doglock on a kentucky?

[mattybock]

I was looking in on making the fly of a regular french lock, but that tiny thing is kind of a daunting task, so I've settled on a more fool-proof doglock safety, but wherein lies the matter;

- was the doglock safety ever used on a long rifle, and if so, when?

 

[jdkerstetter]

Good morning, Doglocks were a continental European thing. Some were recycled to Colonial built arms. There are fowlers seen with them but mostly from the North East and few.

I know of no longrifle that had a doglock so if you are asking me if they are correct for a long rifle, IMHO no.

As to whether there ever was one, maybe, but not likely.

Now, if I may ask you a question, I am having some trouble following the first paragraph of your post, and am trying figure out how you jump from the fly on a French lock to a doglock. Could you please explain?

Thanks, J.D.

 

[Dphar]

I was looking in on making the fly of a regular french lock, but that tiny thing is kind of a daunting task, so I've settled on a more fool-proof doglock safety, but wherein lies the matter;

- was the doglock safety ever used on a long rifle, and if so, when?

If you want a safety the sliding type found on some English locks is the best way to go. One of these from the 1770s-80s would work fine on a Kentucky. Later locks of the 1800 period would work OK on appropriate period American guns and rifle.
Your use of the term "fly" in the context of a safety is somewhat confusing. In the context of the Kentucky rifle its used to prevent the sear from entering the 1/2 cock as the lock is fired. Its needed for all rifles/pistols with set triggers

Dan

 

I'm confused, as the fly has nothing to do with safety. It's purpose is to allow for the use of a set trigger. The fly is not necessary with a simple trigger. It allows the sear to slide past the half cock position when the trigger trips it. The dog lock was used both as a safety, and in place of a half cock notch. The slide safety, as Dan mentioned was used on mostly English guns, and for holster, or pocket pistols. It locks the tumbler. It will be harder to make, and fit than a fly. Two different parts, with two different purposes.

Bill

 

[mattybock]

yes. I plan to have a kentucky with double set triggers, but if I have that, I must have a fly - I don't want to have to make that little bugger.

So I need a safety other than a half cock notch in the tumbler, and therefore the doglock catch seems like a good idea.

 

[mattybock]

I plan to have a long rifle with double set triggers for the accuracy, but if I have that, I must have a fly - I don't want to have to make that little bugger. So I need a safety other than a half cock notch in the tumbler, and therefore the doglock catch seems like a good idea.

I ought to have mentioned that in the beginning.

The sliding safety seems like a good idea, but I've read it can be more complex. I wouldn't know though.

 

[tallbear]

If you can't make something as simple as a fly you are not capable of making a functional lock.It's that simple !!

 

[mattybock]

i didn't say I couldn't, I said I didn't wanna.

 

[tallbear]

The dog does not replace the half cock notch,it is in addition to the notch(an added safety if you will).A lock without a halfcock notch is an unsafe lock.

 

[Elnathan]

I plan to have a long rifle with double set triggers for the accuracy, but if I have that, I must have a fly - I don't want to have to make that little bugger. So I need a safety other than a half cock notch in the tumbler, and therefore the doglock catch seems like a good idea.

I ought to have mentioned that in the beginning.

The sliding safety seems like a good idea, but I've read it can be more complex. I wouldn't know though.

Sliding safeties were supplements to a half-cock notch, not replacements, I believe. Why not just use a single trigger?

 

[Stophel]

So I need a safety other than a half cock notch in the tumbler,

No not really. No one else does! :wink:

Still, if you feel the unnecessary urge to have a "safety", the sliding type that locks into a notch in the tumbler, as already described, would be a period way to go (though only on FINE English or continental locks).

 

[Elnathan]

So I need a safety other than a half cock notch in the tumbler,

No not really. No one else does! :wink:

Still, if you feel the unnecessary urge to have a "safety", the sliding type that locks into a notch in the tumbler, as already described, would be a period way to go (though only on FINE English or continental locks).

Chris,
Matty doesn't want a half-cock notch at all, so he is trying to find something to replace it.

 

[jdkerstetter]

Why not just use a single trigger?

Is this a production lock? If so, you can order a fly very cheaply....but if you are ordering anyway, order more than one.

