Earliest frizzen spring rollers

[smart dog]

Hi Mike,
The value of the roller, and the large roller on the spring accentuated this effect, was the frizzen had substantial resistance to opening until the toe slid over the apex of the roller, and then any resistance to opening disappeared.  The same degree of that effect is hard to reproduce on a lock without a roller.  You can come close by making a feather spring with a hump at the end where the frizzen toe rides over it.  When combined with a short throw flint cock powered by a strong mainspring, the roller frizzen purportedly increased the speed of the lock and ignition.  Having built locks will all of those features, it is my sense that the large roller on the spring has stonger camming action than a small roller installed in the toe of the frizzen.  Moreover, the large roller wears better and is less prone to locking up due to powder fouling. I believe those are the reasons the large roller dominated during the 19th century and the other system mostly disappeared.  Both systems take about the same effort to make because the roller on the frizzen usually rode over a hump on the feather spring so for both methods you have to start with thicker spring material.

dave 

[Mike Brooks]

Golly, as if I didn't know how a roller functions. So, thanks for the ultra-detailed description Dave.  I'll still stand by my statement. I can't tell the difference while shooting.

[smart dog]

Hi Mike.
My post was not directed to you.  It was directed to Mattox Forge's (Mike) and Kent's questions about the value of the roller.  I agree with you that I cannot tell the difference when shooting.

dave

[JV Puleo]

Even in period there must have been differences of opinion as to how well they worked. I understand Wogden never used them.  It would seem to me that if there was even the potential for failure and, at best, only a marginal improvement in ignition that they would not have been suitable to military arms. I suspect that the balance of feather spring tension and the length and smoothness of the projection on the frizzen is far more important.

And, I have shot both types on "best" quality English guns and have never been able to tell the difference either.

[WESTbury]

Everybody that has replied.

Appreciate all of the comments and observations!

As you all may know, 99.9% of my history with flintlocks is related U.S. Military muskets, particularly Springfield Armory. The batteries of those locks have a full radius on the foot. This is the case for all Springfield muskets from the inception of flintlock production in 1795 to the end in 1843/1844. I'm quite sure that all of you know that that feature would result in a Line Contact between the battery and battery spring. Thus absolutely no drag/friction which I believe is the case of civilian flintlocks with rollers, whether on the frizzen or the frizzen spring. The people in the US Ordnance Dept. were quite psychotic about improvements to the muskets which resulted in better performance. In my opinion had they thought that rollers were a desirable feature, they would have directed that they be employed. As Mike and Dave stressed, there is no perceived advantage when firing a flintlock with rollers on the frizzen or frizzen spring.

Photo below is of a lock from a 1799 dated musket and the red arrow pointing to the foot of the battery. It's somewhat difficult to see, but the battery foot has a radius. I'm sure that this characteristic was common place in the period for civilian and military flintlocks.

I apologize for boring all of you to death.

Kent
 

[smart dog]

Even in period there must have been differences of opinion as to how well they worked. I understand Wogden never used them.  It would seem to me that if there was even the potential for failure and, at best, only a marginal improvement in ignition that they would not have been suitable to military arms. I suspect that the balance of feather spring tension and the length and smoothness of the projection on the frizzen is far more important.

And, I have shot both types on "best" quality English guns and have never been able to tell the difference either.

Hi Joe,
Wogdon usually used a roller bearing fitted on the toe of the frizzen on all of his highest quality guns. He also made a few with large rollers on the feather spring. Here is an example I made that is an exact copy of a Wogdon lock from the mid 1780s.  This one has a small roller in the toe of the frizzen but no thick hump on the feather spring, rather the end of the spring forms the hump.





This lock on an earlier pair of Wogdon pistols (1775-1778) have no roller bearings but do have the curved feather spring.



dave

[Mike Brooks]

Hi Mike.
My post was not directed to you.  It was directed to Mattox Forge's (Mike) and Kent's questions about the value of the roller.  I agree with you that I cannot tell the difference when shooting.

dave

Ok, got it. Sorry for the confusion. Too many Mike's. I thought you had lost your marbles trying to school me on rollers. At least we all agree about thier performance.

[JV Puleo]

Even in period there must have been differences of opinion as to how well they worked. I understand Wogden never used them.  It would seem to me that if there was even the potential for failure and, at best, only a marginal improvement in ignition that they would not have been suitable to military arms. I suspect that the balance of feather spring tension and the length and smoothness of the projection on the frizzen is far more important.

And, I have shot both types on "best" quality English guns and have never been able to tell the difference either.

Hi Joe,
Wogdon usually used a roller bearing fitted on the toe of the frizzen on all of his highest quality guns. He also made a few with large rollers on the feather spring. Here is an example I made that is an exact copy of a Wogdon lock from the mid 1780s.  This one has a small roller in the toe of the frizzen but no thick hump on the feather spring, rather the end of the spring forms the hump.





This lock on an earlier pair of Wogdon pistols (1775-1778) have no roller bearings but do have the curved feather spring.



dave

I stand corrected. I don't remember where I read that. It wasn't from personal observation because the only Wogdon's I've ever had were a cased pair that had been converted. Chances are I fell into the trap of reading someone who made an observation, probably from a limited number of examples, drew a conclusion and then stated it as a fact. This happens a lot in collecting books...

[smart dog]

Hi Mike.
My post was not directed to you.  It was directed to Mattox Forge's (Mike) and Kent's questions about the value of the roller.  I agree with you that I cannot tell the difference when shooting.

dave

Ok, got it. Sorry for the confusion. Too many Mike's. I thought you had lost your marbles trying to school me on rollers. At least we all agree about thier performance.

Hi Mike,
I have lost my marbles but I think I am covering up pretty well until I don't properly identify the right Mikes, Daves, Bills etc. 

dave