1792 Contract Rifle in Original Flintlock

[Loyalist Dave]

I thought all the rifles, except the air rifle, ordered and delivered for the Corps of Discovery were .54?

The rifle in the collection in question is listed as a .50. IF all the C of D rifles of whatever pattern they had were .54, then it's not one of the C of D rifles, OR perhaps the person who determined the caliber was wrong?

LD

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Okay, I will bite. What is it you guys are seeing with the Bess description?

So what they have is a 3rd or India Pattern Bess, NOT something from 1777! It's a Napoleonic Era piece. Never saw service in the Rev War.

The King's Musket underwent two major barrel changes, three major lock changes, and a change to its rammer, during the lifetime of production. Minor changes and differences were plentiful....

The Bess was not called the "Brown Bess" because of its brown barrel. The King's Musket was kept polished. Kept the lads busy and out of trouble as they spent a lot of time polishing the muskets.

The ONLY British muskets with "painted black" barrels were some of the Sea Service muskets.

LD

 

[Grenadier1758]

@4575wcf, Don Stith is also of a similar position. He used to have a Corps of Discovery kit that was in essence a 1792 rifle refurbished with one of the 1803 interchangeable locks and bored out to 54 caliber. The kit Don offers is in the 1792 contract caliber of 49. This would make the rifle in the Air Force Museum consistent with the 1792 contract requirements. There are a few mentions in the Journals that the rifles were of military caliber. But little to describe what caliber or how many balls to the pound.

Lewis & Clark (donstith.com)

Note that the recorded description of Lewis's rifles is that they have sling swivels. The 1803 Rifle specifications do not include a requirement for sling swivels.

The Harper's Ferry Museum has a Contract Rifle in the Corps of Discovery exhibit, not an 1803 Rifle.

 

[dave_person]

Okay, I will bite. What is it you guys are seeing with the Bess description?

Hi,
The musket shown has a 39" barrel and styling indicating it is an India pattern Brown Bess made well after the Rev War and probably from the 19th century. Brown Besses were either long land patterns with 46" barrels, short land patterns with 42" barrels, or India patterns with 39" barrels. Most British muskets used in the Rev War were long land muskets; however, late in the war the short lands began to dominate. Brown Besses during the 18th century were not browned but polished armory bright. The name Brown Bess has nothing to do with browning the barrels (History of the term 'Brown Bess').

Besses changed quite a bit from their first introduction in the 1730s until the last Bess pattern of 1809. The locks changed, the barrel length changed, and the hardware changed usually in an effort to reduce cost but sometimes to improve the design. The authors of the brochure missed a lot in their research.

dave

 

[4575wcf]

I am in agreement that General Clark was not an accomplished authority on his collection, but I thought he stated the Bess was from a later period, and only similar to the Revolutionary long land pattern. He does show some knowledge though, consistent with what we knew in the era. He knew the 1803 had been restocked, and apparently had it converted back to flintlock. I am dying to get an expert to Colorado Springs and look that 1795 gun over. It MIGHT, just MIGHT be an original flintlock 1792-4 contract rifle, if so the only one known. If it carries a Ketland contract lock and the lock mortise shows signs of a one time refitting, and the sling swivels are all Harper's Ferry in design, I may pass out. I would be lobbying the government to get it to the Fur Trade Museum and put it under armed guard. Talk about hiding in plain site--hanging in the staircase of the Air Force Academy Library for who knows how long. I live for this stuff.

 

[Artificer]

I do not think we can ignore the efforts of Hall, but he rarely gets mentioned. He enjoyed the benefits of a full time paid gig at Harper's Ferry while he developed his breech loader, specifically dedicated to developing interchangeable parts. The rifle was a bit of a dog, but the interchangeable parts idea changed the way the armory approached things forever. No such interchangeability of parts existed during Lewis's time, the 1800 contract Ketland locks on hand were as close as you were going to get. It is true that Whitney had achieved some success along these lines, but his guns only interchanged in lots of ten. I will contend, until proven otherwise, that Lewis well knew what he was up against in the way of supply problems, and would never have accepted unproven prototype weapons. His rearward most extremity was on the line, and he was directly responsible for many others.

Glad you brought up Hall and the fact he was the first one who really succeeded in the "Interchangeable Parts System of Manufacturing," though as you remarked it was well after the time period in discussion. (Eli Whitney just put on a Dog and Pony Show earlier with loose fitting parts and his muskets were not truly made with Interchangeable Parts.)

