock soon and looking for which one would be the best to buy if I’m looking to match the original as closely as possible.

I will also be making the patch box and was wondering if anyone on here might have the pattern for the finial? Mike Brooks is providing me with the buttplate and trigger guard.

Any help, tips, or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much.

Best Regards,

Josh Sawyer

rich pierce · « **Reply #1 on:** July 16, 2020, 02:50:09 AM »

Looks bridled. Either would look great.

Bob Roller · « **Reply #2 on:** July 16, 2020, 03:32:47 AM »

Quote from: rich pierce on July 16, 2020, 02:50:09 AM

Looks bridled. Either would look great.

If it were not bridled there would be screw visible and easy to see. I think this has a
bridle.
Bob Roller

B.Barker · « **Reply #3 on:** July 16, 2020, 03:50:10 AM »

The lock on the original could be a reconverted lock so hard to say what it truly was. I prefer the bridled locks because the screw has extra support and the frizzen screw gets a lot of stress on it. Besides bridled or unbridled were made at the same time the unbridled locks were just a cheaper lock.

JLSawyer · « **Reply #4 on:** July 16, 2020, 04:18:22 AM »

Thanks for the replies. After looking at it further it does appear to be bridled but unlike the Chambers lock the head of the frizzen screw on the original is on the backside and not exposed. It also seems like I may need to modify the pan curvature where it meets the bridle slightly. I have included another picture for comparison.

Thanks again.

Best Regards,

Josh Sawyer

JLSawyer · « **Reply #5 on:** July 24, 2020, 03:05:19 PM »

I’m still going back and forth on this. What are the merits of bridled over the unbridled? A lot of the builds I see that utilize Chambers early Ketland lock are unbridled. Come to think of it I can’t say that I’ve actually seen a professional build that used the bridled version. I’m sure they are out there I’ve just never seen one. Why is that? Why do guys seem to gravitate more toward the unbridled version if they cost the same price and the bridled version has advantages over the unbridled version? It looks like various retailers like TOW and Log Cabin finally have these back in stock after being back ordered for quit some time and I’m ready to pull the trigger on getting one but as things go....I’m torn.

Thanks again for the help.

Best Regards,

Josh Sawyer

Dave R · « **Reply #6 on:** July 24, 2020, 03:29:39 PM »

My two cents. If this gun will be shot quite a bit I would prefer a bridle, It is much more stable.

Clowdis · « **Reply #7 on:** July 24, 2020, 03:59:42 PM »

I have to totally agree with Dave on this one. Since the bridle is a hidden part and leaving it out will create a lower grade of lock, I see no reason at all to leave it out on a rifle that you're going to shoot.

JLSawyer · « **Reply #8 on:** July 24, 2020, 04:08:51 PM »

It will be .54 caliber just like the original and used primarily for hunting. I agree with the assessment that things will be more stable with the bridle.

Mike Brooks · « **Reply #9 on:** July 24, 2020, 04:14:13 PM »

I dislike bridles. Nothing but fouling catchers. I haven't found them to be any different performance or endurance wise. You'll need to cut that patchbox finial out by hand, there aren't any other options.

Pukka Bundook · « **Reply #10 on:** July 24, 2020, 04:15:31 PM »

Is everyone on the same page with the opening question?

Pan bridle or tumbler bridle?
Generally, if a lock has a bridle on the pan, it will be bridled on the tumbler.

rich pierce · « **Reply #11 on:** July 24, 2020, 04:32:29 PM »

Quote from: Pukka Bundook on July 24, 2020, 04:15:31 PM

Is everyone on the same page with the opening question?

Pan bridle or tumbler bridle?
Generally, if a lock has a bridle on the pan, it will be bridled on the tumbler.

True but a lock can have a tumbler bridle but not a pan bridle.

rich pierce · « **Reply #12 on:** July 24, 2020, 04:32:49 PM »

Keeping in mind that most of the original flintlock Kentuckies we see we’re converted to percussion the reconverted back to flint, and so what we see on the table or in the books may not reflect their original form........

Unbridled pan or frizzen export locks were more prevalent “early” than later and we’re less expensive. To me it gives an early feel to a rifle or fowling piece that is intended to represent 1770s or earlier. To me it does not belong on a gun with double set triggers. A refined rifle should have a pan-bridled lock.

Regarding wear and reliability, it’s unlikely any of us will live and shoot long enough to see a difference. So it’s a matter of choice to give a certain feel to a build. Also a fowling piece or smooth rifle may be more likely to use a lock without a frizzen or pan bridle.

