flintlock improvements

[84bronze]

The flintlock has been around for a long time. From the first till present have there been any advances in lock design that make one better than another? Is there a type / year that stands out above others as more reliable? I'm wondering if within 200 years they made some improvements to the basic design?

By looks they all appear fairly similar but slight differences could make a difference?

 

[necchi]

Uhm, :hmm:
It has been much argued and debated and still is.
There is a basic "geometry" to making these locks function that is nearly timeless, thing's like the hammer pivot point, the arc of the hammer and those angles in relation to the frizzen, the frizzen angle in it's pivot point, the strength of the springs and where the springs apply pressure,,ect.

What is key and always has been is getting that geometry right, then proper tolerances for the roll and spring pressure points A Flint lock with everything right is itself a thing of beauty a piece of art!

Jim Chambers makes about the best commercial lock available today and a few dozen individuals nation wide can fine tune/build a lock of several different styles that put factory locks to shame.

Here's a link to Chambers pages of locks and a lot can be learned there (there's 6 pages); http://www.flintlocks.com/locks.htm

 

[Coot]

Differences in geometry and spring tension can be the difference between a well functioning lock and a flint eater with poor sparks. Better locks can often incorporate improvements that add to reliability and or durability but at a higher cost - polished working surfaces, bridles, rollers, lined pans, relatively water tight pans, etc. A poorly functioning lock is like trying to carve with a dull chisel.

 

[54ball]

Not counting custom stuff for Royalty or the Nobility, the English by far made the most advanced commercially available locks in the very late 18th Century continuing into the first quarter of the 19th Century.

Nothing else has really surpassed them. There may be some modern gimmicks that come and go but so far nothing has surpassed the fine English locks of that era.

And honestly I see nothing ever surpassing them. To better the best, you have to beat the best, as good is not good enough and I just do not see that happening.

 

[Ken Cormier]

Maybe when the started putting bridles in them. :idunno:

 

[Zonie]

Well, over the course of time they added sliding safetys that locked the **** in the half **** position thereby improving safety over having just the half **** in the tumbler.

They even had automatic safetys that would lock the **** in position when the gun was pointed straight up but would disengage when the gun was held in a firing position.

There was the "water proof" pan cover. While it didn't make the lock really water proof it did greatly reduce any water from getting into the pan.

There was the roller added to the frizzen spring to improve the action of the frizzen opening.

Someone mentioned the bridle. Essentially a reinforcing or supporting piece that supports the outer end of the frizzen screw or the end of the tumbler inside the lockplate.

Nock in England even built a screwless flintlock which used a retaining plate inside the lock to restrain all of the pieces in place. This lock used the mainspring to push up on a internal bar to replace the frizzen spring.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Chamber's Late Ketland is sposed to be the fastest production lock made, Ole man Rice made a few even faster, I have one of those.

Never have raced anyone, and was told 100ths of a second differences between locks, and my Micky Mouse watch only does seconds

 

[84bronze]

Thanks for so much information. So just so I understand if I take a small siler and a large siler they will shoot differently just because the geometry but depending who worked on them (or made them) they might be good or bad and one or the other might be better depending.So it's more a question of great American craftsmanship (gratuitous self complementing since this is America!) than it is pure design. So making an exact copy as per a blueprint (what blueprint?) would in theory make a great lock. The best designs overall were made by the English later on. I see that the Chambers locks are usually rated highly on all sites. So learning the design and how it works is probably the best place to start. I would think it takes years to master making a good lock.

I say we can do without the safety stuff and think the best safety is keep your finger off the trigger but that's my opinion. Makes for more moving parts to fix. Sort of like the original 1911 design by Browning that worked great and would continue to work great but depending on who fixed or tried to improve the design determined if you had a paperweight or not. The newer manufacturers that use the precision of modern technology with the original design have the best product just as the English.

So if I were a redneck in the swamps during the early 1800's and I wanted a really good rifle then I would salvage the lock and barrel from recently deceased English parts and add them to a good American wood stock to have the best of all parts.

Easy! :thumbsup: atriot:

 

[Larry Pletcher]

I believe it was 54ball who mentioned the late flint period English locks. I agree. The English makers seemed to be in an "flint arms race". The competition was fierce. In 20+ years of timing locks, the fastest locks I've tested were late English. In first place is an original Joseph Manton owned by Lynton McKenzie. It avereged .0297 of a second. Second place is a Staudenmayer also owned by Lynton. With original springs it averaged .0299 of a second. Lynton fitted this lock with milder springs; in this form it averaged .0352 sec. This number places it in the range of the faster of todays locks, the Chambers Late Ketland, for example.

With today's locks, I believe who assembles and/or tunes the lock is important. Some are outstanding - some are not. Never be afraid to pay for quality.

Regards,
Pletch

 

[84bronze]

Thanks for all the great info.

I love the craftsmanship that involved wood and steel. If you needed something you made it. It's amazing the mechanical abilities we had before electricity and computers were around.

 

[bpd303]

I still make most of my stuff in spite of electricity & computers. :thumbsup:

 

[84bronze]

I would guess most folks on this site favor hand tools and peacefulness of a woodshop. Some people don't know what to do when the power goes out nowadays.

 

[Rifleman1776]

That is all correct. If it were not we wouldn't have anything to talk about here. :wink: :rotf:

 

[Col. Batguano]

I turn on the generator. I can't see without light.

 

[M. De Land]

Nah, any good machinist can do with a file ,chisel, breast drill and broach any thing he can do with a mill,lathe or drill press, just takes ten times as long for no better quality.
Actually most things are still finished up and final fit with a file and stones.
That's working with your head instead of just your back and hands. :grin: Mike D.

 

[84bronze]

You need something to occupy time on those long dark winter days!

Actually I agree. Those hand tool marks make something a thing of beauty. Never get the same look with power tools. Hand made hand tools can't be beat.

 

[don hepler]

It was amazing how the people from way back accomplished what they did, despite their lack of information. But, todays machinist/gun smiths are the best that's ever been and possibly the best that ever will be. I am a machinist, with a lot of gun smithing experience. I have friends that are gun builders. I've seen a lot of machining changes in the past 40+ years. The top builders of today, especially the ones with artistic abilities, take their place in history, as the best that's ever been. They can compare their work to others, all over the world.

I respect the ones from the old days, that could work with minimal tools and information, and they are in a class of their own, but todays builders are building guns, that will last for many years, after we're long gone. And people will look at those rifles, and be wowed.

 

[Billnpatti]

Given the many improvements in lock design and geometery along with metalurgy, todays better locks such as the L&R are head and shoulders above those made in days long gone by. Just the opinon of an old fart. Take it for what it's worth. :hatsoff:

 

[Col. Batguano]

Agreed. Materials and manufacturing techniques / quality control are far better than "back in the day". But, because so much of a build is more artistry than manufacturing, the originals are still in their own league.

 

[54ball]

todays better locks such as the L&R are head and shoulders above those made in days long gone by. Just the opinon of an old fart. Take it for what it's worth.

If you mean the 1970s as the days gone by , I would agree. If you mean the 18th and 19th Centuries, I would say you need to do more research.

Even the highly praised locks by Jim Chambers may only be equal to the export quality locks that were shipped here by the barrel full.

A L&R Durs Egg is frankly a joke compared to the original.

To be fair to Chambers and L&R, the lock buying public will not pay for that quality. It's simply mass production vs hand finished.

Technology allows for a company to mass produce a product that functions well with minimal finishing but to truly reach the quality of "days gone by" would require expertise,effort and finishing that would cost hundreds of dollars. Nobody is going to pay that, except for some discriminating German builders....Ask Bob Roller.