Ferguson lock spring problem

[Naphtali]

I visited my gun maker Sunday, December 9. I took my TRS-Rayl Ferguson collection of stuff for him to examine and to contract him to build. We have a big problem that ONLY those who own or have made Ferguson rifles may have solved themselves. My L-H L&R Late English Flint Lock (#1000) does not fit the receiver properly. The specific problem appears to be that the width of the mainspring is too great. Were my gun maker to reduce its width sufficiently to fit the receiver, it would be about half normal width.

Clearly, we are doing something wrong because the problem, on its face, makes no sense. Can you help me out?

I think - I hope - I have included sufficient photographs to allow someone to identify a solution, removing metal from the side of Ferguson's receiver not being a safe possibility.

These are two views of a properly fitting lock on a TRS receiver.

These are views of [my] L-H L&R Late English lock, plus one graphic from L&R's Late English flintlock web page.

 

[tecum-tha]

The fitted locks in your pictures are probably the locks which are supplied by TRS.
I think that the fitting lock is buildt with a more slender, but thicker mainspring. I think the spring also rests directly on the tumbler without the hanger stirrup assembly from the Manton L&R lock.
This stirrup assembly does not allow a reduction of the width of the mainspring imho.
If I get that right, you want to build a LH Ferguson? At least the lock you show is LH. Otherwise you would have gone with the original lock, correct?

 

[pargent]

The pohots I have of an original have the lock dropping down at the front,a bessish pan and hammer. Although its not shown in the photo the main spring would be of the type with a shorter top leaf ( like a bess spring if you like ). I hope this helps but I feel a different lock is the go.

 

[jdkerstetter]

Kind of turn off insisting ONLY those who have built or own a Ferguson could figure this out. Especially since it isn't likely you will find too many people who have fit the wrong lock on the wrong side of a one.

I agree you are doing something wrong, clearly you are using a lock where the geometry is not compatible with the barreled action. You need to either have a spring made that will clear or find another lock. Is the spring the only part offering interference?

As far as the photos go, you have included more than an enough of the lock but no shots of where you want the lock to go....the left side of the barreled action. It is impossible to ascertain how to correct your problem with these photos. How about some shots of the lock next to where you need it, from the top, bottom and left side.

I'm betting one would almost have to have one of those locks and the action in hand to properly diagnose find the solution. But let's give it a shot.

Your "builder" had no ideas? I would be interested in what he said.

Many people here are willing to help but we need more information. Thanks, J.D.

 

[Zonie]

Having never built a Ferguson I'm probably not qualified to comment but the first thing I notice is the original Ferguson's used some form of the Military Bess lock.

These are BIG locks and measuring the distance from the center of where the tumbler axis would be (TOTW doesn't sell a finished lock) to the center of the pan looks to be about 2 inches.

The left hand Manton (lock #LOCK-1000-D) has a tumbler axis to center of pan distance of 1 3/4 inches.

This 1/4" difference might be part of the problem.

I can't tell if the Bess lock has a wider or narrower mainspring than the Manton because they didn't provide any photos of it.

One things for sure. The Manton is a much smaller lock than the Bess.

 

[dd832]

Here's two photos from 2 different sources of the breech area and both have a notch cut for the mainspring:

Good luck with your project, Mike

 

[jdkerstetter]

Having never built a Ferguson I'm probably not qualified to comment...

I'm sure we're not! :haha: Enjoy, J.D.

 

[Robby]

Naphtali, It appears you have one of L&R's newer locks. Seems they must have done some revamping of their spring castings, which is probably an easier and more cost saving approach towards offering an even more H/C incorrect lock. The result is that the lock is unusable in any rife configuration, let alone a Ferguson. It should be obvious to your gun smith that where the spring enters the lock plate bolster it has to be ground off to be flush with or slightly below the flat plane of the bolster. Without having your parts in hand I cannot tell if it might require more grinding in the manner of tapering it out to the major bend in the spring. The alteration can be done cold if he is careful to not heat the spring in the process, and all grinding marks should be removed. That does require some patience.
If their products weren't already fraught with problems they revised them to add even more! :idunno:
Good luck!!!
Robby

 

[Keb]

I've not ever had anything to do with a Ferguson but Larry Zorne told me his Barker~Whatley lock was the lock used on today's Ferguson gun. Notice a difference in spring shape & location?