Side Note: Before he passed, my best friend in life had at least the second, if not the best collection of Hall Rifles in the country and that included one of the extremely rare Civilian Hall Rifles. He used to say Hall Rifles were/are "so ugly they are cute." Though I never could afford anything like it, I was with him over the decades when he bought many of those rifles (including the Civilian Hall) and I've fired some of the Flintlock and Percussion and Hall Rifles from his collection. (NO, we did not fire the Civilian Hall. LOL ) Long story short, I was thoroughly indoctrinated into the "Cult of the Hall" as he used to say. Grin. OK, enough of that.

Before I go further, there is something I would like more information on. Who exactly made the "1800 contract Ketland Locks" and how many did that maker make?

Gus

Edited to add: I also think it important to know how many makers made 1794 Contract rifles and who made the locks for those rifles. IOW, did each maker make his own locks or did some of the makers use locks made by others?

 

[4575wcf]

We share some experience with the Hall. I had a friend whose scout master owned an 1819 infantry rifle, converted to percussion but otherwise very good plus. I had it apart, the fitment breech to barrel was well thought out and flawlessly fitted-but still they leaked. They DO have their own appeal. Ketland was one of the main lockmakers of imported locks in America. Trade muskets, contract arms, small shop Kentuckies all are found with them. It was a big going concern, to research it properly would be an ongoing deal. According to the L & C websites the contract for 3000 rifle sized locks was placed in 1800, 1500 of which were surmised to be on hand at Harpers Ferry when Lewis arrived. These locks were intended to be fitted into guns, then the guns shipped to Philly, where Lewis purchased a few more regular contract rifles to outfit additional non-military troops. Because the locks were provided in the finished state, the plates were already hardened and interfered with the planned marking process. It is assumed they were marked Ketland under the pan, and United States at the back. The surviving 1792 contract rifle is marked MF (Martin Fry) on the barrel breech, US on the breech, and signed on top by the maker. That is about all I can tell you at this point without getting in over my head.

 

[4575wcf]

According to what we read, the 1792 Contract rifle was made by the cottage civilian industry of PA that also made most of the Kentucky rifles. They were provided with a "germanic" style lock. Seems in order to meet the contract (that was really huge for the time and resources available in the time period) almost everybody involved in the industry was working on them to some degree. Eleven different gunsmiths took the contract on, delivering 1,476 rifles between April 1792 and December 1792. A second contract for the same weapon took place in 1794. Seventeen gunsmiths delivered 2,000 rifles by November 1794. They managed to deliver on time. The survival rate of the approximately 3500 rifles ordered is one rifle, and one separate barrel. So what happened to them? It is thought because of the difficulty marking them properly to US ownership, that they went into private hands little by little, and were used up as working guns. Some obviously were never identified as contract rifles, so closely did they resemble the civilian version of the plain Kentucky rifle. It is my contention that Martin Fry's barrel mill provided the bulk of the barrels, if not the most of them, but I cannot substantiate that claim based on three (maybe) specimens. We know the barrel mill burned down in 1800, and Martin Fry went to debtor's prison. I doubt he recovered enough to have had much presence in the 1807 Contract production.

 

[4575wcf]

Loyalist Dave
The rifles were 'freshed out". The gunsmith recut the rifling until it cleaned up. The short rifles could range anywhere from the initial .49 caliber on up till the walls got too thin, then a fitted mold was made. Maybe a few did get too thin, a couple guns did burst on the expedition. With a skelp welded barrel, the opportunity to cut into a slag pocket was always there.

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
If you want to know about the Ketlands and their businesses in America, go here:
http://www.researchpress.co.uk/rppublishing/rplibrary/rpl008-ketland-guns-in-america.pdf
dave

 

[kansas_volunteer]

If the rifle in question is a 1792 it should have the letters US stamped on the top flat at the breech end. There have been a few we-knows about the Lewis and Clark rifles mentioned here. What we know is that we don't know if any of what we say we know is true, it's all just speculation, you might say fantasy.

 

[4575wcf]

Maybe, but there are patterns. And there are experts in every field that leave the rest of us behind in every endeavor, simply because they are very gifted people. I am not one of those people, I am just a pretty decent researcher who usually knows what he is looking at. What I am trying to get across here is that this COULD be a 1792-4 Contract rifle in original flintlock. Is it not worth it to get an expert down there to take a look? If it is what I think it is, it is one of approximately 3500, it predated the L & C expedition, and some 300 or so were in inventory at Harper's Ferry when Lewis got there. That much is documented, and IMO that is a very decent start.

