Original flintlock ignition speed

[DNF38]

For those of you who have shot original flintlocks from the 1700s, was the ignition speed as fast as modern flintlocks? With nice modern flintlocks are the better locks, such as Silers, modeled on actual 1700s locks? Or are these new locks designed differently? I know some of the new types have coil springs. But what about the modern locks with leaf springs?

 

[Leonredbeard]

Larry Pletcher did high speed video of 30 odd locks. The fastest one, bar none, was the original English lock from a double twelve owned by Jim Chambers. The lock dated to circa 1800 AD. FWIT.
volatpluvia

 

[Zonie]

Knap27
It's a good question but I don't think there is an easy answer.

I think Mr Pletchers' work, which dealt only with the lock, removed from the gun is perhaps the only way to accurately judge the speed of a old and a new flintlock arm.

As far as shooting an original gun, how could one compare it with a new one?

Differences in the barrel wall thickness and the size of the touch hole are just two of many things that can affect the speed that a flintlock fires.
Many of the original guns have huge touch-holes while many of the modern guns have hollowed out vent liners.
Would one have an advantage over the other? I'm not sure one could ever find the answer.
Sure, one could test one gun against the other but unseen variations can make two modern flintlocks made in the same style by the same company have different speeds.

As Mr Pletchers' further work on determining just the effects of the location of the prime in the pan has shown, that alone can have a great deal to do with how quickly a flintlock will fire.

 

[Larry Pletcher]

Zonie's thoughts about all the extra variables are correct. The only way to answer the question is to look at locks by themselves. I first did this in 1988 at the Seminar at Western Kentucky. With Gary Brumfield helping we borrowed a few locks and developed the methodology. The result was an article for The "Journal of Historic Armsmaking Technology" Vol. 4.

The fastest lock timed in the years since was a J. Manton from a fowler made around 1800 owned then by Lynton McKensie. This lock averaged .0297 sec.

A second lock owned by McKensie was a Staudenmayer also from the late flint period. These 2 locks are the standard IMHO for all others to try to measure up to. I have not timed a faster repro lock although one "really tweated up" small Siler comes close.

The Manton Vola... mentions was a Manton off a similar fowler that we videotaped in slow motion at Friendship on 07. This was not the same lock, but was from the same time period. I don't have numbers on this lock, but expect it to perform like the Manton I timed earlier.

To compare modern to original - the most frequently timed lock I have is a very well made large Siler that has been a test bed for many experiments. I don't know it's overall average for the many years it was used. But when working on the JHAT article it averaged .0388 sec. The L&R repro Manton and Durs Egg locks fit into this area from .0350 - .0400 sec. Many more, in fact most modern locks fall into the gap between .0400 and .0500 sec.

Flint condition, type, and bevel all are variables here and can creep in if the experimenter is not careful. And I purposely left out vent diameters, liners, powder brands, grain sizes, humidity,. . . . well you get the idea. (In fact the Manton was timed at .0297 with Goex 4fg. If it had been done with Swiss Null B, it's average might well have been in the .0250 range - who knows. Null B wasn't available then.)

I hope this helps. I may not have access to a computer til Monday night - don't know for sure.

Regards,
Pletch

 

[paulvallandigham]

Back in the late 1970s, I was able to handle( but not fire!) a DB Tower made shotgun. I examined the locks in detail, and was amazed at the smoothness, and light tension weight of the combined springs and action. Its perhaps the softest feather spring I have ever felt on any gun. Pulling the cock back was smooth, and light- no bruised thumbs like I experienced with so many replica Brown Bess locks, that immitated the same size locks used on that Shotgun.

The Shotgun I handled was made in 1776, and so marked, ( Which is why it was in the gun collection), 12 gauge, with 36 inch barrels. It balanced perfectly where my forward hand naturally held the forestock, and the gun mounted easily to the pocket of my shoulder.

