Doglocks

[Flint1]

Hello everyone,
I want to thank all who provided insight on my query as to the correct type of smoothbore that would have been avaikable to a SC hunter during the F&I period--I learned a great deal from the replies. I checked out the sites mentioned and saw some great examples. The doglock would certainly be very early and is an interesting piece. I know what a doglock looks like, but I've never seen an actual example or reproduction, only pictures. Not having personally examined one, I am curious. What exactly was that dog leg shaped lever for? I know it would engage the notch on the cock, but why? I can only think of three possible reasons (1) it was an extra safety device later dropped; (2) there was no halfcock notch, so a loaded and primed musket would be carried at full cock, and this safety device released before firing; or (3) there was no fullcock notch or some other internal aspect of the lock was different, and without this safety the cock would come flying forward when pulled all the way back. These last two would fit if there were shortcuts took during production to speed production time and lower costs. I'm probably wrong on all three guesses. Thanks for any info.
Ron

 

[Elnathan]

You got it about right. They were safety devices, though I don't know if they had half-cock notches or not. I would be willing to bet that the earlier ones didn't. I know that the earliest flintlock still in existence, the one with the butt shaped like a deer's hoof (circa 1610, I believe) had only one notch in the tumbler.
During the 17th century people made what are now known as "English Locks," which had the combination pan-cover and frizzen of the true of French flinklock, but snaphaunce-type internals with the wierd sideways sear. Those didn't have an interal safety, but I don't know if they are properly considered "doglocks," even if they had a dog.

 

[musketman]

"Who let the doglocks out..." :haha:

They were used to lock the hammer in place, perhaps during a long march...

 

[Wes/Tex]

Originally, the dog-lock didn't have a half-cock notch and the dog acted purely as a saftey device. Some modern makers have made copies using the dog catch as a back-up to the half-cock notch. Don't know about the ones now being shown have a half-cock notch or not. Might shoot the dealers an E-mail and ask.

 

[Okwaho]

Well I don't have a life prserver but I'll jump right in the deep end and say that there are no dog locks,only locks with dog[url] catches.In[/url] simplified terms the chronolgy of flint and steel locks{excluding wheelocks which aren't germane to this discussion}is as follows: snaphaunce,French or true flintlock and English lock,There is some overlapping of time frames here but not enough to make a significant difference.
First is the snaphaunce with its horizontal sear and lack of a half cock notch on the tumbler. It could be carried with the cock resting on the pan with powder in it.It was used well into the early 17th century especially in England.
Second and the first major change in ignition systems is the French or true flintlock which developed in France sometime in the first three decades of the 17th century. It had a vertical sear and a half cock notch on the tumbler from the onset.It should be noted that the dog catch was virtually unknown in France.
Third is the "improved " snaphaunce where there is no provision for a half cock notch on the tumbler since the sear and tumbler are of snaphaunce construction but the steel{frizzen}has been replaced by a combined steel-and- pancover.This "improved version of the Netherlands snaphaunce"is dated Ca.1610-1620.This early date results from the fact that all known specimens of the "true" dog lock both in England and America are are in reality converted snaphaunces.
Fourth, the English lock was developed in response to the French true flintlock about 1650.The earlier version retained the horizontal sear, a half cock notch was added and some gunsmiths used a dog catch as an added safety feature.The English lock,sometimes called the Jacobean
lock, remained in that form until about the 1670-80's when it assumed the form and construction of the French true flintlock.
The problem is that the dog or dog catch was simply usd as a safety feature and with the emergence of the half cock notch on the tumbler,The English lock no longer needed the dog catch and it ceased to be used to a great degree although its use has persisted into the 18th century as an anachronism. The tendency has been to call any lock with a dog ctch by the name,"dog lock". As I am sitting here typing I am looking at an English fowler Ca. 1720-40 with a standard English flintlock but with a dog catch which reposes in a major New England museum and I have seen others.There is a posted picture of a lock which is modern and which has a dog catch.The lock itself has a strange configuration in that it looks like an 18th century German{?} lock with a 17th century English cock.
Elnathan is pretty well correct in his assumptions.The presence of a dog catch doesn't make the lock a dog lock.I am fortunate enough to have a copy of a paper given by Beverly Straub,one of our best students of the early English lock and its antecedents in which she has discussed the English Lock.
Tom Patton

have seen several others like it.