 

[Artificer]

Because the locks were provided in the finished state, the plates were already hardened and interfered with the planned marking process. It is assumed they were marked Ketland under the pan, and United States at the back. The surviving 1792 contract rifle is marked MF (Martin Fry) on the barrel breech, US on the breech, and signed on top by the maker. That is about all I can tell you at this point without getting in over my head.

The emboldened sentence above is important, but I will get back to that later.

OK, I thought you meant Philadelphia made Ketland Locks, but just wanted to be sure. Yes, they were most likely the civilian locks that were the best at being "Close to Interchangeable" in that time period. The reason for that is how they were manufactured.

Before the Interchangeable Parts System, mass production was broken down into at least 13 different trades to as many as around 21 trades in England and on the Continent. Ketland and later Golcher were both English Lock makers who moved here and set up virtually the same businesses, because they could make more money here with a greater demand for guns

Lock Plates and other parts during the period were hot forged from mostly Iron (though some other parts were steel) into hardened steel dies (by this period). Those dies were hand made by the lock makers and provided to the blacksmiths to forge the parts. Then the lock plates and parts were hand filed and finished by "Lock Filers" employed by the lock makers and to the quality needed for the firearms made. For example, Trade Gun parts were not as finely finished and thus generally the cheapest locks.

They also used templates as comparative measuring devices for the parts of each kind of lock they made, though they weren't as precise as Gauges made at National Armories years later. They did not have affordable precision calipers until the 1840's, but they did some surprisingly accurate things with non-measuring calipers.

So I don't have to type out many pages explaining most all the tools to make locks in the period, and probably bore most members to tears, here is a great article by Mark Elliot showing some tools and gages used by smaller period shops to make locks:
Handmade Colonial English Flintlock – Mark Elliott (markelliottva.com)

Now larger shops like Ketland used the same procedures, tools, etc. and the only difference was they used more of them and more workers to make larger numbers of locks. While that increases quantity, it also introduces less interchangeability because of the additional number of handmade dies needed and of course the wear on those dies as they were used. However to them and most locksmiths at the time, there was no need to go to the huge added expense of being closer to true Interchangeable Parts, especially on civilian sporting guns.

The key here is that a smaller number of dies used to forge the parts and a smaller quantity of locks made, would naturally deliver lock parts that were more interchangeable. Thus 30 locks made by Harpers Ferry on the first set of such tools would have been more to much more interchangeable than locks made by Ketland on a much larger scale. ALSO, it made making spare parts easy because they used the same tools and that's another rub against Ketland Locks on these rifles.

Those who say Ketland locks were used, never explain where they got the spare parts that were supposedly made at Harpers Ferry. Harpers Ferry didn't have dies made for Ketland lock parts. Now of course they could have made such dies by increasing the time to do it, but why would they do that when they already had the dies and tools to make their own locks? The spare parts might have been stripped off other Ketland locks, but there is no documentation to support that. Were spare parts ordered with the Ketland locks initially? We don't know as we have no documentation for that and frankly why would they have done it on rifles that were primarily used for trade?

Going back to the fact the Ketland locks came already hardened, shows even more time that would have been necessary to spot anneal the lock plates so they could be drilled and tapped for lock plate screws. But this also brings up an even LARGER problem those who suggest they used the old/broken/unserviceable/stored Contract Rifles, instead of making 15 new made Harpers Ferry Rifles.

OK, it is getting late, so will stop there for now, but will continue on in the next post.

Gus

 

[4575wcf]

Very interesting point. I was thinking along the lines of just the opposite, that a lock produced in huge contracted quantities would be the more likely to be interchangeable because of the systematic production required ie. 1000 cocks, 1000 frizzens, 1000 tumblers etc. all going to the lock assembler's benches. What you are saying about the gauges makes a lot of sense also though. I really must bow to your knowledge on this matter, because I have done virtually no research on actual lock manufacture from the time period. The tapped screw holes for the lock screws from the sideplate--would not they have been put in prior to hardening?

