Can Anyone Help Me Identify This Lock

[JV Puleo]

As Mike says...

A lock that corresponded to the date would probably have rounded surfaces.
The subject is simplified in that for 20 years, from 1774 to 1794 the shipment of guns and gun parts to America was embargoed by the Privy Council so there were virtually no imports from England during those years.

The locks changed over time...for example, earlier locks have a pointed tail and the 1820s they have a rounded tail. There are all sorts of subtle changes in their appearance but none of these happened all at once. Add to that the strong likelihood that older locks remaining in the inventory of some American hardware dealer could easily have been used 20 yeas after they had been made. I do think it's likely that percussion locks were the norm after 1825. I've a friend that has done extensive research into advertisements for percussion caps and it's amazing how fast the new system overtook the old. Flintlocks persisted in the military and on the western frontier where the supply of caps was always precarious but for general use in the east I doubt many were made after 1825. I'm also certain many unused flintlocks were converted to percussion when assembled into a gun...after all, all the gun maker had to do was remove some parts and fit a new cock. On American guns the percussion cock hits the nipple. On best quality English guns it actually stops a few thousandths short of the nipple...just close enough to detonate the cap. Fitting percussion hammers became a specialist trade in itself.

It looks as if Liege took over the bulk of the export lock business in the percussion era based entirely on price. Belgian guns and parts were even cheaper than the Birmingham products and with the end of the Napoleonic Wars, as well as the restrictions of the Navigation Acts, it was practical for Americans to import them from the cheapest source. There are numerous "fake" Ketland locks, and guns, made in Belgium that arrived after 1816.

So...you have an English-made lock of the late flint period. As Mike has said, the lock on that 1769 fowler is of a style very common from 1795 on...but not earlier because that style was not being exported earlier.

I should also add that the Ketland's were by no means the only exporter although they appear to have been the largest. When the Privy Council relaxed the embargo in 1794 the floodgates opened to take advantage of the American market. As far as marked/unmarked is concerned...ALL the export locks were made by specialist gun lock makers. They would make them for anyone that could pay for them.

[WESTbury]

Bluenoser,

I am curious as to the significance of this lock to you. Is from a rifle you have? In my opinion, it is not a particularly nice lock and the internal components look pretty clunky also, all of the screws are buggered up pretty well.

But you have to take my opinions for what they are worth as I am "one of those musket guys".

[bluenoser]

Thank you for the additional information.
I am having difficulty reconciling post # 25 with post # 22.  I need to take time to think about that and how each post relates to the question posed in post # 20.  I think it best I reserve further comment until after I have had an opportunity to consult Moller.

I do need to make one comment.  We seem to be fixated on British locks.  I think we should consider the possibility mine might be a Dutch, French or Liege-made lock.

[rich pierce]

I’m sure those who have responded have considered all possibilities and given the best analysis possible. Perhaps you have a desired answer to your question? If so, what would that be?

[bluenoser]

WESTbury & Rich
I had anticipated someone would ask the question.
This is the lock on a composite musket discussed in an earlier thread.  I am reasonably comfortable all other elements on that musket likely fit the criteria for a Rev War era musket assembled for military service by a Colonial gunsmith using salvaged parts.  There is strong evidence the lock is also a reused part.  As another member has correctly stated, "with a composite gun, it can't be any earlier that it's latest feature" assuming, of course, that feature is original to the gun.  The lock does appear to be original.

Why the focus on the Ketland & Co lock
The profile of the plate on this particular Ketland lock is the closest match I have seen to that of my lock as I envision it having looked prior to reshaping in the tail area.  The overall profiles are very close and the component layout appears to be similar.  The Ketland lock measures 5 7/8" x 1 1/8" and mine likely measured 6 5/8" - 6 3/4" x approx. 1 3/16" prior to reshaping (currently 6 1/4" x 1 1/8").  These are large locks.

