How to handle frizzen rebound

[bchannell]

I certainly didn't mean this post to cause any discord, I am simply trying to learn about these locks.
You bring up some good points, the frizzen is what I would call slightly loose fitting, but not to the point of problematic. Strangely, it rebounds worse with and new frizzen spring than the one I lightened, which illustrates what you said about it being a function of design/fitting, rather than springs. It also sparks much better with the lightened spring, so it would appear, at least on this lock, that the modification was a success.
I am also of the untrained opinion that the mainspring could use some lightening, judiciously of course.

 

[rich pierce]

Paul, it's worthwhile perhaps to remind readers from time to time that although your theories on frizzen/frizzen spring interactions have served you well, they are well outside the mainstream of current and historical makers of fine flintlocks. The Mantons, Durs Egg and other masters who perfected the flintlock apparently designed the frizzen spring to not only hold the frizzen closed but to also resist the force of the flint striking the frizzen. They were quite capable of manipulating the camming force of the teat on the frizzen and its timing to whatever they desired. Given their apparent engineering capabilities, it seems likely they could have designed a lock that cammed quite strongly, holding the frizzen closed, then became neutral very quickly, and even resisted rebounding. But they didn't.

One possible reason may be that flints were dirt cheap compared to powder and ball and period shooters simply did not expect or even desire a flint to last 50 or 100 shots, as shooters today seem to do, for reasons I cannot fathom (since I make gunflints for sale, LOL!).

 

[Old Salt]

Your flintlock needs that heavy mainspring to drive the flint into the frizzen which has enough spring resistance to the hammer to really let the hammercock friction scrape those glowing metal embers into the pan. Too little frizzen spring resistance means less sparks. Not enough hammercock speed means less sparks.............But maybe I'm wrong................Bob

I was at a match one time when my frizzen spring broke. The gun was loaded so I decided to discharge the load without the frizzen spring. The lock sparked and fired fine. I replaced the spring before continuing the match.

I've seen several locks with very little frizzen spring tension work fine.

My opinion is you don't need a strong frizzen spring for good sparks.

Leo

 

[Flash Pan Dan]

Bobber, I did all the modifications that Paul suggested and, in my case, all three of my Silers benefitted greatly from the improvements. I had one brand new Siler lock that came to me bearing 9.8 pounds of frizzen spring pressure on the frizzen. That lock ate flints at a rate of 4 to 8 shots per flint. I took another one of Paul’s suggestions and snapped that lock in a darken room, after waiting ten minutes for my eyes to adjust, I found that only some of the sparks were going into the pan, In addition, the face of my frizzen was scarred from the flint gouging out metal rather than scraping.

I lightened and polished the frizzen/spring and removed metal from the toe. Repeated the darken room test and found that now most of the sparks were going into the pan and the quality of the sparks were improved. What I mean by that is that before the sparks coming of the frizzen were very fine and looked like they were traveling at high speed, whereas after the tuning the sparks looked thicker almost like a gob. And yes, my flints are lasting much longer, Sorry Rich. I now get 60 to 80 shot per flint and on some flints I don't even have to knap the edge they just shoot until they are too short to use any more.

This is my experience, others may question the methods, but for me it has made a world of difference learning to tune a “brand new”, “well built”, and “well designed” lock. I’m not a gunsmith just a tinkerer. But I recommend that every flintlock shooter do the darken room test. It will be an education.

 

[ebiggs1]

I understand both sides of this, as I like to tinker around with stuff too. But you have to be real careful when it’s something you know little or nothing about. As and old die maker I know you can turn a good pile of steel into a bad pile of steel quickly if you aren’t careful.
I, too, don’t understand the 100 shots per flint mentality. I guess its bragging rights or something. Maybe those guys are using those high dollar flints.
But you have to give it to Mr. vallandigham, he certainly has the gift of gab. He has a story for everything.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Rich: There are bad OLD ( Original Locks) and good ones. There are Awful modern replicas of some of these old locks, and, sadly, the people making the copies are only interested in addressing the buyers who want a LOCK that LOOKS JUST LIKE THAT ORIGINAL....