 

[Artificer]

Very interesting point. I was thinking along the lines of just the opposite, that a lock produced in huge contracted quantities would be the more likely to be interchangeable because of the systematic production required ie. 1000 cocks, 1000 frizzens, 1000 tumblers etc. all going to the lock assembler's benches. What you are saying about the gauges makes a lot of sense also though. I really must bow to your knowledge on this matter, because I have done virtually no research on actual lock manufacture from the time period. The tapped screw holes for the lock screws from the sideplate--would not they have been put in prior to hardening?

That is a GREAT question! Years ago I asked that question on 18th century English (and other country's locks) imported here mostly before and after the AWI. Gary Brumfield, who sadly passed a few years ago, was the second Master of the Shop at Colonial Williamsburg and he informed me not only did they NOT drill and tap the side lock screw holes, but also most of the lock plates were unhardened Iron. (That really threw me for a loop, but also answered some other questions I had.)

There are three reasons why mass produced locks normally weren't drilled and tapped for the side lock screws.

The first reason was not knowing ahead of time how one would position the lock and what size barrel would be used, chances are one or both holes could be in a bad position. The front sidelock screw hole has to clear the bottom of the barrel and the top of the ramrod hole. So if the pre-drilled hole was off to miss that area, one would have to plug it and re-drill and tap a new hole.

Second reason was with different barrels, the lock would have to be placed fore and aft so the center of the pan was ahead of the breech plug. (This to allow a clear space for the vent hole ahead of the breech plug.) Now, if the hole was drilled too close, one would have to cut a "C" shape or even drill a round hole in the body of the breech plug. Without the rear hole being drilled it allowed the gunsmith to better place the hole so the sidelock screw would miss the body of the breech plug or at least leave the minimum amount of "C" shape cut for it to clear.

Finally, taps and dies were not standardized in this period and wouldn't be for at least a few more decades. Chances are the pre-tapped hole would be in a size the customer gunsmith didn't have.

Now since I don't have documentation on the Ketland Locks, I don't know for certain they weren't drilled and tapped, but I highly doubt it for these reasons.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Sorry, I hit the post button too soon.

OK, now Harpers Ferry would have made their barrels in common Shapes/diameters (checked with calipers) and with common lengths of breech plug screws into the breech and breech plug tangs behind it.

THAT would allow them to use a template to drill and tap their lock plates for side lock screws and not run into problems mentioned above when they had to replace an entire lock. Of course, their taps and dies made their Side Locks screws interchangeable for all their lock plates as well.

That would have allowed Harpers Ferry locks to be as close to Interchangeable as possible and thus closer to a "drop in" fit should they have to replace the whole lock.

Gus

 

[plmeek]

As usual with these threads, they often go off in a lot of different directions that makes it kind of hard to follow. That said, there are a number of statements that I find confusing and others that appear to be down right misleading.

First off, from the fuzzy photo and the meager description provided in the document from the Air Force Academy Library that has been linked in this thread, I don't believe there is any way to identify that rifle as a 1792 Contract Rifle much less a Lewis & Clark "short rifle."

There are many errors in the document concerning the subject rifle and other guns covered in the document that make the whole thing questionable. Dave pointed out the problems with the Brown Bess. Another example is the "Kentucky Rifle - Circa 1790". That rifle has a lock plate with a rounded tail common on locks of the 1820s, 30s, and later. I believe the patch box design is of a later design. That rifle probably dates from the 2nd quarter of the 19th century.

The subject rifle is titled "Kentucky Type Contract Rifle - Circa 1795". Where do they get that date? The early Federal Contract Rifles of 1792 were made in 1792 and 1794. Another request was made of U.S. contractors for a different configured rifle in 1807 that has become to be known as the 1807 U.S. Contract Army Rifle. So the date of "Circa 1795" is a silly error.

Martin Fry is stated in the document as the maker of the rifle. Martin Fry is not listed in surviving documents as one of the contractors for the 1792 Contract Rifle (George Moller, American Military Shoulder Arms, Vol. II, pages 21, 22, and 23).

Frank M. Sellers in American Gunsmiths has three entries for Martin Fry gunsmiths,

1. Martin Fry, Jr., (1739-1780). York, Pennsylvania, 1760-1780.
2. Martin Fry III, (1769- ). York, Pennsylvania, 1799-1809.
3. Martin Fry, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 1821 tax records.

Henry J. Kauffman in The Pennsylvania-Kentucky Rifle has one entry for a Martin Frey that was born in 1769 and has him in York. He states that Frey owned a one-third share in a boring mill which burned in 1800.