A well set-up single trigger is the answer if you must go without a fly.

For me, more often than not, it is the answer regardless. :grin:

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[Stophel]

So I need a safety other than a half cock notch in the tumbler,

No not really. No one else does! :wink:

Still, if you feel the unnecessary urge to have a "safety", the sliding type that locks into a notch in the tumbler, as already described, would be a period way to go (though only on FINE English or continental locks).

Chris,
Matty doesn't want a half-cock notch at all, so he is trying to find something to replace it.

Well, he's outta luck then. I'm playing as nice as I can! :grin:

A dog lock with set triggers... I'm sure it could be done... but WHY????

If I were making a lock from scratch, or parts from scratch (I have before), I'd much rather file a normal half cock notch than make and fit a dog catch!!! It's not really THAT difficult!!! A lock is a complicated piece of machinery. That's just the nature of it. Saying "I don't feel like making a fly" is just kinda, well, silly. And, if you're gonna build a lock from scratch, why not make the set triggers too!?!?!? :grin: They're nearly as complicated and difficult to make as a lock!!!

A fly is a detent to keep the sear from accidentally catching on the half cock notch, since normally, the set trigger "thumps" the sear, rather than pressing it up and holding it up, clearing the half cock. A strong spring on the set trigger, and careful assembly might produce a setup where a fly is not needed. Also, one could make it so that the triggers have to be set before the lock is cocked (the set trigger will press and hold the sear up. Basically, you would have to go around with the triggers set the whole time).... but, that's definitely a less than ideal situation..

Further, I would NEVER recommend anyone wanting to build a gun to just jump in and try to build a lock and all from scratch, especially when it is pretty apparent that they have not really studied how locks function and have a handle on exactly how everything works. There are plenty of good functioning locks available for $125, ready to go (more or less... :grin: ). Buy one. Use it. See how it works. Tinker with it. Tune it. Then build some lock kits. Then, maybe, start with some blocks of steel. :wink: And, of course, not everyone is cut out to be a gunsmith. Shadetree gunsmiths make shadetree guns...at best.

 

[Robby]

mattybock, If you can make a fly, but just don't want to, for a french lock that you are making, with the idea of putting a dog onto it for safety(?) reasons, so you can use a double set trigger for accuracy. Then surely, with all this knowledge of fabrication, lock geometry and function you must know, that a single trigger, properly installed and finessed will place a round ball on target every bit as accurately as any double set trigger made.
Robby

 

[jdkerstetter]

Thanks Robby, but you don't have to repeat what I type as he has let me out of his box for now.

:grin: :grin: :grin:

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[Robby]

No plagiarism here J.D.! Just the short, nice version of what I was thinking. :grin:
Robby

 

[Zonie]

I must agree with those who say a single trigger is the answer.

Properly located a single trigger will give a very nice, smooth 2 pound release.

They are also quite common on Kentucky rifles so they would not look like something that was using 150 year old technology.

The English doglock dates back to early 1600's but fell out of favor by the mid-1600's when the French Flintlock (developed at about 1625) became the popular choice of action.

 

[Elnathan]

They are also quite common on Kentucky rifles so they would not look like something that was using 150 year old technology.

The English doglock dates back to early 1600's but fell out of favor by the mid-1600's when the French Flintlock (developed at about 1625) became the popular choice of action.

I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you there. A "dog-lock" is just a lock with a swiveling safety catch (the "dog") and could be used either on the English Lock (aka Jacobean Flintlock) with a lateral sear or on a French Flintlock with a verticle sear. Later English locks (Type 2) had a wholly internal mechanism and from the outside cannot be easily distinguished from a flintlock without seeing the internal mechanism. English locks were still manufactured up until around 1690, and flintlocks with dogs were manufactured up to around 1725, at a rough estimate. Some were still in use at the time of the American Revolution.

Still highly inappropriate for a Kentucky, but not quite as archaic as you suggest.

 

[Zonie]

To each his own.

To me, a true "dog lock" is the early English lock which used a lateral sear to release the tumbler or cock and had a supplemental external hook to serve as the safety or half cock.

In any event, the dates you mention supports my contention that locks with external hooks on them to serve as a half cock would rarely (if ever) be found on a Kentucky style rifle.