I am interested in shooting these guns-- originals if I can afford one that is in good enough condition to be shot-- and replicas. My interest is NOT Target Shooting. Rather I wanted to demonstrate these old STYLE of guns to the public so people could actually see, and handle guns that they only saw on TV( UGH!) I wanted a lock that reliably fired, as audiences have no patience in this age of Instant Gratification, and simply will not wait while you get that gun firing again. My secondary interest is hunting, where a reliable lock is absolutely necessary.

From the comments seen on this Forum, I believe most of the members are shooters, and hunters. Only a very few do trick shots, or demonstrations for the public.

I need long-lived flints, I am sorry to say. I understand why it is that someone who makes flints as a business doesn't have the same concern I may have on getting long life from my flints. :shocked2: :haha: :grin: :bow: Flint Knapping, and gunflint making are just a few skills I have yet to acquire. When I am doing a shooting demonstration for the public, on behalf of my gun club, the last thing I need is for a flint to shatter, or need to be changed often. I suppose if I had a bank of rifles, and people to reload the guns for me, and switch flints for me, flint life would not be so important. :hmm:

Many of the locks I see on guns are copies of locks that are so poorly designed for shooting, that they have to be considered " wall-hangers", only. Others are impressive, and show some serious effort to provide shooters with reliably firing locks.

Keith Casteel, in his seminar on Lock Tuning this past July at Dixon's Gunmaker's fair, referred his audience to the Gold Mean Proportion article, I mention above, and even provided a hand-out with a copy of a couple of pages from that article.

Only a few pages talk about lock design, so its not tedious reading. If a reader is not familiar with the " Golden Mean", he probably should read a couple of the first pages of the article to understand the principles involved. Reading the whole article won't hurt you, either. Sometimes, seeing how the proportion was applied to other works helps people better understand how it all works with guns, and locks.

It often disturbs modern gun builders to learn that these Golden Age guns were built entirely without a Ruler, Yardstick, or standard measurement. :shocked2: Instead, dividers were used to transfer "measurements" to the various parts of a gunstock,the lock, the barrel, and all the extras from butt plate, to Muzzle. :hmm: :idunno: :grin:

Modern shooters must remember that it was not until well into the 19th century that gun parts began to be cast on a regular basis. Most gun makers made all their own parts, or used parts they bought from special factories, that took the cottage industry of the middle ages, and put people under the same roof, all making a common product by hand, from a standard sample. This kind of production lasted will through the 18th century, and only began to be replaced by true factories after the turn of the 19th century. The Advent of steam engines allowed factories to get away from water powered facilities, and provided consistent and dependable power to fuel new machines.

Today, most springs are Cast, not forged. Springs forged from sheet stock tend to be better made in all aspects, simply because of the time and handwork involved in making such a spring work properly. Cast Springs came on the scene along with the factory systems of the early 19th century. They are still extremely cheap to produce, using the lost wax process, compared to a forged spring. :thumbsup: But, they can be BEASTS to work with! :cursing:

 

[rich pierce]

Amen on cast lock springs! Give me strong, whippy, fast forged springs everytime and I'd pay an extra $40 per lock, no problem.

 

[Larry Pletcher]

trying to be careful not to take sides, I'll say the following:
We have videoed 80+ locks in slow motion: a few excellent originals, and many superb locks of todays best makers and tuners. Among these was an original Manton and a Bob Roller. The only lock that didn't rebound was one where the operator got his thumb pinched under the frizzen. They all do it.

from here on I'll let you guys fight it out.
Regards,
Pletch

 

[Vaino]

When you say "rebound" was it that the frizzen ended up atop the flint or did it slightly "rebound", came back and finally rested on the frizzen spring?....Fred

 

[Tom Compton]

Years ago one of the top flint shooters broke a feather spring or lost it or something. He liked his large Siler that way and went for a couple of shooting seasons shooting with out one. That dang frizzen flapped around like a broke chicken wing.

Didn't seem to break any flints and was a very good shot. Of course he worked nights and burned a couple of pounds of powder a week, maybe more.

TC

 

[Larry Pletcher]

When you say "rebound" was it that the frizzen ended up atop the flint or did it slightly "rebound", came back and finally rested on the frizzen spring?....Fred

The frizzens all returned at least once. Some lockes rebounded 2 or three times. I don't remember any touching the flint - maybe one. One of the Chambers round face locks came to a stop 1/2" above the flint with no frizzen spring. Jime claimed he worked very hard to get it to work like that.

