I'm not trying to start a war here but who prefers which lock and why ? I'm trying choose a lock for a fowler and I'm leaning towards the engraved round face lock by Davis.
-
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
Davis vs Chambers Locks
- Thread starter smo
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2010
- Messages
- 3,697
- Reaction score
- 410
John I have never had but one davis an its a darn good lock. The 2 locks I really love is the Caywood an the Chambers which are both round faced english. The Caywood is the fastest lock I have ever fired an let me say I notice a considerable difference in speed as opposed to my Chambers but I like Chambers locks really well an have many of them. Both of my deer rifles have Caywood wilson locks on them an the rest of my guns sport Chambers locks. This is just my opinion though an worth every penny you gave for it :v
I can only speak to my experience with a Chambers Golden Age. Wow! Helluva lock. It's super fast, the frizzen wears well, and it's forgiving in that you can use about whatever you dump in the pan and it'll go off. It's an amazing piece of machinery.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2005
- Messages
- 5,225
- Reaction score
- 10,888
Hi Smo,
I have a lot of experience with Chambers, Davis, L&R, and locks I built from scratch or castings. If I have a project for which a Chambers lock is appropriate, there is no choice, I buy the Chambers lock. They are the best readily available commercial locks on the market. If a Chambers lock would not be right for the project, I then consider the other options. Davis is a good second choice but all of the Davis locks I've used required work including the springs, which were often too weak. I have also now had 2 Davis locks with really bad voids in the castings, something I've not yet encountered on a Chamber's lock. If a Davis doesn't work for the project, I build my own lock or completely rework an appropriate L&R. I treat L&R locks as partially finished kits except I also replace all the springs with my own forgings.
dave
I have a lot of experience with Chambers, Davis, L&R, and locks I built from scratch or castings. If I have a project for which a Chambers lock is appropriate, there is no choice, I buy the Chambers lock. They are the best readily available commercial locks on the market. If a Chambers lock would not be right for the project, I then consider the other options. Davis is a good second choice but all of the Davis locks I've used required work including the springs, which were often too weak. I have also now had 2 Davis locks with really bad voids in the castings, something I've not yet encountered on a Chamber's lock. If a Davis doesn't work for the project, I build my own lock or completely rework an appropriate L&R. I treat L&R locks as partially finished kits except I also replace all the springs with my own forgings.
dave
Chambers. You can't beat this;
Keb
50 Cal.
The Davis lock you mentioned is a good lock for an English style gun. The Chambers early Ketland and round faced locks would also be fitting for English style guns. The Chambers lock costs a little more but the Davis performs as well.
I've used both and I only choose one over the other based on style of gun it's going on.
I've used both and I only choose one over the other based on style of gun it's going on.
When I started building in 1976, flintlocks were of lousy quality....so bought some
Siler lock kits and built my own. W/ the advent of Chambers selling his flintlocks, stopped making them and bought Chambers locks and was generally pleased w/ his offerings.
There was one exception...bought a non-Chambers assembled Siler and spent 25 hrs "repairing" it.
Went back to buying from Chambers because I'm again "gunshy" about buying any other brand of flintlock.
Other brands might have improved but I'll not "test the water".....Fred
Siler lock kits and built my own. W/ the advent of Chambers selling his flintlocks, stopped making them and bought Chambers locks and was generally pleased w/ his offerings.
There was one exception...bought a non-Chambers assembled Siler and spent 25 hrs "repairing" it.
Went back to buying from Chambers because I'm again "gunshy" about buying any other brand of flintlock.
Other brands might have improved but I'll not "test the water".....Fred
Thanks Guys now all I have to do is choose one. :idunno:
The first lock I ever bought was an L&R, I never have had better. That was almost 40 years ago. Now I hear complaints about L&R :idunno: the first Davis I got was crap, but now I sport two that I am very happy with. Chambers are A1, never a complaint about them, never heard a complaint about one.