As a disclaimer on the historical side I’m talking export locks. Plenty of fine Germanic rifles, highly decorated, featured locks without a frizzen bridle.

img upload

JLSawyer · « **Reply #13 on:** July 24, 2020, 04:41:45 PM »

Quote from: Mike Brooks on July 24, 2020, 04:14:13 PM

I dislike bridles. Nothing but fouling catchers. I haven't found them to be any different performance or endurance wise. You'll need to cut that patchbox finial out by hand, there aren't any other options.

Mike,

You are in fact one of the professional builders I eluded to in my most recent post who I’ve noticed doesn’t use the bridled version in their builds. I figured I’d have to make a pattern and custom make that finial and I’m working on that. FYI...I put a check in yesterday’s mail for the butt plate and trigger guard. Jim Chambers is providing the side plate and Jason at Rice is in the process of making me a 43” J.J. Henry barrel in .54 caliber. It has the same diameter at the breech 1.062 or 1 1/16” and is almost identical in length. Original is 42 11/16. Stock wood was purchased from Allen Martin. Thanks again.

Best Regards,

Josh Sawyer.

Pukka Bundook · « **Reply #14 on:** July 24, 2020, 06:51:37 PM »

Quote from: rich pierce on July 24, 2020, 04:32:29 PM

Quote from: Pukka Bundook on July 24, 2020, 04:15:31 PM
Is everyone on the same page with the opening question?

Pan bridle or tumbler bridle?
Generally, if a lock has a bridle on the pan, it will be bridled on the tumbler.

True but a lock can have a tumbler bridle but not a pan bridle.

Exactly Rich.

Re patchbox finials;
I must have lived a very sheltered life, as I never even Thought of buying any parts for making such. Never crossed my mind! LOL.

bama · « **Reply #15 on:** July 24, 2020, 08:50:10 PM »

I have seen a few original locks that did not have a frizzen or tumbler bridles, one was so worn that nothing sat straight on the plate. The frizzen screw was bent and the frizzen did not set square with the pan. This lock evidently saw service for a long time and worked. How well it worked toward the end of it's working career we can not know. Building a Historically correct gun is something that I like to do. I probably would use the non frizzen bridled lock on an HC gun if the client went along with it. If the gun is going to see hard use, a true hunting and shooting gun then I would recommend a lock with the frizzen bridle. It is a stronger and better design and that is why you see it on later period locks. If the gun is a quality built gun I bet few would even notice if the lock had a bridle or not and would not care either way. If you are building for yourself then please yourself.

Pukka Bundook · « **Reply #16 on:** July 25, 2020, 05:15:36 AM »

Bama,

If making an unbridled frizzen, I tap the screw hole a shade larger, for a heavier screw and more secure hold. It seems to work.

bob in the woods · « **Reply #17 on:** July 25, 2020, 03:59:14 PM »

I'm working on filing up and polishing a Chamber's early ketland lock right now. I chose this lock without the pan bridle specifically because of my experience with their Early Germanic lock. Easy to maintain, and a fabulous performer.

SingleMalt · « **Reply #18 on:** July 25, 2020, 11:59:41 PM »

I agree with Rich. None of us will ever use a lock enough to see that much wear. The lock is a good one and quite versatile. I changed the cock, frizzen, and modified the tail to make a nice rendition if a 1776 rifle lock.

Bob Roller · « **Reply #19 on:** July 26, 2020, 02:04:24 AM »

Quote from: Pukka Bundook on July 25, 2020, 05:15:36 AM

Bama,

If making an unbridled frizzen, I tap the screw hole a shade larger, for a heavier screw and more secure hold. It seems to work.

I did a repair on a lock with unbridled frizzen and it had an 8x32 thread so after I refreshed that
thread I bored half of it out opened the hole to .171 and then made a screw with a short 8x32
thread and a .170 major diameter shank.That buried the smooth part of the shank into the lock
plate and eleminated the risk of a broken screw. the 8x32 screw as I make them is .158 and the
.171 is an 11/64 drill bit.As I recall the screw head ALMOST touched the frfizzen when the screw was
tightened.

Bob Roller

Pukka Bundook · « **Reply #20 on:** July 26, 2020, 05:17:31 PM »

Bob,

That shoulder on the screw adds a lot of strength and rigidity. Very good advise.

Richard.

Bob Roller · « **Reply #21 on:** July 26, 2020, 06:06:46 PM »

Quote from: Pukka Bundook on July 26, 2020, 05:17:31 PM

Bob,

That shoulder on the screw adds a lot of strength and rigidity. Very good advise.

Richard.

And it isn't hard to do either

.
Bob Roller

News:

Author Topic: Early Ketland lock...bridled or unbridled? (Read 3543 times)