What is my new dog lock musket, or doglock musket, supposed to be? And who made it?

[FlinterNick]

Well we can do some of those things! Or even replace the lock. Aside from the lock anachronisms, is the general shape and proportion of the rest of the gun correct for the 1690 -1700 period?

You are right about the springs. The sear spring and mainspring are very strong, and the frizzen spring won't let it open but half way when fired with a flint!

One reason the lock screws are a bit thinner may be that the front one is a bit high. The maker had to file a small channel in the bottom of the barrel to let it pass through to the lock. Not deep, but a much bogger bolt might weaken the tube.

For me, I would say no. I’ve seen too many dog lock guns and worked on too many to be satisfied with what is pictured here.

The lock would give me heartburn, it’s just not correct.

The stocks were heavy with bulbous butts and high combs. This stock almost looks like a trade gun stock or Fowler stock with little to no detail. In it.

The hardware was not alway high quality, a simple thing like inletting a trigger guard was omitted on many dog lock guns. They were just slapped on there with wood screws (not all but many).

The barrel full round tapered in .69 cal is obviously a charleville barrel, many dog lock guns were made with very heavy barrels, some had fading facets, some were full round with very slow tapering.