Author Topic: losing the pan bridle  (Read 4917 times)

Offline rich pierce

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19312
losing the pan bridle
« on: August 26, 2008, 06:21:50 PM »
A guy on another forum asked about removing the pan bridle on a lock to make it bridle-less.

Do you guys then use a larger diameter pivot screw?  Seems to me the Siler, etc frizzens don't have enough extra meat around the pivot screw hole for this.  What do you do?
Andover, Vermont

Offline AndyThomas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
Re: losing the pan bridle
« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2008, 07:07:46 PM »
Rich,

I have debridled a Chambers early English lock. I used the 10-32 screw from the unbridled early Ketland lock for this. The bridled locks use an 8-32 screw.

I believe the unbridled Christian Springs lock also uses a 10-32 pivot screw, as opposed to an 8-32 on the Siler.

The disavantage to increasing the screw size is that the frizzen has to be annealed and then rehardened after the hole is enlarged.

Hope this helps,
Andy
formerly the "barefoot gunsmith of Martin's Station" (now retired!)

www.historicmartinsstation.com

Offline rich pierce

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19312
Re: losing the pan bridle
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2008, 08:50:52 PM »
I hear ya.  I noted that some frizzens don't have much extra metal right there around the pivot hole. I think the Davis locks with/o a pan bridle use really big screws, maybe #12?  A 10-32 should be good, eh?
Andover, Vermont

northmn

  • Guest
Re: losing the pan bridle
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2008, 09:16:40 PM »
You might try a Kasenit treatment on the 10-32 screw.  That seems to help resist any bending.

DP

Offline Stophel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4532
  • Chris Immel
Re: losing the pan bridle
« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2008, 11:26:24 PM »
On the old German locks I have (and locksets from TRS) the unbridled frizzen screw is usually close to an 8.

When a reenactor says "They didn't write everything down"   what that really means is: "I'm too lazy to look for documentation."

Offline JCKelly

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1434
Re: losing the pan bridle
« Reply #5 on: October 24, 2008, 03:46:23 PM »
Caywood Guns has several bridle-less locks available, including left hand. And they throw an impressive shower of sparks.

HistoricalArmsMaker

  • Guest
Re: losing the pan bridle
« Reply #6 on: October 24, 2008, 04:42:41 PM »
Here is a good idea yall should try. In a lot of applications requiring a "stiffening" of the screw, you can make a screw shoulder larger than the actual thread size. In this case the axle is a long shoulder. What happens is that when the shoulder contacts the surface (the plate), it not only can't go any further, it shoulders and provides a positive stop and stops the screw from rocking. I wish locks made today had shouldered screws. If they did, you couldn't overtighten the sear! Think about it, I am considering using them in some locks I'm going to attempt.
Susie

Offline Stophel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4532
  • Chris Immel
Re: losing the pan bridle
« Reply #7 on: October 24, 2008, 04:49:33 PM »
I just did a Siler where I removed the bridle (and reworked the pan so it is unrecognizeable as the all-too-familiar squareish Siler pan!).  Just used a 10-32 screw.  The frizzen has PLENTY of metal to use a larger screw.  It's an easy change...well, if you're starting out with a kit.
When a reenactor says "They didn't write everything down"   what that really means is: "I'm too lazy to look for documentation."