Early Ketland, Colonial Virginia or Round-faced English lock?

[billk]

what are your thoughts of the listed Chamber's locks for an custom Early Virginia .54 cal rifle with iron mounts?
1. Early Ketland lock
2. Colonial Virginia lock
3. Round-faced English lock

I understand all 3 are appropriate and reliable and the internal parts are the same in all 3 locks.
I am thinking to have the lock polished bright and engraved.

What are the benefits of the raised pan in the round-faced English lock vs the other 2 locks?
Are all Early Ketland locks inletted flush with the stock? I read in another thread that is a good idea to file a chamfer edge on it. What is your opinion? Would a flush-inletted lock create issues with the mortise, if the lock needs to be removed regularly for cleaning?

Help me decide. :hmm:

 

[Stophel]

All three locks are essentially the same. Functionally identical. It's a matter of what you want. Flat faced or round faced. By the 1770's you are more likely to see flat faced English locks. The one with the "raised waterproof pan" and moulded edges is the fancy schmanzy version, the other two would better represent a standard common-or-garden-variety lock. Flush-inletting the flat faced lock will offer no problems.

Now, as to my thoughts on "iron mounted early Virginia rifles".... :hmm:

:haha:

 

[rich pierce]

All three locks are essentially the same. Functionally identical.

Now, as to my thoughts on "iron mounted early Virginia rifles".... :hmm:

:haha:

+1

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I too agree both on the lock choice being what you like most, and finding rather exclusive terms when combined "early Virginia" and "iron mounted".

Now a flat faced lock would probably be a bit closer to the historic norm for a rifle mounted in iron.

LD

 

[billk]

Excuse my ignorance, but the rifle style I am trying to describe is the rifle type made by Hershel House and his Woodbury school lines. Maybe the "Early Virginia" term I used was not the most appropriate.
BillK

 

[rich pierce]

I'd choose among them just on appearance. They are all great locks and similar in size.

 

[54ball]

The House brothers make a fine rifle, they are masters so much so they have created their own modern "school". Their early iron Virginias are based on rifles that would have originally been mounted in brass.

Now there are pretty early iron mounted Virginia or Southwest Virginia rifles. These include rifles like the Jos Bogle, GoB/G.B/C.B signed iron rifle and a few others. The Bogle has a iron box and could date to the late 1780s. These are very late 1700s or very early 1800s type rifles.

If you are interested in such a rifle the early style iron mounts are very close and you have more lock choices like the Late Ketland or Davis Common lock. The G.B rifle for instance has mounts close to the brass style but in iron. It's very plain, just a basic rifle and very early for a iron gun,1790s-1800s?

Now if you want to do the Rev War style of course the brass mounts would be more appropriate for a historical build but nothing is wrong with iron mounts if you want them.

Another feature for a Rev War era rifle would be stock decoration. At the bare minimum a rifle of that era should have carved fore stock and butt stock moulding, carved "beavertail" lock panels, sculpted cheek piece and either a simple metal or sliding wood box.

 

[blackdog of vt]

I use the early ketland as a blank canvas. Its a little smaller/slimmer than the round face English and very reliable. You can always round face it if you want. Both of these are the same just with and without bridle.

 

[gunmaker43]

All 3 are 1st class locks, I've used all of them. It's really just a matter of "style" what pleases your eye most. The lock will come out easy for cleaning if you put an inward bevel on the plate just a few degrees. Tangs, guards, tgr plates etc should all be drafted some. Bright & engraved works for me. Tom

 

[hanshi]

I agree that it's a personal choice based on what you like. I can only say that my Colonial Va. lock is simply amazing. No experience with the others but you can bet they are all three great locks.

 

[Stophel]

I do NOT care for the sear spring screw position inside the bridle, just a pain, but it does function. This is the only one I have ever used. I HAD to "Germanify" it, at least some.

 

[AWsaddles]

As already stated they are all good locks and pretty much the same but the round faced English although my favorite, does have that border around it that looks really good but can be time consuming to polish.

 

[billk]

Thank you all for your kind responses and the pics you have posted.
I like the bright polished looks of a lock. Would that clash with brass mounts, since a lot of you mentioned there were more acceptable on an Early Virginia style rifle?
Your pics of the examples and lock styles/customization are greatly appreciated.
BillK

 

[Stumpkiller]

This is a Chambers Colonial Virginia. I like the smooth lines. The only difference vs. the Round Faced English is the border treatment (VA has none). Mike Brooks engraved this one.

 

[jdkerstetter]

....The only difference vs. the Round Faced English is the border treatment (VA has none)....

....that and the raised waterproof pan on the English lock. Enjoy, J.D.

 

[54ball]

I like the bright polished looks of a lock. Would that clash with brass mounts, since a lot of you mentioned there were more acceptable on an Early Virginia style rifle?

IMHO a polished lock accents polished brass.

A charcoal blued barrel, polished lock, polished brass, a fine mid grade maple stock with proper architecture carved in the subdued style of the 1770s finished in aqua fortis and oil varnish would be a striking rifle indeed.

Most locks were polished in the period. Truth be known many barrels were left in the white also. Now the barrels being of wrought iron would not be polished to the same degree as the lock.

After the English hardened their locks, they were polished bright. If they had colors showing from the hardening process these were polished away as it was not proper for any colors to show on the lock. Case colors were a 19th Century style.

Now if you prefer a rifle with some aging you have to know what the rifle looked like as new. As new most if not all had polished locks unless it was a restock or some other circumstance. Polished locks were simply the style of the time.

 

[Tommy Bruce]

Pretty much a matter of cosmetics unless you are copying a particular piece. I am partial to the looks of the English round-faced lock. Have it on a rifle and fowler. I've also used the early Ketland. I don't think you can go wrong with any of them.

 

[billk]

I am between the Early Ketland and Colonial Virginia lock. I don't think I would be looking to have an exact copy of an original rifle made, but something that would follow the general lines of that period. Based on your feedback, I am giving more serious thought to brass mounts than my original thought of iron mounts.
I have already selected a nice piece of quarter dawn sugar maple blank from Harrison Gun Stocks.
The building decision and research process is a lot of fun...too many choices to choose from. Thank you all for your input. Please continue with your remarks, opinions and suggestions.
BillK

 

[hanshi]

IMHO brass just looks better.

 

[54ball]

if you ever see RCA 114 "But I was Free Born" rifle your mind will be made up. Sadly the online sight that had pictures and descriptions has been taken down.

The above rifle is from Alaska builder Judson Brennan. He based it on the "free born" rifle. The original free Born has a simple domed brass box engraved "But I was Free Born" Acts 22:28.

The Free Born #114 has an I. Daykin lock which is basically a version of the flat faced Ketland...