Some others have stated quite emphatically the lock dates to the 1790 - 1820 time frame.  They might very well be correct.  I am still sceptical and see the possibly that it just might be considerably older.

The motivation for my persistence should be obvious.  Although some will likely accuse me of attempting to manipulate facts to suit my preferred outcome, that is not the case.  I will continue to do my research until such time as I believe I have determined to my satisfaction what is plausible and what is not.  Comments to date have left the door somewhat ajar - if just barely.  If it turns out to be post 1790, then so be it.

[JV Puleo]

Post 22 refers to the overall style of the gun..."architecture" is the word commonly used. NOT the lock itself.

You won't find much, if anything in Moller...he simply doesn't go into these questions.

[smart dog]

Hi,
Good possibility, Philip Martin, gunlock maker, Wednesbury (suburb of Birimingham) 1827-1850, reference Bailey and Nie "English Gunmakers: The Birmingham and Provincial Trade".  Note the PM stamped inside the lock.

dave

[bluenoser]

JV P
Thank you for the clarification.  I see your statement much more clearly now.  I think you might have just dashed my hopes WRT Moller.

smart dog
That is tantalizing information regarding Philip Martin and how it might relate to the "PM" on the back side of the lock.  I wish I had access to the Bailey and Nie book.  Would 1827-1850 not seem a tad late for a large flint lock such as this?

Thanks for continuing to put up with with me on this

[JV Puleo]

Very good...Wendsbury was one of the biggest lock making towns.
One thing to remember about Bailey & Nie is that their dates are taken from published directories, most of which were paid advertisements. If a craftsman didn't want to buy a listing, he didn't have to so the dates, while good, are often not inclusive. The British also have "Post Office Directories" which intend to list everyone but they don't start until (I think) 1843.

[Mike Brooks]

What makes you think this lock was reshaped?

[bluenoser]

Mike,
Please refer to the opening post and that terrible photo.  I have absolutely no doubt the lock plate has been reshaped.  The evidence is simply too strong.
I should also mention that I am much more confident in my projected original shape since seeing the Ketland & Co. lock.

[bluenoser]

So Philip Martin might have been producing locks well before 1827 - perhaps as early as, say, 1810 assuming 40 years in business?

[JV Puleo]

Yes

[smart dog]

Hi,
Maybe.  I was aware that the directory listings were not inclusive.  A young tradesman might not be able to afford to advertise until he was well established.  However big flintlocks were made well into the 1840s and later for trade guns.  The British army did not convert to percussion until the late 1830s.   The model 1840 Springfield musket was a flintlock. It is entirely possible your lock was made in the second quarter of the 19th century.

dave   

[WESTbury]

WESTbury & Rich
I had anticipated someone would ask the question.
This is the lock on a composite musket discussed in an earlier thread. 

Post a link for that earlier thread or give us the date on which the thread was started.

[bluenoser]

Thanks to clarification by JV Puleo and information provided by smart dog, I can now accept the lock was most likely made somewhere between 1790 and 1820, if not somewhat later.  If the lock was indeed made by Philip Martin, the date could likely be narrowed down to something like 1810 to 1820 and maybe as late as 1840's.  I really appreciate folks sticking with me on this.

The lock has now been minimally restored to working condition and reassembled.  The assembly mark on the plate is duplicated on the bridle and tumbler, so the marks relate to lock assembly - not gun assembly.

Such a late date for the lock raises new questions that I will take over to the other thread.  Also, there is a rabbit hole I have been avoiding, but must now give serious consideration to.  This continues to be a tremendous learning experience for me and I hope that, if not too sick of it, folks will continue to contribute on the other thread.

In reply to WESTbury
https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=73098.0

[Mike Brooks]

Mike,
Please refer to the opening post and that terrible photo.  I have absolutely no doubt the lock plate has been reshaped.  The evidence is simply too strong.
I should also mention that I am much more confident in my projected original shape since seeing the Ketland & Co. lock.

I'm just not seeing the evidence, but that's OK.