One thing we saw was that in locks videoed many times, was that as the flint wore and shortened, the frizzen rebounded a little farther. I suspect that with a shorter flint the edge traveled farther before contacting the frizzen and therefore was faster. traveling faster loaded the spring a little more and caused a stronger rebound. the flint wasn't touched by this lock either though. Remember that in a normal lock the spring compresses in order to close. I really would suggest looking at the videos to understand this.

Fooey, I wasn't going to get drawn into this.
Regards,
Pletch

 

[Zonie]

"...Fooey, I wasn't going to get drawn into this."
--------

I understand your feelings but of all of the people who belong to the MLF you undoubtedly have the greatest first hand (first eye?) knowledge of just exactly what the frizzen and the feather spring are doing after it is struck by the flint.

I doubt that any of those who have seen your video's have actually taken the time to rerun them and study just exactly what is happening like I am sure you have done.

Any insight is greatly appreciated.

 

[DanChamberlain]

Don't know why Bobber's lock is acting up after his mods. But, while Chambers locks have superb reputations, it doesn't mean this particular lock doesn't have defects. Just saying.

Dan

 

[Dphar]

I'm curious about spring balance. I lightened the frizzen spring to ~3#, and now I get intermittent rebound. I'm guessing the hammer spring is around 30-40#, which I think is way too much. What are your thoughts on what they should be?

They should be strong enough to work right. Generally speaking weak springs are a bad idea.

Replace/rearch the frizzen spring.

Dan

 

[Vaino]

Thanks Pletch....Your insight is greatly appreciated and offering technical info isn't taking sides. Of all the locks you tested were any changes made to the frizzen springs or did they all have the "factory" springs? Also did you test for flint longevity? Thanks again....Fred

 

[Dphar]

I would not put too much stock in the "golden mean" thing.
Its kinda like a religion, believers see it everywhere.
If you really look into it the proponents will move the "starting point" around on the gun or part around until the golden mean fits. If it will.
These tells me that who ever made the part or gun had limited knowledge of the golden mean if they used it at all. Its best use is in laying out rod pipes on the stock I suppose. Its not useless I just think some folks tend to see it where it was never used.

Dan

 

[Larry Pletcher]

Thanks Pletch....Your insight is greatly appreciated and offering technical info isn't taking sides. Of all the locks you tested were any changes made to the frizzen springs or did they all have the "factory" springs? Also did you test for flint longevity? Thanks again....Fred

When we took the lock for testing, we asked the owner to jot down any modifications that were made to the lock. There were few and I don't remember any feather spring mods. (I'll need to check though.)
Lowell Gard of bevelup/down fame asked to do a longevity test. He installed a new flint and we videoed try 1, 11, 21, 31, 41, 51, 61. Essentially he snapped the lock 10 times between each video. The lock (Chambers Late Ketland) performed flawlessly. This is the lock that rebounded slightly farther as the flint became shorter. The amount was small. It was necessary to run the video frame by frame to see the difference. The Chambers Late Ketland was become my favorite lock as a result of what we saw. LC Rice and Jim C. have long thought this was the quickest lock Chambers makes, although the 2 new Deluxe Silers we videoed were very fast as well.

The most surprising new think we saw was the flexing of the cock necks as they came to the sudden stop on the plate and bridle. There would be a 2-3 frame flex where the flint edge kept on going after the rest of the cock was still. It would then back-up, relax, return to battery, not sure what to call it. This could only be seen using frame by frame study. I don't think you can see it on the playback used on my web page - which uses your-tube technology.

Regards,
Pletch

 

[Birddog6]

I have yet to see a frizzen that doesn't rebound.... IMHO, ALL of them do.....
How much is determined by the tension of the frizzen spring on the toe & the shape of the toe, and the angle it hits on the spring, and the angle of the spring where the toe hits it.
If spring tension is light, that frizzen is going to flop like a puppies tail....... Now you may not see it, but you slo-mo it, I guarantee that sucker is flopping like a bluegill out of water.

The frizzen tension & the mainspring tension are a balanced set. You change one, to make the lock work correctly, you have to change the other one for the lock to hold up. If you think not, you are only fooling yourself & you will be having more lock problems.

I seldom have an issue with Chambers Silers on this issue. And I don't modify Anything unless it is bouncing back bad & hitting the flint & chipping it.

