English Lock

[Trench]

I'm looking for any information on this lock. It looks like a late Ketland, but it is signed W. Leonard. Is anyone familiar with what looks like a proof symbol above the name?

The lock is part of a rifle that is thought to have been built between 1778 and 1783 by John Small. I did however find a listing of English lock makers and William Leonard showed up as Ordnance Contract Maker from 1806-1823.

I'd be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on this lock.

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
I cannot tell you anyting about the gun but the mark on the lock indicates ownership by the British government.

dave

 

[Stayangry]

Any chance of a bigger picture? I can't see the symbol clearly.

If it's a "broad arrow" that would indicate property of the British government - a very ancient symbol, dating back at least 500 years.

 

[Dphar]

Lock looks later than 1783. I would think it was a 1800ish export lock.

Is there any marking on the barrel?
It is possible its a rifle stocked with parts from a damaged rifle(s). This was fairly common.
Supposition follows.
I guess the lock could have come from anywhere but if it has a broad arrow it could have been an indian trade item or from a recycled indian trade rifle.
An overall view of the rifle, from both sides would be a help.

Dan

 

[Trench]

This lock just doesn't seem to jive with the build date of the rifle. I wondered too if maybe it was the rifle's second lock. Here's a close up of the symbol.

And some more pictures of the rifle.

 

[Mike Brooks]

That's a 1790's or later gun.

 

[pichou]

.... if it has a broad arrow it could have been an indian trade item or from a recycled indian trade rifle.

Slight clarification if I may...

BoO markings are on Government gifts to Indians.

Trade usually means guns traded by fur traders.

At one point, Indian gifts were under the control of the Board of Trade, but still not "trade guns." They are usually called Board of Ordinance guns.

-------

If the lock is original to the rifle, I would say War of 1812. British gifts to Indians after the Revolution and before 1812 were very limited, and even gift ammunition was scarce.


:v

 

[Rod Lassey]

I sure wish we could see if there's any Brit proofs on the barrel. The lock, sideplate, triggerguard, patchbox, and buttplate look ALOT like several examples illustrated in the Shumway article on Board of Ordnance rifles---see Vol. 2 of the the Papers of the 1984 Trade Gun Conference.

As it is, I can't tell if it's an American gun using an English BoO lock, maybe made from several parts of a BoO rifle, or an actual BoO rifle.

Rod

 

[Trench]

I sure wish we could see if there's any Brit proofs on the barrel. The lock, sideplate, triggerguard, patchbox, and buttplate look ALOT like several examples illustrated in the Shumway article on Board of Ordnance rifles---see Vol. 2 of the the Papers of the 1984 Trade Gun Conference.

As it is, I can't tell if it's an American gun using an English BoO lock, maybe made from several parts of a BoO rifle, or an actual BoO rifle.

Rod

I know the rifle is American made. The builder was John Small of Vincennes, Indiana. The authors of this book think the rifle was built around 1778-1783. The lock doesn't seem right for that.

All the surviving examples of John Small rifles have the same stock architecture. The hardware is somewhat different, though.

 

[Dphar]

.... if it has a broad arrow it could have been an indian trade item or from a recycled indian trade rifle.

Slight clarification if I may...

BoO markings are on Government gifts to Indians.

Trade usually means guns traded by fur traders.

At one point, Indian gifts were under the control of the Board of Trade, but still not "trade guns." They are usually called Board of Ordinance guns.

-------

If the lock is original to the rifle, I would say War of 1812. British gifts to Indians after the Revolution and before 1812 were very limited, and even gift ammunition was scarce.


:v

If you read Bailey's "British Military Flintlock Rifles" he refers to rifles of this sort as as "Government Gift Trade Rifles". So there may be some confusion in this.
Furthermore many "gift rifles" were bought locally it would seem either from traders or from the Americans before the Revolution. Between 1778 and 1783 the main supply shifted from America the Britain.
The rifle shown could be a 1790s trade/gift rifle or it could be a post 1815 rifle. But it should have British proofs on the barrel. The 1813 contract information in Bailey does not show a Leonard as a contractor for the 1813 guns. The few 1813 Contract Rifles shown by Bailey have typical English patch boxes.
While I have no idea where the lock came from the rest of the rifle does not look a great deal like an English rifle. The hardware also matches a great many American rifles so how the hardware looks is hardly a bell ringer here.
The information we have is not sufficient to make a determination aside from my personal opinion that its probably post 1800.
The Girty brothers all got new rifles in late 1775 and early 1776 (Bailey). But I really doubt that this is one of these.

Dan

 

[Rod Lassey]

Is the gun signed by John Small, or is believed to be built by him from the architecture?

I agree with Dan that the furniture isn't any sort of positive indicator of a BoO rifle--the problem is that the British builders from approximately 1780 til around 1800 built rifles that were very good copies of rifles built in America. It wasn't until the eve of the War of 1812 that they developed a rather distinctive style all their own.

That said, I still find the acceptance stamp on the lock very intriguing---if built by Small, I'll bet he used not only the lock but some of the furniture from a British rifle, as well.

 

[Trench]

Is the gun signed by John Small, or is believed to be built by him from the architecture?

I agree with Dan that the furniture isn't any sort of positive indicator of a BoO rifle--the problem is that the British builders from approximately 1780 til around 1800 built rifles that were very good copies of rifles built in America. It wasn't until the eve of the War of 1812 that they developed a rather distinctive style all their own.

That said, I still find the acceptance stamp on the lock very intriguing---if built by Small, I'll bet he used not only the lock but some of the furniture from a British rifle, as well.

This is the only rifle in the book that is not signed by John Small. The architecture and choice of inlays are what point to it as being his work. The double fleur-di-lis being the biggest indicator. The authors thought that it being unsigned was an indicator that it would have been built during his apprenticeship...which would have been around the 1778-1783 time period. Seems like a lot of assumptions to me.