If we can believe the rifle in the Albert P. Clark collection at the USAF Academy was made by Martin Fry as claimed, it would have to be the Martin Fry from York that was born in 1769. He would have been 23 in 1792 and just barely past his apprenticeship.

Moller found documents for 507 rifles delivered from York in 1794 from unknown makers (Moller 2011, pg 23). It is possible that young Martin Fry made some of these rifles, but there is no way to prove it.

Ketland locks have been mentioned many times in this thread. I'm at a total loss as to where this comes from and what it has to do with the 1792 Contract Rifles. I see nothing in the fuzzy photo or in the meager description to suggest the subject rifle has a Ketland lock!

Again, I refer to Moller pages 9 and 10. Moller transcribes a letter dated 28 Sept. 1795 from Tench Francis, purveyor of public supplies, to John Ketland of Philadelphia where Tench Francis is ordering 3000 rifle locks and 3000 musket locks from the Ketland "house in England". This would be the firm of Ketland & Co. These locks were delivered to the Schuylkill Arsenal in Philadelphia over the period from 1797 to 1800. Obviously, these locks were not available to the contractors who made the 1792 Contract Rifles in 1792 and 1794.

It has been suggested that some of these Ketland locks were present at Harper's Ferry when Meriwether Lewis visited to order his rifles. The source for this is not given. Moller has the locks delivered to Schuylkill Arsenal. He states "The musket locks were issued to U.S. contractors of muskets and are believed to have been used in many of the muskets delivered from 1797 by the U.S. contractors of 1794 and by the contractors of 1796 ship muskets." Moller goes on to say, "The Ketland rifle locks purchased by the United States have been observed on rifles contracted by Purveyour of Public Supplies Israel Whelen for the Indian Department. They have also been observed on U.S. contract ship pistols and horsemen's pistols." He makes no mention of any of the Ketland locks being transferred to Harper's Ferry. Had he found documents that they were, he surely would have mentioned it.

I can't find in my files a copy of Frank Tait's article on the 1792 Contract Rifle and the Lewis & Clark expedition. I do have several pieces written by S. K. Wier that appear to summarize Tait's points. Wier writes, "Gunsmiths at Harper's Ferry fitted the new locks, apparently the same flintlock design used later on the Model 1803 rifle." This is consistent with Don Stith's offering that Grenadier1758 linked to in Post #23 in this thread. I'm not aware of any published articles that suggest Ketland locks were used on Lewis & Clark's "short rifles".

The introduction of Ketland locks in this thread appears to be a total red herring to me. They were not used by the original 1792 Contract Rifle makers. There is no evidence they were used on Lewis's "short rifle". And I see no evidence that the subject rifle has a Ketland lock.

There is only the slimmest of possibilities that the rifle in the USAF Academy Clark collection is a 1792 Contract Rifle. There is zero evidence that it is one of Lewis & Clark's "short rifles." Considering the errors in identifying and dating other guns in the collection, I view the claims made in the document as wild speculation and puts the whole document in doubt.

As I read this thread, there are comments that come off as "statements of fact" that in reality are pure speculation. Some may be honest lapses of memory. Others I wonder about.

There is an active thread on this forum titled "All of this misinformation is really getting old". The OP writes in his opening post, "I've never seen so much misunderstanding in any topic. Yes, it's probably inexperienced shooters but the sayings get passed around so much they become convoluted. It's hard to take when they want to argue the point because they believe it so much".

I apologize to anyone offended if I come off too harsh with my comments above. But I really believe people need to be more careful and resist citing facts from memory and/or presenting speculation as fact. Less knowledgeable people read them and may take them as true facts and continue to repeat them. The misinformation gets perpetuated.

 

[Artificer]

Ketland locks have been mentioned many times in this thread. I'm at a total loss as to where this comes from and what it has to do with the 1792 Contract Rifles. I see nothing in the fuzzy photo or in the meager description to suggest the subject rifle has a Ketland lock!

Again, I refer to Moller pages 9 and 10. Moller transcribes a letter dated 28 Sept. 1795 from Tench Francis, purveyor of public supplies, to John Ketland of Philadelphia where Tench Francis is ordering 3000 rifle locks and 3000 musket locks from the Ketland "house in England". This would be the firm of Ketland & Co. These locks were delivered to the Schuylkill Arsenal in Philadelphia over the period from 1797 to 1800. Obviously, these locks were not available to the contractors who made the 1792 Contract Rifles in 1792 and 1794.