I cannot tell you how fast the lock was, because the timing equipment was JUST NOT available, then. A patina covered the face of the frizzen on top of the scrape marks made when it was last fired. All I could do was feel the difference in the smoothness of rotation of the cock and tumbler, the light trigger pulls, and check to see how much tension kept the frizzen closed. Several experienced Flintlock shooters at my gun club were also able to handle the gun, including 2 men who had built Flintguns. All said that it was the smoothest set of flintlock actions they had ever felt. They said they didn't even know how it was possible to get an action to be that light and fast!The one spring available to them to examine was the feather spring, and both of the " Makers" did so. Both told me that this was far better than any lock currently being made. The upper arme of the spring was shaped so that the spring did not have to be further compressed by the cam on the bottom of the frizzen before the frizzens opened. Since both locks were made the same way, I have to believe this was done by design, and not by accident.

This shotgun had a sling swivel mounted to the front of the trigger guard, and a sling swivel attacked to the center under rib several inches in front of the forestock. I don't recall now if it was attached to the Ramrod thimble or not. Its been a few years, and I just wasn't focusing on that detail.

I had no doubt then that the gun came from the Tower Armory, and was a Military Officer's shotgun. What I found fascinating was that the both the right and left hand large locks were mirror copies of each other, indicating that the armories were quite capable of making a large LH lock if ordered. I know of NO LH Brown Bess guns in existence, and know of no written records indicating they were ever made. But, here in my hands was a DB shotgun with Rt and LH locks that would fit any BB Musket of the day.

 

[Mike Brooks]

Back in the late 1970s, I was able to handle( but not fire!) a DB Tower made shotgun. I examined the locks in detail, and was amazed at the smoothness, and light tension weight of the combined springs and action. Its perhaps the softest feather spring I have ever felt on any gun. Pulling the cock back was smooth, and light- no bruised thumbs like I experienced with so many replica Brown Bess locks, that immitated the same size locks used on that Shotgun.

Nothing unusual about the quality of 18th century locks, they universally are all pretty high quality.
Late flint period british stuff is very "snappy". Mainsprings and frizzen springs are very stiff and heavy. I was playing with an original Dbl. barrel Ketland yesterday that was no exception.
I'm intrigued with this tower musket Double gun with Brown Bess sized locks....that must have been incredibly huge.... :shocked2:

 

[BenCoogle]

I did want to add that flintlock perfection was a goal of the English makers in the late 18th early 19th centuries, high end guns. Earlier stuff seems to concentrate on firing the piece! "Flint Life" seems to be a modern concern. I think it was Hawker that complained about it a bit early in the 19th century.

One point is though, I don't believe the Tower made any locks. Parts were contracted out to others. Locks (to be marked Tower), rough stocks and barrels were bought and put into store. Brass was contracted for from people like Thomas Henshaw, all to sealed pattern. Piece Men would make small bits like pins and screws. Parts sets would be parceled out to Contractors to "Set Up" complete guns when needed. This was the Board of Ordinance System and one reason they were chronically short of Muskets in times of emergency!

A double shotgun might have been contracted for, like Wall Guns and Blunderbusses were, complete, but they wouldn't be an ordinary item. Did it have British Government ownership and proof marks?

Makers such as Wilson did the same thing. He bought barrels and locks, usually from Birmingham, an iron making center, brass from the London area etc. and his workmen "Set Up" guns in his shop in the Minories, London.

Ben

 

[Mike Brooks]

Makers such as Wilson did the same thing. He bought barrels and locks, usually from Birmingham, an iron making center, brass from the London area etc. and his workmen "Set Up" guns in his shop in the Minories, London.

Pretty much how the entire British gun trade worked. :thumbsup:

 

[RickD]

Interesting topic

 

[JV Puleo]

In the realm of purely non-scientific observation, I was most active as a shooter 20 years ago. I've always shot original guns, my favorite rifle being a Henry Pratt made in Roxbury Mass around 1810-1820. Shooting against my friends, most of whom had custom made reproductions, the lock on the Pratt rifle was always faster, igintion more reliable and flint life longer. The lock itself is a reasonable good export grade product which places it a cut or two below a Staudenmeier or a Manton lock both of which probably cost more when new than most of the inexpensive guns exported to America.
I have been told that reproduction locks have gotten better - I don't actually know because I don't shoot very much these days but if so, I would guess it has to do with re-learning the tricks of tuning them.