Pete G
76 Cal.
My preference is Chambers, but I have three guns with Davis locks which are also very good. Personally I think that it boils down to who offers the style you want; you really can't go wrong either way. They are both quality and the builders stand behind what they sell.
galamb
58 Cal.
You can argue fine details between Chambers, Davis AND L&R - they are all good locks.
I choose the lock based on what I'm building. If L&R has a lock that is "closest" to the original I'm using as the pattern, it get's nod.
If there a couple of options then I will always select the Chambers "first", but that is just my personal preference.
Because of the styles I tend to build I have used more L&R's than Davis and Chambers combined and multiplied together a few times and can say I have never had a "bad lock".
I choose the lock based on what I'm building. If L&R has a lock that is "closest" to the original I'm using as the pattern, it get's nod.
If there a couple of options then I will always select the Chambers "first", but that is just my personal preference.
Because of the styles I tend to build I have used more L&R's than Davis and Chambers combined and multiplied together a few times and can say I have never had a "bad lock".
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2005
- Messages
- 5,225
- Reaction score
- 10,888
Hi Graham,
Lets get real here. There are no "fine points" to discuss. Chamber's locks are hands down the best on the commercial market and you have to be blind not to notice the differences. I just bought an L&R Queen Anne lock because it was smaller than a Chamber's round-faced English lock and was appropriate for the early Peter Berry rifle I plan to make. The lock is crap! I should have ordered Kevin Blackley's early Griffin lock castings instead. The L&R cast parts are OK but none are fitted or finished. The frizzen and pan fit has a huge gap, the frizzen toe and spring are so rough that the frizzen won't open more than 20 degrees, the forged mainspring is dead and crudely made. It does not live evenly partially up to the standard of the original locks of that sort. The frizzen has the dumb bottom lug that sits down into the pan but prevents the frizzen from closing all the way and it takes up most of the room for priming powder. Again the lock is crap as sold and needs a lot of work to bring up to any kind of proper standard. The kicker is that it is only $18 less than a Chambers lock. I'll put in over 5 times that in amount in effort to bring it up to an acceptable performance. Again, there are no "fine points" to discuss, including comparisons with Davis locks. We can all tip toe around the facts but as John Adams said, "facts are stubborn things".
dave
Lets get real here. There are no "fine points" to discuss. Chamber's locks are hands down the best on the commercial market and you have to be blind not to notice the differences. I just bought an L&R Queen Anne lock because it was smaller than a Chamber's round-faced English lock and was appropriate for the early Peter Berry rifle I plan to make. The lock is crap! I should have ordered Kevin Blackley's early Griffin lock castings instead. The L&R cast parts are OK but none are fitted or finished. The frizzen and pan fit has a huge gap, the frizzen toe and spring are so rough that the frizzen won't open more than 20 degrees, the forged mainspring is dead and crudely made. It does not live evenly partially up to the standard of the original locks of that sort. The frizzen has the dumb bottom lug that sits down into the pan but prevents the frizzen from closing all the way and it takes up most of the room for priming powder. Again the lock is crap as sold and needs a lot of work to bring up to any kind of proper standard. The kicker is that it is only $18 less than a Chambers lock. I'll put in over 5 times that in amount in effort to bring it up to an acceptable performance. Again, there are no "fine points" to discuss, including comparisons with Davis locks. We can all tip toe around the facts but as John Adams said, "facts are stubborn things".
dave
jbwilliams3
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
- Messages
- 689
- Reaction score
- 159
I have one of the Davis locks with the floral engraving and it's a good lock. I would say the cast engraving is the only advantage over the Chambers lock, but Chambers locks are considered the best, bar none. The rifle being built for me right now is using the round-faced Chambers lock.
I once had an L&R lock that I sent back because the mainspring was too weak (to their credit, they fixed it) and it was a decent lock.
