Lock and Trigger identification

[Jim Curlee]

I traded into a rifle.
I'd like to figure out when it was made.

The lock plate the tumbler, and the bridal, all have the #14 stamped into them.

Any clue as to who made the double set trigger?

What is the screw on the tumbler for?

Thanks
Jim

[Dave B]

I cant tell you who's lock that is. The number 14 will be to match up all the parts for this lock each part will have it stamped some where. The screw in the tumbler is to fine tune the trigger release by making the sear engaugement les the more you tighten the screw.

[Bob Roller]

That lock may not be from the 20th century and is typical of a locks seen on American rifles in the 19th century.
Trigger looks like an attempt to make a long bar Hawken type but the curved front trigger looks recent.
Bob Roller

[Gaeckle]

If I'm seeing things correctly it looks like the lock plate is stamped Lehman with LancstPa under that. Original Lehman lock?

[Jim Curlee]

I figure it's original too.
Mainly for the fact that the big parts are numbered to each other.
I just didn't know if there was anybody out there making close reproduction locks.

The trigger I'm not sure about, the triggerguard, I feel is also an original item.

Bob, Off hand, I thought that the "fly" was a modern feature?

Jim

[Bob Roller]

I figure it's original too.
Mainly for the fact that the big parts are numbered to each other.
I just didn't know if there was anybody out there making close reproduction locks.

The trigger I'm not sure about, the triggerguard, I feel is also an original item.

Bob, Off hand, I thought that the "fly" was a modern feature?

Jim

Jim,
The :"fly"or intercepting cam has been around for a long to me.Most high quality locks made in England for rifles had one and I actually examined a J&S Hawken that had one but can NOT say it always did.When the muzzle loader ruled the shooting scene the Ehglish had makers that strived for reliabliity and left us with some marvelous relics to try and copy.Frontier America was not oriented to any extreme level of quality and the proof is in poorly fit locks like this one with one position tumblers or IF a half cock was employed then the set trigger had to hold the sear up to prevent a jamming.The very LAST  Hawken lock I made was a representation of the lock on the Peterson/Petersen J&S Hawken shown in Bob Woodfill's latest book.Internally there was very little detail and a complete departure for me from a more sophisticated mechanism.the '4 pin"lock shown recently by "Snapper" shows what was available in England before 1860 and there were others from France and Switzerland and Germany that were superb examples of the lock making skills then available.
Thanks for the question and I hope I haven't muddied the water.
Bob Roller

[Jim Curlee]

Bob;

Other than the fly being positioned close to the plate on the tumbler side, instead of on the wood side of the lock, held in place by the bridal, it is almost a match with the L&R lock in my old Sharon, which I'm thinkin was an upgrade that I put in years ago.
One more difference, the stirrup on the L&R only has half of one side of the stirrup, whereas the old lock, has both ears of the stirrup, and the stirrup is held in place with a solid pin.

Seems to work just fine, maybe a bit of slop in the tumbler hole, thinkin about puttin some sort of a bearing in there to see if that will tighten her up a bit.
My only other option would be to weld the hole shut, then redrill for the tumbler.

Any thoughts?




Jim

[Bob Roller]

Bob;

Other than the fly being positioned close to the plate on the tumbler side, instead of on the wood side of the lock, held in place by the bridal, it is almost a match with the L&R lock in my old Sharon, which I'm thinkin was an upgrade that I put in years ago.
One more difference, the stirrup on the L&R only has half of one side of the stirrup, whereas the old lock, has both ears of the stirrup, and the stirrup is held in place with a solid pin.

Seems to work just fine, maybe a bit of slop in the tumbler hole, thinkin about puttin some sort of a bearing in there to see if that will tighten her up a bit.
Jim,
The bushing in the tumbler hole would be my choice because I have the machinery and the experience to do it. It's been years since I have seen the "fly"between the tumbler and the plate and have never tried to make it that way.Half of a stirrup can put a burden on the claw that hooks the mechanism together and a new one is not hard to make to prevent disaster.For decades I have said the LOCK is behind the plate and a pretty external appearance is no guarantee of an acceptable mechanism.Stiff,cast mainsprings were a problem in the past and I got many requests to make new mainsprings but had my own orders to make as well as requests for bronze bearings for automatic transmissions. The stiff mainsprings broke at the stirrup and then came down and wrecked the lower lock mortise.I hope you get this lock up to "par"(whatever that is).
Bob Roller

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

I think that the screw in the tumbler may not be for sear engagement, but rather is a stop for the tumbler against the bridle, preventing the hammer from dropping down too far.  This also controls how much the mainspring drops down relative to the lower edge of the lock plate.

[RAT]

I agree with Taylor regarding the screw in the tumbler. I've seen photos of several original locks with this feature. Surprisingly, one of them didn't have a bridle.

[Jim Curlee]

Taylor/RAT, I think both of you guy's are correct.
I was dinkin around with the lock, and the only wear is where the screw touch's the tumbler.
I have come to the conclusion that everything may not be up to today's standards, but I'm gonna shoot the rifle just the way it is. lol

Jim