Probably 90% of British locks were made in in the Black country outside Birmingham where whole towns did nothing else. The quantities made are staggering. In London there were "Wholesale Gun Warehouses" where the London makers could get semi-finished guns, parts and especially the box lock pocket pistols that were so popular, all unfinished so they could put their names on them.

 

[paulvallandigham]

I was only allowed to remove the LH Lock to make drawings of the Cock and plate. I did not take the barrels out of the stock, or remove anything else.

I am absolutely sure you are correct that this gun is a result of many different workmen, working in different locations, as that is my understand of how the Gunmaking business worked in that time.

It was little more than a cottage industry, with each worker or two specializing in making a given part to a set pattern. Assembly Probably did take place at the Armory. I tried to take pictures, but my polaroid camera stopped working. I only had the gun over nite, and then returned it to the owner's son.

I too would like to have dismantled the entire piece and thoroughly examined and photographed the entire piece. I was not given permission to do that, however, and I was more interested in getting the measurements on the Cock, and lockplate, than the other parts.

As soon as we determined that the internals were mirror copies in both locks, we decided to not bother measuring each of those parts. We had available from a local club member, a RH musket lock.

My fuzzy recollection today is that there was some kind of crown marking on the center rib back by end of the barrels, but I am not sure about that. The piece I wanted to remove and take a good look was the very wide, thick Buttplate, as it seemed to be much heavier than the usual brass casting you see. I wanted to know if there was extra material Under the plate, to help balance that gun's barrels. However, I sweated enough just removing the lock bolts without damaging the slots!

 

[DNF38]

Wow, thanks for all the thorough answers everyone! I live in Massachusetts and have been to the Springfield Armory museum, but that was before I was obsessed with flintlocks. I'll have to go back there soon and check things more carefully.

 

[Dphar]

The late locks with the link type mainsprings are the fastest. But its more than just the cock speed. The high quality late locks after 1790-95 or so are re-engineered and are far different in certain measurements than a 1770s lock.
I have only fired one "vintage" FL and it was a 1814 Common Rifle the owner had me put a modern replacement frizzen on. It sparked well but was very ssllooww. By far the worst I ever shot.
Had I had time to really look and play with it I might have determined why but the owner brought it in, I hardened and installed the frizzen. We went out and shot 3-4 shots and he left.
But a vintage version of the Germanic Siler for example, should be little different than a modern version. The new lock might not even work as well if the old lock is in mint condition.
Dan

 

[Dphar]

Makers such as Wilson did the same thing. He bought barrels and locks, usually from Birmingham, an iron making center, brass from the London area etc. and his workmen "Set Up" guns in his shop in the Minories, London.

Pretty much how the entire British gun trade worked. :thumbsup:

The Joe Manton just paid more, demanded better parts and made better guns. He may have had in house lock filers, dunno. The lower end locks generally were exported or made into lower priced guns for export or the low end local trade.
For this reason some less refined designs lasted to the end of the FL.

Dan

 

[JV Puleo]

My own observation, having owned dozens and having shot quite a few of them, is that the "low" quality of the Birmingham-made export locks is often greatly exagerated. I've also owned and shot several high end London guns including a Grierson Fuzee and a John Manton double. There is no question the fit and finish is not up to the work of Twigg, Manton, Grierson or the other fine London makers but they do work very well, they are durable and as far as I can see, the equal or superior to most reproductions. They are far better made than the cheap reproductions. Even the cheapest of the export locks, the ones without pan or tumbler bridals probably worked just fine when they were new. I've even experimented with a few of those which, needless to say were 200 years old, and found them to be reasonably good. None of them gave the "fhtt...boom" performance that is popularly associated with flintlocks.

