- Joined
- Nov 26, 2005
- Messages
- 5,225
- Reaction score
- 10,888
Hi Rick,
You ask a very pertinent question and you deserve a good thorough answer.
Since 1979, I’ve built a lot of muzzleloading guns and used locks from all the major manufacturers as well as built my own. To date I’ve built 9 locks, mostly from cast parts, and completely reworked quite a few L&R, Davis, Pedersoli, Hamm, and India-made locks.
With respect to L&R products, I’ve worked on Durs Egg, Bailes, Queen Anne, Bedford, early Lancaster, Manton, and back action locks. I’ve never used an L&R or Davis lock, for that matter, that did not require adjusting the shape and strength the mainspring, frizzen spring, and making sure the rear of the tumbler hits the top of the bridal at exactly the same time as the shoulder on the flint **** hits the lock plate. That relieves stress on the tumbler, bridle, lockplate and flintcock.
I never felt compelled to work over a Chamber’s lock except for minor tuning. I also never had to replace any parts on Chambers locks except for a couple of instances in which I screwed up and lost a part or rehardened and tempered it improperly. Getting back to L&R, keep in mind that their castings are usually very good, just not finished or fitted nearly as well as a Chambers lock.
Indeed, the finest flintlocks sold today are made by Bob Roller who uses L&R external parts but replaces all of the internals. The best maker of swivel breech actions, Dave Price, also uses L&R parts that he reworks. To address the comparisons that you requested, if you have a Track of the Wolf catalog #18, turn to pages 148,149,and 150 or log on their website and look at Davis’ engraved fowling lock, Chambers’ English fowler lock, and L&R’s Queen Anne or Barber lock. Of those 3 locks, the Chambers’ is hands down the best. Note the elegant shape of the mainspring and how the lower leaf tapers in thickness. Note also, that the lower leaf is straight with the lock at full ****. That places the stresses in the right places and the end of the hook is located exactly right to give the lock a whippy feel such that the force to go from half to full **** lessens as the **** is drawn back.
On the Davis lock the lower leaf bends slightly upward at full ****, which is not ideal because the stress is concentrated at the bend in the lower leaf. On Davis locks, I usually anneal the mainspring, squeeze the bend tighter, and then add a slight downward arc to the lower leaf (called preload). I then harden and temper the spring. That usually improves the performance of the spring. If not, I make a forged replacement.
The spring pictured on the L&R lock is not what you get today. Now they have a smaller forged spring that has no taper, little shaping, and is totally dead with respect to the nice whippy feel created by a proper spring.
Look at the differences in the sear springs. Chambers’ lock has the historically correct long sear spring, which allows for a crisp and light trigger pull if desired.
The springs on the Davis and L&R locks are fairly stout and the short leaves and wider bend create a much stiffer trigger pull. Those springs can be adjusted but it takes a bit of work. In addition, the Chambers’ sear is longer than the others, which provides mechanical advantage when trying to achieve a nice light trigger pull.
Chambers’ lock uses 8-32 screws for the internals. The others use smaller 6-40 screws even though there is plenty of room for the bigger and stronger screws.
There are more points to made about lock geometry but I would have to write a short pamphlet to cover them. Let me just mention the lug on the bottom of the frizzens on L&R locks.
Some folks might think it seals the pan from water. Actually, it very nicely diverts water into your pan. A few years ago, while drinking whiskey with a bunch of us, a prominent gun maker who will remain nameless, described how the lug came to be.
During the late 1970’s and early 1980’s the supply of good locks was very limited and gun makers subjected locks to the “light test”. They would close the frizzen and hold the lock up to a lamp to see if they could see any light between the pan cover and the pan. If they saw light, the lock was rejected.
As anyone who has made a flintlock knows, the cover and pan fit is most difficult to achieve around the apex of the pan.
Putting a lug on the bottom of the frizzen that fits into the pan blocks the light through the center of the pan, making it easier for the lock to pass the “light” test.
I do not know if his story is true but I can certainly attest to the fact that the lug sure doesn't serve to seal the pan so why include it?
On the L&R “Barber” lock sitting on my desk as I type, the lug blocks the light in the pan but keeps the pan cover from touching the pan. Basically it serves as a dam, backing water right into the pan.
The TOW catalog calls the L&R lock a “James Barbar - London” style lock. I have examined a couple of James Barbar’s guns and am familiar with original “London-made” guns from the 18th century (I own one). Barbar would be outraged to have his name associated with that lock.
dave
You ask a very pertinent question and you deserve a good thorough answer.
