Flintlock evolution

[ejbrush]

OK, I've got a general question about the rock bashers. How do late (1820s-1840s) pattern flint locks compare to the earlier patterns. Specifically thinking about M1835 Springfield patterns compared to, say, a Queen Anne or a Durrs Egg. Not so much aesthetics, but did the final models significantly improve on lock time, reliability, durability? Beyond what can be explained by simple production and metalurgy.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Yes, I would expect the Durs Egg to be a faster and more reliable lock but then it was a high grade lock for dueling pistols and gentleman's fowling pieces and so cannot be compared to a musket lock. There were gradual improvements and refinements of the flintlock mechanism throughout it's two centuries of use but nothing really revolutionary, probably workmanship and quality counted for more than roller frizzens and waterproof pans.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

The Springfield lock was designed to be used with Napoleonic tactics. It was strong, reliable and slow, since it just had to make the musket go bang along with a thousand others just like it. Volley fire was the order of the day.

The refined civilian locks were also strong and reliable, but they were much faster and many were fitted with "wind proof and waterproof" pans and safeties. They were more elegant and evolved than the military locks ever got.

 

[Zoar]

Ergo---later locks were not necessarily faster, more refined, etc. Linear thinking does not work here (flintlocks refinement) as in most things in life, actually.

I think some of the locks from 1760's-ish were aesthetically superior and smoother than many locks AFTER that time. Maybe one other way to see it is that flintlocks reached a ZENITH and various adaptations after that did not pursure the objectives you might think if you adopt a strictly linear progression model that all aspects of the "technology" must improve. Rather like mpg of cars. My 1971 camaro got better gas mileage than MOST US cars made for 37 years after that. Only recently has mpg become vogue. It makes no sense looking at it in hindsight, but that was what happened. Flintlocks served various purposes and did not necessarily improve in every respect over time.

 

[rich pierce]

I agree with Zoar here. Military locks tended to be overbuilt as they would receive rougher usage. Guns used as clubs, dragged on the ground while crawling, etc. The lockplates and hammers are ridiculously thick for example on a 1863 Springfield percussion lock. There was no noticeable improvement in flintlocks after 1800 in my opinion. Individual high end locks highly polished and extremely well-fitted performed very well but lots of the fancy later features were more for show than for function. Roller frizzens are not really faster, waterproof pans are not really waterproof, etc.

Small locks will be faster in general as the throw or travel of the cock is less. They will be more accurate to shoot as they disturb the aim less as they fire and come to rest (less force ableto move the gun). Serious flint target shooters use the smallest good locks they can get. That would not work in a military application as they are more delicate.

 

[Zoar]

You do know all this flintlock-evolution talk is going to get me into another flintlock build project... Darn.

I'm thinking a really small, elegant, 1760-ish styled flintlock on a really small pistol would be quite the project... Oh well...

Indeed the really big locks were meant to take tremendous abuse and still function. As othesr have observed Flintlocks did not get better as far as aesthetics over time. We may have better polishing techniques for production locks but many high quality, custom made, hand made locks of 1700's were works of art and function.

 

[Larry Pletcher]

I think that to look at this objectively one should separate military locks from civilian locks. Evolution of the military flintlock would be a good topic.

The evolution of civilian flintlocks would make another good topic. The priorities of each group differ enough that they should be looked at separately IMHO.

Regards,
Pletch

 

[Zoar]

I borrowed the following from Jom Chambers website--- "Around 1960 C.E. "Bud" Siler made the first Siler lock by copying a pristine Germanic style lock produced around 1770. From that first effort grew a business that continues to this day to set the standard by which all other locks are judged."

ZENITH of flintlock was copied (a 1770 creation) and is what leads the way... even today.

 

[Dphar]

Ergo---later locks were not necessarily faster, more refined, etc. Linear thinking does not work here (flintlocks refinement) as in most things in life, actually.

You are confusing chronologically late locks with technologically late locks.
Aside from how it looks a late musket lock is little different than a 1730s-40s musket lock.
There is a significant difference in a 1740s state of the art sporting lock and a 1820s state of the art sporting lock.
In the last 1/2 of the 18th century the British spent a lot of time making flintlocks faster and more reliable for wing shooting. The late 18th-early 19th century British best quality locks were works of art technologically. The internals carried over to the percussion guns with no design changes.
But locks of this quality seldom if ever saw service on American made guns, though some Simeon North pistols had them it seems.

Dan

 

[davec2]

I believe another one of the primary reason for large locks on military arms is making them more sure fire. The bigger the lock, the more sparks are generated...and it still only takes one to set the pan off. At least for me, smaller locks are always more finicky and more susceptible to miss fires than a large military lock.