I believe that the best London makers finished their own locks, or rather had employees that finished them. I've done quite a bit of research into the lesser known members of the trade and its clear that most of the well-known makers had workmen in their shops that they supervised. I can think of one 18th century case where an apprentice ran away and when brought back testified that his master was no gunmaker, that he only put his name on Birmingham products and he wasn't learning anything useful. The fact that this was acceptable to the court and the apprenticeship contract was voided suggests that something more than simple assembly went on in the great London workshops. I would not be surprised to learn they bought roughly finished parts...making them was specialized and had little impact on finished quality but I think that when you see a real Twigg or Griffin, a good deal of it was made in that makers own shop.

Dan, if the ignition on that Common Rifle was extremely slow there was something else going on. I've shot quite a few original flint muskets of the same period and they were invariably good.

 

[JV Puleo]

Here's an excerpt from a case in the Old Bailey involving John Manton:

679. WILLIAM BOLD was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 14th of October , twenty-five steel counter-sinks and cutters, value 50 s. fourteen steel broaches, value 56 s. twenty-seven steel arbers and drills, value 27 s. four steel taps, value 30 s. forty-seven steel taps, value 2 l. 7 s. a sliding cuniper, value 10 s. an olimandel, value 10 s. two finished gun screws, value 7 s. and three ram rods, value 7 s. 6 d. the property of John Manton .

 

[Twice boom]

I believe there is much truth in your post.

I have Gun owners Manual first coppied in 1873 . It says the gun trade durring that period was much like what we are experiencing with China. Except the English imported their gun parts from Liege Belgium which at that time manufactured more gun parts than the rest of the world combined......

Twice.

 

[Dphar]

The quality of the lock was directly related to the price the buyer wanted to pay. This does not make the lower cost locks junk, though some were.
I have no idea if Leman made or imported his locks but this lock is very poor in design.

Nearly identical locks appear on American rifles with various markings, though I think some were installed after the rifle was no longer in service or when it was "re-converted" to flint.
The higher end guns were different in design by the time percussion came in. Even the linked and rollered flintlocks imported had different geometry in most cases than a 1820 Manton. For example the radius from the center of pan to the frizzen pivot is longer on these locks and this changes the way the flint scrapes the face. The "old style" lock hung on till the 1850s in the lower grades.
Americans are notorious for buying cheap firearms.

The Common Rifle surely just needed some work, it was to slow to be real. But as I stated I had no time to really look at it.

Dan

 

[JV Puleo]

I'm certain Leaman didn't make them. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that no significant number of side locks for muzzle-loaders were ever made in the US outside those of the military and military contractors. In his testimony before the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry around 1855, John Dent Goodman (one of the founders of BSA and an important personage in the Birmingham gun trade) makes the statement that Birmingham sold almost all the gun locks and inexpensive shotguns in the US. I think he was right but perhaps underestimated the number of even cheaper Belgian guns that were coming in. Many of the worst Belgian guns had English names and fake Birmingham proofs so it is difficult, looking at artifacts, to be certain exactly what was happening. I agree though that Americans had (and still have) a strong predilection for cheap guns. (By which I mean poorly made. I like inexpensive as much as the next guy but that isn't always the same as "cheap")

I've always suspected that the Leaman locks were Belgian. I once had 2 brand new ones, without the holes for the side screws drilled, and though shiny, they were poorer than any of my English locks. They were also soft, something even the worst Birmingham export lock never was.I believe that Claude Gaier (Three Centuries of Liege Gunmaking)illustrates some "American" marked locks and parts that never left Belgium.

 

[JV Puleo]

While there was some trade between them, England imported very little in the way of guns or gun parts from Belgium and what they did import almost entirely went to the Africa trade. But, in 1873 Britain had a reputation for making high quality guns while Belgium had a terrible reputation. (This wasn't entirely fair but comes from the large numbers of old Belgian-made muskets imported during the Civil War.) So...by saying that the English were using Belgian parts you are simultaneously denigrating both sources of competition. There were no "truth in advertising" laws in the 19th century.

The Belgians made some excellent guns but by the last quarter of the 19th century their largest product was the cheapest of trade guns mostly supplied for the African market in places where the colonial governments would only allow the indigenous people to have low-grade muzzle loaders.