Swamped or Straight #2

[Robby]

I don't want to stat an L&R bashing contest. Let me just say, for an out of the box, quality of fit and function, any Chambers, or Davis (M&G) lock would be a better choice.
Robby

 

[tg]

I would choose a chambers lock if I wanted the best, amny lock mneeds to be tunned by someone who really knopws what they are doing, after having said that I have had several L&R locks that were very good after being tunned properly but given the choice I would go with Chambers, particuarly if high level competition was an issue, but I think it would be hard to meld a really PC/HC flintlock with the high level compettion thing considering todays use of modern ventliners and modern adjustable sights.

 

[rabjr]

Like the others have mentioned, unless you know a good lock smith, you may want to stay clear of the L&R lock. I have one on a gun and it is a wonderful little lock, very fast and snappy but only after Roy spent time rebuilding it.

 

[Number19]

OK, how about these two locks, one from Chambers and the other a Davis, both in the large Siler style - the Chambers Dale Johnson flintlock and the Davis Verner flintlock?

 

[rabjr]

Chambers are great locks, sometimes they can use a little attention but for the most part are ready to go as is. I don't own any of those Davis locks you listed but I own more Davis locks than any other and with a little tlc they have proved to be very good and reliable locks.

 

[cgg]

I have a Chamber's Dale Johnson lock on a .54 long rifle built this spring and I am liking it very much. I have about 130 shots through the rifle and the lock is fast, reliable and seems pretty easy on flints. The lock was purchased directly from Chambers and has no extra custom tuning. This is my third flintlock with a Chambers lock and I am very pleased and planning to get a couple more.

I like the Johnson lock's slightly curved plate and the overall look of the lock, but the "regular" Chambers Large Siler is still my favorite.

This is the Johnson lock in the pic with a .54 cal., 44" Colerain octagon to round rifle barrel in an "Early" Lancaster style stock.

Have fun.

 

[Number19]

I believe there was a consensus saying Chambers. After reviewing comments and descriptions I have made the decision to go with the dependable, and fast, Deluxe Siler.

This evening I shot an e-mail off to Toni to let's get it done. I'm ready to order and get myself in line.

The rifle it looks like I'm ending up with will be a no-frills, working gun, Virginia style from the period 1770-1775.

 

[tg]

Sounds good, for what it's worth even a plain working gun( the existance of such is a debateable thing during this period) would have a line moulding along the lower forestock and lower buttstock, and be of a less than stellar grade of wood.

 

[hanshi]

True, I guess. Back then you just couldn't get a gun made the way you wanted it for money, love or principle. :yakyak:

 

[Number19]

I wonder about this. Wood was so plentiful in the 1700's, I'm sure the very best pieces were saved for the best rifles, but even the lower quality rifles might have what we today would consider to be a select grade. The cost of the wood, whether good or bad, was identical. The price of the stock was in the labor to decorate.

 

[rich pierce]

Certainly we see evidence that curly maple became scarce much later, because Leman, Derringer, Tryon and other makers began artificially striping plain maple. I've seen early (1700's) rifles and smoothbores plain (plain for the times) or fancy with all grades of curl. It is harder to work curly maple- much more chance of chunking out a piece if using drawknives, planes and spokeshaves, as they did for most of their shaping, so curl does affect labor of assembly. It's so doggone attractive though, that it became expected by 1800 in a maple stocked gun whether the gun was cheap or expensive.