 

[paulvallandigham]

NOT if you know how to tune a small lock. Paul

 

[robinghewitt]

Ignition speed became a consideration on shotguns after Nock invented his patent breech, I think the culmination was probably Manton's vee groove pan with a platina bar along the bottom. Shoots like a cap lock.

Pistol and rifle shooters had no need for patent breechings and seemed more concerned with water proofing than speed :thumbsup:

 

[Dphar]

Ignition speed became a consideration on shotguns after Nock invented his patent breech, I think the culmination was probably Manton's vee groove pan with a platina bar along the bottom. Shoots like a cap lock.

Pistol and rifle shooters had no need for patent breechings and seemed more concerned with water proofing than speed :thumbsup:

The late Mantons are fast but they are not "like a caplock". Most of the time difference is taken up with the sparks getting the powder burning and this heating the main charge.
The Manton rifles got the same locks that the shotguns had. The patent breeches were also used to increase muzzle velocity but this was not tested by modern methods. Lock speed has.

Dan

 

[rich pierce]

There was a MB article 10 years ago or so showing that patent breeches gave higher velocity but not faster ignition times.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

There was a MB article 10 years ago or so showing that patent breeches gave higher velocity but not faster ignition times.

I recall reading that, too, Rich. I remember thinking that the simple vent hole was the way to go, being so much easier to clean and less complicated and velocity could be increased by just adding a little more powder. But a more windproof or waterproof pan couldn't hurt.

 

[Dphar]

There was a MB article 10 years ago or so showing that patent breeches gave higher velocity but not faster ignition times.

I recall reading that, too, Rich. I remember thinking that the simple vent hole was the way to go, being so much easier to clean and less complicated and velocity could be increased by just adding a little more powder. But a more windproof or waterproof pan couldn't hurt.

This has been timed recently by Larry Pletcher and the recessed Nock breech is slightly slower than a plain breech. But it takes electronic timing to tell.
BUT the Nock is far more consistent and is ALWAYS about the same. The plain breech is less reliable in this regard. This would be important for wing shooting since the consistency would make for more hits.
I saw a slow mo video on a History channel show about Manton and the Manton recessed breech got the shot out the barrel significantly faster from pan flash to muzzle flash.
This would require testing with full length barrels to "really" understand. Also recessed plain and Nock type breeches would have to be tested.
Toward the end of the flintlock era, 1780s on there were so many patent improvements and claims of superiority concerning firearms that editorial cartoons appeared about them.

Dan

 

[tsmgguy]

I've been really impressed with the efforts of The Rifle Shoppe. I own two of their rifles, and had not owned nor fired other modern flinters. I had not realized that other flinters may not offer the same reliability and nearly instantaneous ignition, and have not received the care, tuning, and attention in manufacturing that TRS locks do.

 

[davec2]

Paul,

Would you be willing to write up a short explanation of how to properly tune a small lock?

Thanks

Dave C

 

[paulvallandigham]

I wrote an article on tuning locks that you can read on this forum. Go to Member Resources, and click on " articles". I believe the title now says something like "Shooting flintlocks", and no reference to the extensive step-by-step instructions on tuning locks.

A small lock is just much more critical for its dimensions, than the larger locks. Its easier for them to be out of tune if some moving part is not right.

If you have a particular problem with tuning a small lock that I don't seem to adequately cover in my article, simply send me a PT, and I will try to help you out. In all flintlocks, YOu have a trigger, a sear, a tumbler, and a frizzen THAT MOVE. There are separate springs for the Frizzen( ie. Frizzen Spring), the tumbler( ie. Main spring,) and the sear/trigger( the Sear spring). If you are shooting a double set trigger, you will have a separate spring for the triggers.

As long as you understand that tuning any lock is solely to speed up and guarantee reliable creation of sparks, that are quickly thrown down into the flash pan, you can't go far wrong when working on the locks. If lots of sparks don't get into the pan fast, to ignite the priming powder, the lock is NOT DOING its job for you.

Tuning requires checking for any rubbing that should not be happening, as it creates DRAG, and that slows the speed of the lock. Then, when rubbing is found, you diagnose What is causing the rubbing. It may be a warped lock Plate. More likely its casting burrs that were not removed from the part that is rubbing. REMOVE the burrs. All this polishing and freeing of the basic sets of parts must be done so that you have an idea how the lock will function as DESIGNED, warts and all.

After you find out how it works, then its time to see about changes to improve on what the factory delivered, so that the three basic groups work together, and not against each other.

A Tuned lock will give you:

A. Fast Ignition:
B. Long Flint Life;
C. A New Edge for your next shot;
D. A Frizzen that is Scraped of Steel to make Sparks, NOT GOUGED!

Those are the basics.

Paul