It has been suggested that some of these Ketland locks were present at Harper's Ferry when Meriwether Lewis visited to order his rifles. The source for this is not given. Moller has the locks delivered to Schuylkill Arsenal. He states "The musket locks were issued to U.S. contractors of muskets and are believed to have been used in many of the muskets delivered from 1797 by the U.S. contractors of 1794 and by the contractors of 1796 ship muskets." Moller goes on to say, "The Ketland rifle locks purchased by the United States have been observed on rifles contracted by Purveyour of Public Supplies Israel Whelen for the Indian Department. They have also been observed on U.S. contract ship pistols and horsemen's pistols." He makes no mention of any of the Ketland locks being transferred to Harper's Ferry. Had he found documents that they were, he surely would have mentioned it.

GREAT INFO, Phil!!!

I had not heard of the "1800 Ketland locks" before, but was going off what I thought was new evidence that came out after our discussion 5 years ago. Well, OK, so that is erroneous. I don't believe Ketland locks were used on the Lewis and Clark Rifles, but of course I may be mistaken.

I was thinking "Why the Heck" would they have sent Ketland Locks to Harpers Ferry and not the Schuylkill Arsenal in Philadelphia? Or worse still, "Why the Heck" would Schuylkill Arsenal in Philadelphia send any locks to Harpers Ferry since Schuylkill contracted for Contract Rifles and other Contract arms, supplied the makers with locks when they had them, and RECEIVED and paid for the new arms at Schuylkill for later authorized issues. As far as I know (and again I could be mistaken) MOST of the Gunsmiths Schuylkill contracted with were all in or around Philadelphia. Is that correct by your documentation?

Something else I would appreciate your thoughts on, if I may ask? It seems to me that Contract Rifles needing MINOR repairs would have been done at the Schuylkill Arsenal or at least farmed out to the local/nearby gunsmiths who made them? Why would they have gone to the expense of boxing Contracting Rifles up that only needed minor repairs and putting them in wagons for the 143 mile or 7 to 8 day trip to Harpers Ferry and later doing it again to pick them up after repair? (I'm not sure if there was a way the boxed guns could have been brought back and forth to Harpers Ferry by water?) That just doesn't make sense.

If that assumption on my part is correct, then that seems to tell us more about the "Unserviceable" Contract Rifles in storage at Harpers Ferry? I've been under the impression for some time the "Unserviceable" Rifles stored in Harpers Ferry had significant damage to them? Actually, I've often wondered if the reason they were there was because the condition of those rifles was so bad, they may have been there just to cannibalize the brass and Iron parts for the metal and re-use the metal later on?

Again I have no documentation on much of these things I have put question marks behind and could be wrong, but such things were done both in England and here in America during the period.

Gus

 

[plmeek]

That is a GREAT question! Years ago I asked that question on 18th century English (and other country's locks) imported here mostly before and after the AWI. Gary Brumfield, who sadly passed a few years ago, was the second Master of the Shop at Colonial Williamsburg and he informed me not only did they NOT drill and tap the side lock screw holes, but also most of the lock plates were unhardened Iron. (That really threw me for a loop, but also answered some other questions I had.)

Gus,

I offer a different opinion about whether imported locks, particularly English locks, had their lock bolt holes drilled and tapped and the plates hardened.

I know that Gary Brumfield was highly respected as a talented and knowledgeable gun maker. And there is good reason to value his judgement and opinion.

However, I have discussed this matter with Jack Brooks and Bob Lienemann, and they are both of the opinion that the imported locks did have their lock plates hardened and the holes for the lock bolts drilled and tapped prior to case hardening. They base their opinions on close examination of a number of antique guns and an even larger number of antique locks. Jack Brooks as a substantial collection of antique locks.

You gave three reasons why mass produced locks normally weren't drilled and tapped for the side lock screws. Your reasons are reasonable and logical, but maybe not all encompassing.

1) "not knowing ahead of time how one would position the lock and what size barrel would be used" - this is true, but locks were imported in wide ranges of quality and sizes. It would be a simple matter for the American gunmaker to choose a lock of the size to fit the geometry of the stock and barrel size he planned to build.