Since 1979, I’ve built a lot of muzzleloading guns and used locks from all the major manufacturers as well as built my own. To date I’ve built 9 locks, mostly from cast parts, and completely reworked quite a few L&R, Davis, Pedersoli, Hamm, and India-made locks.
With respect to L&R products, I’ve worked on Durs Egg, Bailes, Queen Anne, Bedford, early Lancaster, Manton, and back action locks. I’ve never used an L&R or Davis lock, for that matter, that did not require adjusting the shape and strength the mainspring, frizzen spring, and making sure the rear of the tumbler hits the top of the bridal at exactly the same time as the shoulder on the flint **** hits the lock plate. That relieves stress on the tumbler, bridle, lockplate and flintcock.
I never felt compelled to work over a Chamber’s lock except for minor tuning. I also never had to replace any parts on Chambers locks except for a couple of instances in which I screwed up and lost a part or rehardened and tempered it improperly. Getting back to L&R, keep in mind that their castings are usually very good, just not finished or fitted nearly as well as a Chambers lock.
Indeed, the finest flintlocks sold today are made by Bob Roller who uses L&R external parts but replaces all of the internals. The best maker of swivel breech actions, Dave Price, also uses L&R parts that he reworks. To address the comparisons that you requested, if you have a Track of the Wolf catalog #18, turn to pages 148,149,and 150 or log on their website and look at Davis’ engraved fowling lock, Chambers’ English fowler lock, and L&R’s Queen Anne or Barber lock. Of those 3 locks, the Chambers’ is hands down the best. Note the elegant shape of the mainspring and how the lower leaf tapers in thickness. Note also, that the lower leaf is straight with the lock at full ****. That places the stresses in the right places and the end of the hook is located exactly right to give the lock a whippy feel such that the force to go from half to full **** lessens as the **** is drawn back.
On the Davis lock the lower leaf bends slightly upward at full ****, which is not ideal because the stress is concentrated at the bend in the lower leaf. On Davis locks, I usually anneal the mainspring, squeeze the bend tighter, and then add a slight downward arc to the lower leaf (called preload). I then harden and temper the spring. That usually improves the performance of the spring. If not, I make a forged replacement.
The spring pictured on the L&R lock is not what you get today. Now they have a smaller forged spring that has no taper, little shaping, and is totally dead with respect to the nice whippy feel created by a proper spring.
Look at the differences in the sear springs. Chambers’ lock has the historically correct long sear spring, which allows for a crisp and light trigger pull if desired.
The springs on the Davis and L&R locks are fairly stout and the short leaves and wider bend create a much stiffer trigger pull. Those springs can be adjusted but it takes a bit of work. In addition, the Chambers’ sear is longer than the others, which provides mechanical advantage when trying to achieve a nice light trigger pull.
Chambers’ lock uses 8-32 screws for the internals. The others use smaller 6-40 screws even though there is plenty of room for the bigger and stronger screws.
There are more points to made about lock geometry but I would have to write a short pamphlet to cover them. Let me just mention the lug on the bottom of the frizzens on L&R locks.
Some folks might think it seals the pan from water. Actually, it very nicely diverts water into your pan. A few years ago, while drinking whiskey with a bunch of us, a prominent gun maker who will remain nameless, described how the lug came to be.
During the late 1970’s and early 1980’s the supply of good locks was very limited and gun makers subjected locks to the “light test”. They would close the frizzen and hold the lock up to a lamp to see if they could see any light between the pan cover and the pan. If they saw light, the lock was rejected.
As anyone who has made a flintlock knows, the cover and pan fit is most difficult to achieve around the apex of the pan.
Putting a lug on the bottom of the frizzen that fits into the pan blocks the light through the center of the pan, making it easier for the lock to pass the “light” test.
I do not know if his story is true but I can certainly attest to the fact that the lug sure doesn't serve to seal the pan so why include it?
On the L&R “Barber” lock sitting on my desk as I type, the lug blocks the light in the pan but keeps the pan cover from touching the pan. Basically it serves as a dam, backing water right into the pan.
The TOW catalog calls the L&R lock a “James Barbar - London” style lock. I have examined a couple of James Barbar’s guns and am familiar with original “London-made” guns from the 18th century (I own one). Barbar would be outraged to have his name associated with that lock.
dave