Of the 1 or 2 out of ? over 50 I had this happen on, all I did was heat the very end of the frizzen spring & barely turn it down. A good example is the frizzen spring on a deluxe Siler & note the end of the spring is turned straight or barely down. Then a immediate quench in warm canola oil & let it cool. If I screw it up, so what, I replace a spring.

I am not into grinding on the springs, frizzen toes, etc., changing angle & heights of the toes, etc. I know Jim Chambers has built thousands of locks, and has been doing it for over 40 years, he knows a H of a lot more about them them I ever will. Thus I will not even attempt to modify his or Bud Silers design or techniques. After all, they are KNOWN to work well.

On a standard large Siler I have always gotten 60+
shots & have seen some of them get well over a hundred on the same flint & standard locks with just a few internals polished when reassembled from browning them.

Now that being said, you can change allot of things on a lock & make it work. But if you do all of that & end up right back where ya started, getting 60-80 shots, seems to me like ya could have put that time in something constructive rather than re-inventing the wheel. :idunno: Others see it differently. :wink:

Keith Lisle

 

[Dphar]

Most locks suffer from a inadequate mainspring rather than a too strong frizzen spring.
There is a lot of really Looney Tunes ideas out there on lock springs.
If the lock properly designed a strong spring is not going to arbitrarily break flints.
Flints are sometimes broken by a rebounding frizzen.
I have a lock on a rifle that was a real flint eater. I finally lightened the MS till it would no longer work.
The guy that make the lock about 30 years ago recommended I put on a L&R 1700 frizzen on it and fixed it. Put in a MS that is STRONGER than the one I lightened and the lock no longer eats flints. Does it get 60 shots from a flint, doubt it. Neither does my copy of a Manton lock. My swivel breech is reasonably fast and reliable as heck and does not eat flints and the last one lasted a very long time. But the one I replaced it with does not spark nearly as well.
ITS A ROCK some work better than others all the flints I have for it are black Brandon flints so they should be the same right?
I think I need more mainspring power but in the this case I would have to make a different tumbler, link, maybe a mainspring and I think I will pass on that right now.
I actually increase the tension on most springs in tuning the lock.
This lock had both the MS and FS rearched for more preload.

Keep the springs snappy. Decent cock speed/power and decent resistance by the frizzen spring.
The flintlock is a very complex piece of engineering that looks deceptively simple. Its not all that simple and if you wonder if you can fix it leave it alone.
One thing most users can do and not screw up too much is to put the frizzen in the oven at 375 degrees (checked with 2 oven thermometers) and let it bake for an hour then let it cool. Excessively hard frizzens are a source of trouble as well.

Years ago a couple of guys (IIRC) built a "try lock" that had adjustable parts that would change frizzen face angles etc. They then started testing. They then wrote it up in a 1960s issue of Muzzle Blasts. It was very helpful to me as a kid making guns in Iowa.
Curved frizzen faces are better than straight in most cases and the cock needs to point the flint into the pan and it needs to come down so the flint is CLOSE to the pan.

Also the fact that a lock will spark with no frizzen spring is no reason to assume that a weak frizzen spring is a good thing. But some people seem to think this is the case. Weak springs are a way to work around a problem the person does not know how to fix otherwise.
Old locks are not a good guide to spring tension since they are often weakened by having lost some preload over the years. Copying an original lock by casting can result in the cast springs having less preload than the lock orignally had due to this.

Dan

 

[bchannell]

WOW! guys, thanks for all the help and answers. I'm still using my lock with the lightened frizzen spring, and getting good results. As I said, I have an extra, unaltered spring, and it too works, but seems lighter than my altered spring was before I lightened it??? Anyway, I have no plans to mess with the mainspring, as it is quick, and the lock sparks really well.
Someone mentioned bending the very end of the frizzen spring slightly down. That's exactly what someone had done to the spring that broke originally and started this tinkering. That spring was not properly tempered on the end and it broke right at the bend. I'm guessing it's not a bad modification, (although I'm not sure it's needed...*alert, uneducated opinion here*).
Anyway, for now, I plan to shoot and enjoy, and try to learn something from all this.
Thanks again, for all the info on this, and if anyone got miffed over my thread, I apologize as that certainly was not my intent when I asked the questions.
Hey, I have to ask questions, if no one tells me I'm an idiot, how will I ever know?