[bluenoser]

Mike,
I am confident you would agree with me if you had an opportunity to handle the lock.  How would you explain the borders running off the edges behind the cock?

[JV Puleo]

Hi,
Maybe.  I was aware that the directory listings were not inclusive.  A young tradesman might not be able to afford to advertise until he was well established.  However big flintlocks were made well into the 1840s and later for trade guns.  The British army did not convert to percussion until the late 1830s.   The model 1840 Springfield musket was a flintlock. It is entirely possible your lock was made in the second quarter of the 19th century.

dave

I'm more inclined to think that a tradesman who had as much work as he could handle might not see a need for advertising. I've actual personal experience with that where I simly didn't want any more customers. We run into this with other makers ... sometimes those known from other sources rarely appear in the directories. As far as my comment about the demise of the flintlock...armies have specific needs. I don't doubt the percussion system was seen as better quite early on but until a suitably huge supply of caps could be assured it would have been foolhardy to adopt the new system. That was more the case with the United States although we were the first country to adopt a percussion gun (the M1836 Hall). In the American case, the caps had to be imported, at least at first. Flintlocks certainly remained in use for a long time thereafter. Birmingham was making flint guns for the African and Canadian trade well into the 19th century but I was referring to the commercial sale of new export locks in the American, primarily eastern, market. I imagine flint remained popular on the western frontier into the 1840s but, again, because the supply of caps was tenuous.

[smart dog]

Hi Joe,
Also if that Birmingham lock maker, considering lock making was the bottleneck link in the chain of gun making, had consistent contract work with major suppliers to the Hudson's Bay Company, East India Company, or British ordnance, he may have all the work he can handle and not need to advertise.  When much of that work disappeared in the 1820s, he might need to put his name out there.

dave

[Mike Brooks]

Mike,
I am confident you would agree with me if you had an opportunity to handle the lock.  How would you explain the borders running off the edges behind the cock?

All the guts are in the correct position on the plate. If this lock was originally longer the guts would have been positioned proportionately farther back on the plate. Border engraving on the plate? Lazy engraving. These guys weren't making much and were engraving this stuff incredibly fast . I doubt that engraving job took more than a couple minutes. Typical "workmanship manor" in my opinion.
 There is no reason to try and push this gun back to Rev war times. Unless you're thinking about a big mark up for future resale. It's a fine example of a 1795-1820 militia musket made out of old parts. There is nothing wrong with that.

[bluenoser]

Interesting thought about the position of the "guts".  I would not have thought the position required for the guts was always such a determining factor in the design of a lock plate tail section.  I need to take a closer look at the back side of a few locks since I likely missed that detail.  Not being sarcastic - just saying it is something I likely overlooked.
Monetary value is of no concern to me and we will not try to push it to anything.  If it is ultimately decided the musket could potentially date to the Rev War, perhaps we can look at the relevance of that stamp on the barrel.  And, yes, I am aware A stamp was also used after that little conflict.
Thanks for your input.

[JV Puleo]

I don't see anything about that lock that would suggest it was re-shaped. The crude engraving is just that. It was done in a hurry in an age when virtually everything was expected to be decorated in some manner. I remember a commend by Greener in the first edition of The Gun and its Development (the father of WW Greener, published in 1842) where he comments on engraving being used to cover the flaws in cheap guns "because it is so cheap." I've also heard that said of German and continental guns with elaborate wood carving...to disguise poor stock wood.

[WESTbury]

Interesting thought about the position of the "guts".  I would not have thought the position required for the guts was always such a determining factor in the design of a lock plate tail section. 

The sole function of the lockplate is to provide an envelope for the individual components require to have a functioning rifle, musket, etc. The lock assembly was arguably the most technically challenging and expensive component of early firearms.

The lockplate envelope was sized to contain its components and was sized to do so efficiently. Having "extra" space at either end or top and bottom of the lockplate would serve no purpose whatsoever.