 

[crockett]

Well if we are talking smooth bores and flintlocks I would like to mention another attempt at a safety devise. The Simeon North U.S. Contract Pistol of 1819 had a sliding safety behind the hammer that could be slid forward to lock the tumbler. As I understand it, it locked up the works with the hammer down and the idea was that the hammer could not accidentally snag on something and then pop forward enough to possibly spark and fire the pistol. It wasn't very popular and was discontinued on the Simeon North Navy Contract Pistol of 1826.

 

[BCarp]

Current "dog lock" reproductions all have full flintlock internals, including the half-cock notch as stated in the other replies. You engage the "dog" only when you are in the half-cock position. When you fully cock your piece, the "dog" falls back on it's own; you don't have to manually disengage it. I've owned one, and it's a great extra safety feature! You could drop your loaded gun off the roof onto concrete, and it won't go off with that dog catch engaged...!

 

[Okwaho]

Brian,I don't disagree with what you say. I see these quite frequently on reenactor guns, but the presence of a dog safety doesn't create a "dog lock" as a separate and identifiable type of lock.As I said there is an English fowling gun in the basement of the Essex Peabody Museum Salem,Mass.which has a three screw flintlock and barely,if at all,dates before 1730 and may date as late as the 1740-1750's.Yet the gun has a dog catch and could hardly be called a "dog lock".Old concepts die extremely slowly and once one gets into print especially if put foward by a "known authority" they like old soldiers never die.

As to the sliding safety mentioned, with reference to the 1819 Simeon North contract pistol, by Crockett,he is correct and that safety,discontinued with the model 1826 according to Flayderman, was unique in American pistols.However it was very common in the finer English pistols as early as 1748. A pair of silver mounted brass barreled pistols belonging to George Washington are hallmarked to that date,"Weapons of the American Revolution...And Accoutrements" by Warren Moore,P.13 I know of only one American pistol Ca. 1798-1820 by William Booth of Philadelphia,Pa. with a sliding safety,"Thoughts On The American Flintlock Pistol" by S.E.Dyke,P.56.
Tom Patton :imo:

 

[Rat]

Speaking of safety devices, let me throw this one out and tell me if I'm wrong.

I've always heard, and read that the big trigger guard on many early fowlers and trade guns was for "shooting with mittens on".

However, I have read recently that many of those guns, especially the "trade guns" for the indians did not have a half cock notch, and as a "safety device" they had a very stiff trigger pull. The big trigger-guard/bow was to allow using two fingers to pull the trigger, although other guns with half cock notches may have copied this feature as it became what the customer wanted and was used to.

Well?

Kind of makes sense to me, as I can see where the mitten theory was/is an assumption.

Rat

 

[tg]

The two finger idea makes more sense, particularly if these were guns traded to the natives......who probably did not wear mittens. The first mention of the large bow was around 1740.

 

[Okwaho]

True flintlock guns from the beginning had two tumbler positions with the half cock notch being a safety feature thus negating the need for a dog catch.Torsten Lenk,"The Flintlock..."shows a good many guns as well as pattern sheets with two notch tumblers, the earliest being early 17th century.

S.James Gooding,"Trade Guns Of The Hudson's Bay Conpany" P.39 shows a surface found lock dating to before 1686 with a two notch tumbler and no dog catch.

Russell Bouchard,"The Fusil De Tulle In New France 1691-1741" P.14 shows a Tulle locke from the 1690's with a two notch tumbler.
Tom Patton :imo:

Probably the best explanation I have heard was from Wallace Gusler who has theorized that the deep trigger guard is to accomodate the Indians who used a two finger pull just as they with with their bows. I don't think the mitten theory stands up for two reasons: first mittens were worn only in cold weather and not many were worn by Indians and second it is virtually impossible to get the whole mitten and your fingers inside the trigger guard even after it was deepened.