Original lock, flint re-conversion or not??

[cshirsch]

reconversion

[JTR]

If you want a true answer, have the lock magnaflux tested.
Originally that pan would have been cast with the plate, and if welded on as in a reconversion, the test will tell the tale.

A little fiddling with the lock could make it blend in a bit better.

If it were mine, I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Original plates of this period were not cast. ( I'll beg to differ with you on that one. )

Magnaflux would only show if there is a discontinuity in the plate / pan material.  If full weld penetration and no original seam were present, Mag particle (Magnaflux) inspection would not identify anything. ( Magnaflux can detect a less than perfect welding job, cracks, etc. )

Jim

[Jim Kibler]

You beg to differ!  This isn’t even debatable.  Plates and lock parts of this era were forged and filed.  They are wrought iron, not cast iron.  Neither wrought iron nor steel could be cast ( at least on a production basis during this time period). Cast steel came much later.   Cast iron would not be suitable.

[Seth Isaacson]

I always understood the originals to have been created through forging and filing, but I haven't really researched lockmakers in much detail. Doing a quick search, I see that in addition to "gunlock makers," there are period references to men being employed as "lock forgers" and "lock filers" at larger gunmaking businesses. For example: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/118246041/gunsmiths-wanted/

[JV Puleo]

If you want a true answer, have the lock magnaflux tested.
Originally that pan would have been cast with the plate, and if welded on as in a reconversion, the test will tell the tale.

Lock plates were forged, not cast. In fact, no piece of a real 18th century lock was cast. The technology for doing that is entirely modern. It's done now because it's the cheap way to do it...

[JTR]

The word cast I used in the original post was a poor choice of words. What I was trying to point out was that lock plates, at this 1900 century period of time, were generally made with the pan as part of the plate, and not as a separate piece as earlier Germanic locks with replaceable pans were made. With that thought, it might be easier to determine the originality of the lock in question.

None of the previous has anything to do with the subject gun, so I'll let it go at that.
John

[WESTbury]

Finally, something I know something about. Relative to forging firearm components, attached are pages 65-67 of my personal manuscript for my book on Springfield Armory flintlock muskets. The three pages present a listing of the operations required for the Type II Model 1816 as manufactured at Springfield Armory. The listed operations were originally compiled by Col Rosell Lee Superintendent of Springfield Armory as part of a very detailed report detailing what it would take to establish a third National Armory in the area of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers.

Note that all of the musket components were made from forgings with the exception of the lower and upper barrel bands, brass flashpan, and the walnut stock. These operations are presented on pages 73 and 74 of my book published in 2015 by Andrew Mowbray Inc Publishers.
https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=55358.0

[Molly]

.....so a lock (lock plate) would have been forged as one piece;  Plate, pan, bolster. 

[JV Puleo]

Yes. Keep in mind that nearly all locks were imported (I say nearly all but I personally think that real American-made locks are virtually unknown). The people who made them were specialists. Chances are, the man who forged lock plates did nothing else and he may have been the 2nd or 3rd generation doing it. They were extremely good at it...as anyone would be who made the same thing day in and out. All lock parts were made this way and supplied to "lock makers" who were really fitters. They also were very good at what they did. It was a form of proto-mass production with each specialist having dedicated tools designed for his part of the job. Exactly what these looked like is a matter of great question since virtually none have survived. The workers, who were often illiterate, left little or no records and, for the most part, kept their techniques secret.

[Jim Kibler]

.....so a lock (lock plate) would have been forged as one piece;  Plate, pan, bolster. 

Yes or no, depending on where the lock plate was made and perhaps the time period it was made.

[Molly]

OK, if they were 3 individual components they would be forge welded onto the plate.  And it would be possible that the weld could fail over time, for example the pan or bolster detaches from the plate and a repair is made which might "look like" or suggest a reconversion?

[WESTbury]

OK, if they were 3 individual components they would be forge welded onto the plate.  And it would be possible that the weld could fail over time, for example the pan or bolster detaches from the plate and a repair is made which might "look like" or suggest a reconversion?

They would not be "forged to the lockplate". The pan, plate, and bolster would be integral parts of the of the forging that came out of the forging die. The forged plates, pan, and bolster are not assemblies of components but are homogeneous with each other.

[Molly]

Forgive me but my blacksmithing skills are quite limited.  But Mr. Kibler seemed to suggest that they may be individual parts

"Yes or no, depending on where the lock plate was made and perhaps the time period it was made."

Now maybe I misunderstood his response but if it's yes or no ??  I'm taking it that they MAY have been made as one integral piece  OR they may have been two or even 3 pieces.

Don't stress yourself over trying to explain.  In either case it seems that a portion of the lock could fail and needed to be repaired and that repair might look like a reconversion.  All I'm doing is qualifying that what appears as a reconversion may actually be a repair.

[WESTbury]

Forgive me but my blacksmithing skills are quite limited.  But Mr. Kibler seemed to suggest that they may be individual parts

Molly,
99.9% of my flintlock experience is related to military arms. My exposure to civilian flintlocks is miniscule, so you can factor that into the equation.

U.S.Miiltary flintlock muskets used locks with either integrally forged flashpans, detachable iron pans, and detachable brass pans. Springfield followed the French design using detachable iron pans from 1795 through mid to late 1809 when the switched to integrally forged iron pans. That design was used at Springfield through the end of 1817 when they began using detachable brass pans. In contrast, Harpers Ferry used integrally forged pans only through late 1817 when they switched to detachable brass pans.

From what I can tell the U.S. Ordnance Dept did not have a preference.

Kent

To be accurate, the Ordnance Dept. was authorized in 1812 but not fully staffed until 1815. The office of Commissary General of Purchases handled procurement prior to 1815

[Jim Kibler]

Forgive me but my blacksmithing skills are quite limited.  But Mr. Kibler seemed to suggest that they may be individual parts

"Yes or no, depending on where the lock plate was made and perhaps the time period it was made."

Now maybe I misunderstood his response but if it's yes or no ??  I'm taking it that they MAY have been made as one integral piece  OR they may have been two or even 3 pieces.

Don't stress yourself over trying to explain.  In either case it seems that a portion of the lock could fail and needed to be repaired and that repair might look like a reconversion.  All I'm doing is qualifying that what appears as a reconversion may actually be a repair.

English locks tended to have the pan and plate made as one piece.  Continental locks often had detachable pans and bolsters.  That is, the pan and bolster are made as a separate piece from the plate and joined by mechanical means (hook and screw).

Jim

[RAT]

In one of my books on NW trade guns there is a picture of a lock that had the pan replaced. I can't remember the book... and right now I'm too lazy to look. Anyway... The original pan had "burned through", or rusted through. The Hudson's Bay post gunsmith ground the old pan off and brass-brazed a new pan onto the lock. So...

An original English trade gun lock with a lock plate, bolster, and pan forged from a single piece of iron into a forging die...
The Native owner shot the gun a lot with little-to-no cleaning and over time the bottom of the pan rusted way...
He took the gun to one of the HBC forts around Hudson's Bay and the gunsmith knocks the old pan off and brazes a new one one.

As I recall (old guy memory here). The book also mentioned holes rusted through the bottom of pans that were repaired by filling the hole with melted brass and grinding of filing a new pan cavity.

What does that contribute to this conversation... nothing really. I'm not suggesting this was done with Molly's lock... I'm just saying in-period replacement of worn pans has been documented.

[RAT]

Just to confuse the conversation further...

Here's an English trade gun with a lock made with a detachable pan...

https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=4828.0