Just as an aside here. I was looking through my old Muzzleblast magazines and found an article in which Jim Chambers went through the complete process of bringing a lock to market. The effort, and money involved are not insignificant. What struck me is why anyone would continue past the design stage if the results were less than expected ?? If the model doesn't function well, why not make the changes that so many recognize as necessary to improve the performance ? Seems like a poor investment to me .
I am guessing that some locks were made as copies of originals without much consideration as to whether the original was a good, fast, reliable lock. There were some very mediocre flintlocks in that era. Second, it’s clear that some makers try to use the same guts for several locks without thinking about or understanding the small nuances that could affect performance. So, same tumbler, bridle, mainspring, sear, and so on, stuck on different lock plates with different frizzen and cock sizes. Is all the distances were the same this could work but they usually are not the same. And it’s not clear that some of the makers are shooters. Chambers always focused on performance. His now-universal white lightning liners are a testament to that.
Some things done in lock making are ignorant and unconscionable or demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge, like putting a foot pad on the bottom of a frizzen simply to give the appearance of a light-tight frizzen to pan fit. At best it mashes the priming. At worst it could impede frizzen closure and increase wetness getting due to a propped-open pan lid.