I once had an L&R lock that I sent back because the mainspring was too weak (to their credit, they fixed it) and it was a decent lock.
hanshi
Cannon
I have three Chambers locks; a colonial Virginia, a late Ketland and a Golden Age lock. They are all three excellent locks and have never disappointed; I trust them absolutely. However, I've four Silers, 2 large & 2 small, that are not - as far as I know - Chambers locks. They are all very, very good. But one of them is simply stunningly reliable. It's equally as good as my Chambers locks and refuses to let me down. Could be an L&R, I just don't know.
Rick Richard
36 Cal.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2016
- Messages
- 62
- Reaction score
- 0
I am rather new to Traditional Muzzleloading, but am an avid shooter of various firearms. I own two ML; one a cap lock and the other a flint. Both are equipped with L&R locks and they appear to be as good as I can tell.
For those that say L&Rs are of poor quality or least desired, please explain that difference. Maybe a comparison for all the ones mentioned or in this discussion.
Not attempting to create a debate, but attempting to learn from those with prior experience/knowledge.
For those that say L&Rs are of poor quality or least desired, please explain that difference. Maybe a comparison for all the ones mentioned or in this discussion.
Not attempting to create a debate, but attempting to learn from those with prior experience/knowledge.
Guest
The only problem with a guarantee like that is that it needs to add "or the life of the company, whichever comes first.
There have been quite a few top quality locks go out of production. It is kind of the nature of the game we are playing.
There have been quite a few top quality locks go out of production. It is kind of the nature of the game we are playing.
Pete G
76 Cal.
Almost any lock will pop a cap, so the debate begins with the flint lock, which is a less forgiving mechanism. In my own experience I have noticed that quite often an L&R lock will have holes that are not quite drilled with the precision they should be. They are not in the wrong place; they are just not in the right place. This leads to things like a tumbler or sear that is not quite square. Usually not so much as to not work, but they could work better. I had one lock that the frizzen pivot screw was just a touch too high, which made it impossible for the pan cover to fit tightly. Another issue that seems to come up often is the spring balance. Seems that the locks are assembled with available parts with little effort made to achieve the balance required for a well functioning lock. Most are OK in this respect, but some are not. All of these are issues that, if causing a legitimate problem are usually addressed quickly and properly if the lock is returned to them. Their warranty work seems to be a cut above the regular assembly level, and they do stand behind their products. I just wish that they would do the same QA on their regular production. Of course that would add to the cost and the next thing you would hear would be some complaints about the price. Sort of a no win situation for the company.
The other criticisms that I have are a few little details of design. I really don't like that little block of metal than hangs down from the pan cover. That makes getting a good fit on the cover to pan fit very difficult at least. Another issue is the design for the fly. It is a small (and easily lost) piece that fits over an axle cast into the tumbler, which can sometimes break. The fly is also easily installed improperly, which can result in the sear/tumbler notches becoming chipped or battered.
None of these problems are insurmountable and L&R makes some good locks in styles that others do not and generally their prices are a little less. I would not hesitate to use one of their locks if the style was one that others do not furnish (Bedford for instance). If you use one of their locks just be aware that it may require a little bit of tune up before it is ready to go.
Incidentally, they still are better locks than most any that are supplied on production over-the-counter replicas.
The other criticisms that I have are a few little details of design. I really don't like that little block of metal than hangs down from the pan cover. That makes getting a good fit on the cover to pan fit very difficult at least. Another issue is the design for the fly. It is a small (and easily lost) piece that fits over an axle cast into the tumbler, which can sometimes break. The fly is also easily installed improperly, which can result in the sear/tumbler notches becoming chipped or battered.
None of these problems are insurmountable and L&R makes some good locks in styles that others do not and generally their prices are a little less. I would not hesitate to use one of their locks if the style was one that others do not furnish (Bedford for instance). If you use one of their locks just be aware that it may require a little bit of tune up before it is ready to go.
Incidentally, they still are better locks than most any that are supplied on production over-the-counter replicas.
