Search results

It's 46 inches, 80 caliber, Rayle / Douglas. Definitely not a Charleville barrel.

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...

I wondered, they do seem a bit thin.

That was my plan if it's correct. Am I right about it being a William III era musket in style?

Thank you so much! that gives me something to work on today. But smooth out the tumbler depression first, right?

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?

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-...

It's one of the attached images in the original post.

Thank you for the quick response! The trigger pull is heavy, I am sure the massive sear spring contributes to that.

So, I have this new to me doglock British musket reprodiction. Not an Indian one. Here's the post about it: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/what-is-my-new-dog-lock-musket-or-doglock-musket-supposed-to-be-and-who-made-it.185978/ The lock has a problem, maybe- I'm too ignorant to know...

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...