2) "the lock would have to be placed fore and aft so the center of the pan was ahead of the breech plug...if the hole was drilled too close, one would have to cut a "C" shape or even drill a round hole in the body of the breech plug...Without the rear hole being drilled it allowed the gunsmith to better place the hole so the sidelock screw would miss the body of the breech plug or at least leave the minimum amount of "C" shape cut for it to clear" - again choosing a lock of suitable size would mitigate much of this, but we often do see antique guns where the lug of the breech plug does have holes through it or "C" shaped cutouts for the sidelock screw. Also, notches cut into the face of the breech plug are quite common on antique guns. This didn't seem to be as big a concern for gunsmiths in the late 18th and first half of 19th century as it is today.

This drawing detail is from the 1770 edition of the French L'encyclopédie, plate v, covering the Arquebusier (Gunsmith). Note the notch in the face of the breech plug, fig. 9.

3) "taps and dies were not standardized in this period and wouldn't be for at least a few more decades. Chances are the pre-tapped hole would be in a size the customer gunsmith didn't have" - this is true with regards to modern concept of "standardization". Gunsmiths of the day had die screw-plates of various sizes and pitch to make screws for various applications. The gunsmith could make his own screw-plates or buy commercial screw-plates that may have been more "standardized" than we would think, especially if they came from the same area, Birmingham for instance, that a lot of the locks were made. Most of these screw-plates were used to form the threads in soft iron rather than cut the threads as modern dies do. They often formed slightly tapered bolts and screws that could be easily mated up to tapped holes of similar form. The lock plate itself with pre-drilled and tapped holes that were hardened could have been used to form the final threads of the soft iron lock bolts the gunsmith was using.

In my previous post I mentioned that Moller transcribes a letter dated 28 Sept. 1795 from Tench Francis, purveyor of public supplies, to John Ketland of Philadelphia where Tench Francis is ordering 3000 rifle locks and 3000 musket locks from the Ketland "house in England". This letter also provides some insight into how the English import locks were finished. I will quote it with some sections highlighted in bold by me that I think are pertinent.

Philadelphia 28 Sept 1795

Mr. John Ketland​

Si,
On receipt of this be pleased to order your house in England to prepare and ship for this place or New York Three Thoulsand rifle locks and screws and Three Thousand Mosquet [sic] locks and screws agreeable in every respect to the patterns furnished. All their parts to be hardened, and on the plates United States must be neatly stamped...You will be pleased to remember that this is my first attempt to procure goods from the Fountain Head, and that you are to expect very considerable orders from me in [the] future, if you use me as I am confident you will.

With great respect, I am sir
Your most Ob Servt
Tench Francis, Purveyor​

Note that Tench Francis was ordering screws with the locks. These, no doubt, were sidelock screws. (It would be assumed that the locks already came with screws for the internal parts, the screw for the ****, and the top jaw screw.) This would alleviate the need for the American gunsmiths to make sidelock screws to fit the pre-drilled and tapped holes in the lock plate. Also note that he stated "All their parts to be hardened". He wasn't stating all the parts except the lock plate be hardened, but All their parts!

I have also seen references in the Henry Papers from the Hagley Museum & Library where J. Joseph Henry and James Henry were ordering English locks that were stamped with their name and "hardened". Of course this is a little later in the 1810s through 1840s, but I doubt that the practice had changed much since the 18th century.

I wouldn't say that absolutely all the import locks had hardened plates with holes drilled and tapped for the sidelock screws (absolute statements are dangerous), but it was likely the common practice.

 

[4575wcf]

Hey All
Home from work, still doing two days semi-retired. Lots of good information coming in, you guys are on it. Thanks to everybody who is contributing, both positive and negative, this helps get to the bottom of this. The PDF file that I am using for this segment is 1792 and 1807 Contract Rifles by Edward R. Flanigan. Here is pictured the sole surviving documented 1792 Contract Rifle. The breech has been cut through for the percussion conversion and half the US stamping is missing. You can argue that one I guess, but cut is cut. They can't leave them alone.

Picture #1--MF Martin Fry--The guy with the 3rd part of the boring mill. And US stamp (partially gone). Made the barrel.
Picture #2--John Demuth--Maker--Assembled the rifle for the contract.

You gotta stop being so hard on Mr. Clark. I am a survivor of the pre internet days, and believe me you got your information out of books you were lucky enough to find in bibliographies. He didn't do so bad. He is a year off, probably confused it with the 1795 musket production. He arrived from markings to Martin Fry, and he got it as a contract rifle. So the photo is grainey--it isn't Sasquatch. It is alive and well hanging in the staircase of the McDermott LIbrary. You can order a hard copy of the brochure from the nice lady and get a clearer picture you know.