Musket lock design through history…

[John Spartan]

Good morning to all.
Relatively new to BP (coming up on two years) but many decades of centerfire experience. My BP passion (yes it’s official) is a pleasant combination of a love of military history (1775’ish - 1815) and firearms. Currently own several “military musket replicas” from this period and do whatever reading I can.

Okay. Now that the stage has been set I have been studying locks on muskets of this period - both on current replicas and pictures of museum and authentic weapons - and spent several moments this A.M. studying mine. Pretty cool that my replicas seem to be exactly the same mechanically and in looks as their authentic counterparts. In fact all locks of this period, at least on military muskets, seem to be the same. This is fine. If its simple, realiable, and it works then perfect. But it got me to thinking.
Are there any lock designs from this period (1750-1820) that were truly different, radical, AND worked reliably? Specifically military muskets but any “mass produced” design? Pic for for color.

 

[Grenadier1758]

@John Spartan, the early musket locks were far simpler. They did not have the bridle, the metal plate in your picture that covers the tumbler and sear lever to maintain alignment of the tumbler and reduce wear on the tumbler rotating axle. Also, your picture shows a detachable brass pan that was intended to mitigate the corrosive effects of the jet of flame on the pan by allowing for eventual replacement. On the other side of the lock plate, a bridle was added to support the axle of the steel (frizzen) extending the life of the lock. These changes evolved from the 1720's on the British Pattern Locks.

Your lock shows the double throated cock that adds some strength over the swan necked cock of earlier locks and the hole in the top of the jaw screw that was added to allow for a pin to be used to tighten the flint in the jaws of the cock.

 

[John Spartan]

Fascinating thank you. This whole period is very interesting in firearms design. And I at least guessed the purpose of the “bridle” correctly. If you have any other fascinating tidbits I am all ears.

 

[Grenadier1758]

I'd like to see @dave_person's comments on the history of flint locks from that period.

 

[dave_person]

Hi Grenadier,
Thank you for that endorsement and the regard is mutual. I've been feeling a bit under the weather this past week but I am getting back to normal.

John,
Grenadier posted some good information on changes in locks over the 18th century. There is a lot of context to be absorbed to put any military technology into perspective. In 1700, there was no official French or British designed musket. There were officially endorsed patterns but no designated models or patterns adopted universally within a nation's military. In England, the regimental colonel often determined the details of the muskets issued as long as he followed certain standards. That changed for the French in the second decade of the 18th century and for the British at the end of the third decade. Both nations adopted official designs and expected their public and private manufacturers to copy them. In addition, material sciences were primitive in 1700. Most metallurgy was by experience and art not science. It wasn't until 1747 when Benjamin Robbins read his paper "Observations of the Nature and Advantage of Rifled Barrel Pieces" to the Royal Society that anyone understood the physics of ballistics and how rifling worked to improve the precision and power guns and of bullets. Steel was as expensive as silver because no one could make much of it cheaply. The French flintlock, which we all think of as THE flintlock mechanism, was invented during the early 17th century and was not radically altered until it was replaced by percussion ignition in the 19th. There were many improvements and refinements, particularly during the 18th century. Grenadier mentioned several. The roller bearing frizzen and frizzen spring, weather resistant pan and pan cover designs, tumblers with stirrups, safety bolts, and Nock's screwless flintlock were all efforts to improve the basic flintlock but none was a radical change. The questions you asked would require a book to answer and I recommend you get a copies of "English Rifles and Guns" and "English Pistols and Revolvers" both by John N George, and Howard Blackmore's "British Military Firearms". There are later books by Bailey and Bianchi that focus on design changes in British and French military small arms but the three I mentioned really get into the background history about the weapons development. Government militaries are very conservative because they are risk aversive. When a design works under the prevailing conditions, they are loathe to change it, particularly for any unproven radical idea. Keep in mind, there were no massive industrial military complexes funding research and development, and those that did exist, like Woolwich, were small and underfunded. Most innovation came from talented "tinkerers" working in small shops.

dave

 

[John Spartan]

Perfect! Thank you gentlemen!