• Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

What is my new dog lock musket, or doglock musket, supposed to be? And who made it?

Shop deals on ebay
L & R
Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
T

TRP

32 Cal
MLF Supporter
Joined
Sep 13, 2024
Messages
25
Reaction score
15
Location
Tennessee
Good day all, my first post of several. I have lost my mind over early British muskets, and just bought at a stupid price this dog lock. A little over 75 caliber, 46 inch barrel, walnut stock- never fired, I think. No visible marks. Nail fastened butt plate, sheet brass sideplate, wooden rod with a brass tip. Pictures below.

First question, as they say in the art fraud world, what is it trying to be? I believe it's meant for a William III / Queen Anne land service musket, but I'm asking the experts here!

Second question, who made it, or at least who made the parts?

I've attached a picture of the lock inside. I worried that it might be Indian since the catalogue pictures were rotten, but it is much higher quality. Rifle Shoppe parts maybe? They don't have pictures so I can't compare. The barrel is marked by Douglas AND Rayle, which is odd. Do they make barrels for any kit or parts suppliers?

I'm having some operating problems with the lock, I made a separate post about that-

https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/doglock-lock-problems.185981/

Thank you all!

IMG_2014.JPG


IMG_2016.JPG


View attachment IMG_2017.JPG




View attachment IMG_2022.JPG


View attachment Q7zQZ.jpeg

View attachment IMG_2021.JPG
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2014.JPG
    IMG_2014.JPG
    1.3 MB
Last edited:
TRP said:
Good day all, my first post of several. I have lost my mind over early British muskets, and just bought at a stupid price this dog lock. A little over 75 caliber, 46 inch barrel, walnut stock- never fired, I think. No visible marks. Nail fastened butt plate, sheet brass sideplate, wooden rod with a brass tip. Pictures below.

First question, as they say in the art fraud world, what is it trying to be? I believe it's meant for a William III / Queen Anne land service musket, but I'm asking the experts here!

Second question, who made it, or at least who made the parts?

I've attached a picture of the lock inside. I worried that it might be Indian since the catalogue pictures were rotten, but it is much higher quality. Rifle Shoppe parts maybe? They don't have pictures so I can't compare. The barrel is marked by Douglas AND Rayle, which is odd. Do they make barrels for any kit or parts suppliers?

I'm having some operating problems with the lock, I made a separate post about that-

https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/doglock-lock-problems.185981/

Thank you all!

View attachment 352910

View attachment 352909

View attachment 352908




View attachment 352906


View attachment 352905

View attachment 352904
Click to expand...

The lock is a navy arms 1763/66 lock by Miroku, it was defarbed into a dog lock. The late was elongated, there is a welding scar at the top of the sear spring screw.

Most dog locks did not have a pan bridle or a French style sear spring too, it’s an ok defarb, not great.
 
FlinterNick said:
The lock is a navy arms 1763/66 lock by Miroku, it was defarbed into a dog lock. The late was elongated, there is a welding scar at the top of the sear spring screw.

Most dog locks did not have a pan bridle or a French style sear spring too, it’s an ok defarb, not great.
Click to expand...
Bingo. That explains the lock to me. I was puzzling on it.

The gun is someone’s creation of a “could have been” early gun. Doglocks are not easy to source and this maker got creative.

Let’s see the side plate.
 
So much experienced knowledge! Here are some pictures of the inner surface of the lock plate and the top above the sear spring. I would have thought the original sandy cast surface of the lock was undisturbed, do you mean the craftsman just added steel to the top of the plate?

And below, too- similar weld add marks below the dog pivot bolt hole. Good eye!

View attachment IMG_2030.JPG

View attachment IMG_2033.JPGView attachment IMG_2032.JPG
 
Last edited:
Some dogs have a thingy that is a little rod projecting inwards. It comes to rest on the lock plate when flopping back. It requires wood removal around the lock panel.

If I was going to rely on a long rear lock bolt to stop the dog from flopping back I’d turn the projecting end smooth and rounded on the end. No threads sticking out.

Dog locks are a thing. It hollers “early”. But if there’s an internal half **** notch the dog is mostly for looks.
 
rich pierce said:
Some dogs have a thingy that is a little rod projecting inwards. It comes to rest on the lock plate when flopping back. It requires wood removal around the lock panel.

If I was going to rely on a long rear lock bolt to stop the dog from flopping back I’d turn the projecting end smooth and rounded on the end. No threads sticking out.
Click to expand...
That was my plan if it's correct. Am I right about it being a William III era musket in style?
 
FlinterNick said:
The lock is a navy arms 1763/66 lock by Miroku, it was defarbed into a dog lock. The late was elongated, there is a welding scar at the top of the sear spring screw.