 

[Dphar]

The post begs the question of why would one use a 1810-1840s lock on a 1770s rifle?
Also complex ML projects require gunsmiths who know how to select, modify or make parts in shop to complete the project.
It is also good to know that different locks have different bolster thickness that will move the lockplate and thus the spring closer or farther from the barrel.
The the original Ferguson's had locks made for that application. This breechloader design was very common in England for flintlock rifles and goes back to the late 17th C, decades before Ferguson was even born much less when he "invented" it. As a result lock filers knew what was needed for that design rifle and simply made the proper lock for the project.
So in order to make a Ferguson one needs to know what is needed to make it.
What this means is that just any lock one orders at random is not likely to work for this project.

Dan

 

[Naphtali]

The "stuff" is not all in one place. Having typed that, I verified the mainspring recess - AND the lack of mainspring recess on the left side of vertical breech housing. I must reach the gun maker tonight. You may have solved the problem.
***
Regarding the Manton lock, do you refer to L&R's Durs Egg (#1100 is R-H version) that is slightly smaller than the Late English, or to the "Manton" (#1700 is R-H version) that appears to be a significantly smaller - almost pistol size - version of the Durs Egg? I ask because I think I have both L-H locks somewhere in storage. I avoided the Durs Egg, despite its strongly resembling the lock on a Ferguson Sporting Model [in a photograph I have] because its **** throw is much less than occurs on the Late English model. But if it will work but the Late English will not, that, too, solves the problem.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

I agree with Dan and others. The incorrect period lock and other problems aside, the simplest answer to the problem is.... size and, to a certain extent, shape. I think you need a larger lock.

 

[pargent]

I have seen a couple of dodgy atempts at making Fergusons the best advice that I can give to you is to stick to the original lay out in every way shape and form.There is a reason these wern't made by lots of gun makers, Ferguson just happen to get it right any deviation from these patterns will most likely end in tears one way or another. Take care !!!

 

[jdkerstetter]

....any deviation from these patterns will most likely end in tears one way or another....

.....and most likely in form and fuction. Well said. Enjoy, J.D.

 

[Grizzled Roberts]

I own a Ferguson ( Narragansett #85 ) My good Friend Bryan Brown built a Ferguson from Rifle Shoppe parts. Bryan did not order an assembled lock so his lock came as cast parts in a plastic bag. Bryan is a historical gunsmith who has assembled many flint locks. The innards of a Ferguson lock are set 15 degrees off from a regular flint lock. It took Bryan many months to figure this out. I would suggest you bite the bullet and order an assembled Ferguson Lock from the Rifle Shoppe. I noticed on the pictures of the East India Company Ferguson Rifles that are showing up now, They used two lock screws like in a normal muzzleloaders instead of the singe lock screw that screws in to the barrel. This might give you other lock options.

 

[Grizzled Roberts]

By the way the Ferguson lock is small not near the size of a musket lock.

 

[jdkerstetter]

If the worry is being left handed and shooting a gun with the lock on the right side, it is very doable...and was done.

There at least two examples of original flintlock rifles built for right handed shooters with the lock on the left side at the Landis Valley Lancaster Rifle exhibit. Why they did them this, way nobody knows. The curators think it may have been to have the priming flash out of the direct line of sight of the shooter's open right eye. Who knows? But if it was done twice by two different builders, it was likely done more.

In the 18th Century, left hand locks were in very limited supply and left hand military guns unheard of. If you lost a right eye, you'd be shooting it left handed, right?

Just curious, do you find the Ferguson action awkward to operate left handed?

Thanks and good luck in your build, J.D.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

By the way the Ferguson lock is small not near the size of a musket lock.

Sure, but the Ferguson lock is larger than the L&R Late English, just sayin'........

 

[Grizzled Roberts]

Would it help if I posted a picture of my Ferguson rifle lock? The back side of course.

 

[dave_person]

Hi Keb and Lance,
Although Barker made some of the military Ferguson's, the modern trade lock sold under his name is not the lock used by TRS for their Ferguson part set. They copied from an original Ferguson military gun in the Milwaukee Public museum. The current Barker-Whatley lock is a little longer and wider than the Ferguson lock but not by much. It might be a suitable lock for Lance's project.

Lance, locks that might fit the Ferguson action by TRS need a bolster that rises at least 0.203" above the inside of the lockplate. Moreover, the tab or lug on the mainspring that anchors into the bottom of the bolster must position the top leaf of the mainspring at least 0.141" below the bolster at the lug. That is one reason your late English lock does not fit. The Durs Egg lock by L&R probably will not work because the bolster is too thin, however, the mainspring may be suitably positioned below the bolster. If it was thinned somewhat, that might overcome the problem of a thinner bolster. A useful piece of information for you to know is that the mainspring from a Siler lock can be altered slightly to fit the Ferguson lock and action very well. It just needs to be thinned a little and the hook shortened slightly. Therefore, any lock that uses a Siler spring or Siler-like spring may be sutiable for your project.

dave