Most dog locks did not have a pan bridle or a French style sear spring too, it’s an ok defarb, not great.
Click to expand...
Good catch. Also note the weld scars on the **** where the dog catch was added.

Someone also plugged and redrilled the lock bolt holes. Should have left them the larger 1/4”/6mm size.
 
Last edited:
TRP said:
I thought so too! It's painful when taking a firing grip. It should project a little, though, to keep the dog from flopping all the way down, right?
Click to expand...
Bolt tension alone should be enough to prevent the dog from flopping around, so that rear lock bolt should not project through really.

If needed, put a tiny drop of blue Loctite on the interface between the dog and plate, a dab on the threads and re-assemble. Tighten up and let set … you’ll be able to work it through … it will stay wherever you position it.

Also see this post here, about doglock questions, as it also has links to other posts, plus articles I have posted. One is a 157 page research paper all about the early locks to include doglocks, which some scholars consider the most misused term in the muzzleloading world!

https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/doglock-questions.179185/#post-2599739
 
rich pierce said:
Bingo. That explains the lock to me. I was puzzling on it.

The gun is someone’s creation of a “could have been” early gun. Doglocks are not easy to source and this maker got creative.

Let’s see the side plate.
Click to expand...

The plate is not bad, the decision to leave the pan bridle is a bit odd,

What i would have done in addition

1. Remove pan bridle and lowered the pan fence.
2. Set the French Frizzen spring aside, and fit a long land frizzen spring with a pointed / diamond finial.
3. Squared off the top of the frizzen.
4. Removed the finial in the **** throat, make it a round circle instead of a heart.
5. Change the top jaw to an earlier one, not pierced.
 
Flint62Smoothie said:
Bolt tension alone should be enough to prevent the dog from flopping around, so that rear lock bolt should not project through really.

If needed, put a tiny drop of blue Loctite on the interface between the dog and plate, a dab on the threads and re-assemble. Tighten up and let set … you’ll be able to work it through … it will stay wherever you position it.
Click to expand...

Dog catch is supposed to slide back freely, the post on its end keeps it from falling off the plate, you don’t want them overly tight because they can catch a full **** and break the screw.
 
rich pierce said:
Nick could say. I’m just dipping my toe into the early era. Not immersed yet.
Click to expand...

The internals is where it’s real fun on dog locks ! Especially defarbs, I’m sure this one has the miroku internals.

Real dog locks

Massive mainsprings you need a biceps workout to ****.

Beefy wide tumblers with three notches, the first notch is to catch the sear in case the **** flys off, half and full ****.

There’s a debate as to whether or not dog locks have half ****, I’ve seen two originals and they both had half **** notches, so why the dog catch… they didn’t trust the quality of their steel to hold steady.

Sear spring are almost the size of some rifle lock frizzen springs too.

Rifle Shoppe issues number 8 screws with their locks, but the original screws. We’re closer to a 12 with coarse threads, it’s a small detail but they had the right idea.

The plates were massive and thick, to support the very large parts and heavy use.

The Queen Ann Dog lock is one of the most impressive locks I’ve ever seen, has great geometry and is just massive, almost rampart gun size.
 
Well we can do some of those things! Or even replace the lock. Aside from the lock anachronisms, is the general shape and proportion of the rest of the gun correct for the 1690 -1700 period?

You are right about the springs. The sear spring and mainspring are very strong, and the frizzen spring won't let it open but half way when fired with a flint!

One reason the lock screws are a bit thinner may be that the front one is a bit high. The maker had to file a small channel in the bottom of the barrel to let it pass through to the lock. Not deep, but a much bogger bolt might weaken the tube.
 
TRP said:
Well we can do some of those things! Or even replace the lock. Aside from the lock anachronisms, is the general shape and proportion of the rest of the gun correct for the 1690 -1700 period?

You are right about the springs. The sear spring and mainspring are very strong, and the frizzen spring won't let it open but half way when fired with a flint!

One reason the lock screws are a bit thinner may be that the front one is a bit high. The maker had to file a small channel in the bottom of the barrel to let it pass through to the lock. Not deep, but a much bogger bolt might weaken the tube.
Click to expand...
Your first question. To put it simply. Not really.

The maker used smaller lock bolts because he was more worried about the rammer channel. Notched barrels are not a problem.
 

Similar threads

T
Doglock lock problems...
Replies
9
Views
346
rich pierce
R
BCarp
17th C. English Dog-Lock Musket
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
Rudyard
R
T
Who made this Jordan 1742 Long Land, and where could I find a barrel?
2
Replies
20
Views
944
TFoley
T
Benjamin_Martin
Need help identifying Revolutionary War era musket 🙏
2 3
Replies
48
Views
4K
Mle1822
Mle1822
Flintlock1640
Opinions on this superimposed lock musket
Replies
4
Views
256
Sam squanch
Sam squanch

Latest posts

Back
Top