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

[TRP]

Good day all, my first post of several. I have lost my mind over early British muskets, and just bought at a stupid price this dog lock. A little over 75 caliber, 46 inch barrel, walnut stock- never fired, I think. No visible marks. Nail fastened butt plate, sheet brass sideplate, wooden rod with a brass tip. Pictures below.

First question, as they say in the art fraud world, what is it trying to be? I believe it's meant for a William III / Queen Anne land service musket, but I'm asking the experts here!

Second question, who made it, or at least who made the parts?

I've attached a picture of the lock inside. I worried that it might be Indian since the catalogue pictures were rotten, but it is much higher quality. Rifle Shoppe parts maybe? They don't have pictures so I can't compare. The barrel is marked by Douglas AND Rayle, which is odd. Do they make barrels for any kit or parts suppliers?

I'm having some operating problems with the lock, I made a separate post about that-

https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/doglock-lock-problems.185981/

Thank you all!

View attachment IMG_2017.JPG




View attachment IMG_2022.JPG


View attachment Q7zQZ.jpeg

View attachment IMG_2021.JPG

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I'm thinking it's Rifle Shoppe parts as the lock is most definitely NOT India made, and the barrel was made by Ed Rayl.

LD

 

[FlinterNick]

Good day all, my first post of several. I have lost my mind over early British muskets, and just bought at a stupid price this dog lock. A little over 75 caliber, 46 inch barrel, walnut stock- never fired, I think. No visible marks. Nail fastened butt plate, sheet brass sideplate, wooden rod with a brass tip. Pictures below.

First question, as they say in the art fraud world, what is it trying to be? I believe it's meant for a William III / Queen Anne land service musket, but I'm asking the experts here!

Second question, who made it, or at least who made the parts?

I've attached a picture of the lock inside. I worried that it might be Indian since the catalogue pictures were rotten, but it is much higher quality. Rifle Shoppe parts maybe? They don't have pictures so I can't compare. The barrel is marked by Douglas AND Rayle, which is odd. Do they make barrels for any kit or parts suppliers?

I'm having some operating problems with the lock, I made a separate post about that-

https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/doglock-lock-problems.185981/

Thank you all!

View attachment 352910

View attachment 352909

View attachment 352908




View attachment 352906


View attachment 352905

View attachment 352904

The lock is a navy arms 1763/66 lock by Miroku, it was defarbed into a dog lock. The late was elongated, there is a welding scar at the top of the sear spring screw.

Most dog locks did not have a pan bridle or a French style sear spring too, it’s an ok defarb, not great.

 

[rich pierce]

The lock is a navy arms 1763/66 lock by Miroku, it was defarbed into a dog lock. The late was elongated, there is a welding scar at the top of the sear spring screw.

Most dog locks did not have a pan bridle or a French style sear spring too, it’s an ok defarb, not great.

Bingo. That explains the lock to me. I was puzzling on it.

The gun is someone’s creation of a “could have been” early gun. Doglocks are not easy to source and this maker got creative.

Let’s see the side plate.

 

[TRP]

It's one of the attached images in the original post.


View attachment IMG_2017.JPG

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

Thoust rear lock bolt projects too much …

 

[TRP]

So much experienced knowledge! Here are some pictures of the inner surface of the lock plate and the top above the sear spring. I would have thought the original sandy cast surface of the lock was undisturbed, do you mean the craftsman just added steel to the top of the plate?

And below, too- similar weld add marks below the dog pivot bolt hole. Good eye!

View attachment IMG_2030.JPG

View attachment IMG_2033.JPGView attachment IMG_2032.JPG

 

[TRP]

Thoust rear lock bolt projects too much …

I thought so too! It's painful when taking a firing grip. It should project a little, though, to keep the dog from flopping all the way down, right?

 

[rich pierce]

Some dogs have a thingy that is a little rod projecting inwards. It comes to rest on the lock plate when flopping back. It requires wood removal around the lock panel.

If I was going to rely on a long rear lock bolt to stop the dog from flopping back I’d turn the projecting end smooth and rounded on the end. No threads sticking out.

Dog locks are a thing. It hollers “early”. But if there’s an internal half cock notch the dog is mostly for looks.

 

[TRP]

Some dogs have a thingy that is a little rod projecting inwards. It comes to rest on the lock plate when flopping back. It requires wood removal around the lock panel.

If I was going to rely on a long rear lock bolt to stop the dog from flopping back I’d turn the projecting end smooth and rounded on the end. No threads sticking out.

That was my plan if it's correct. Am I right about it being a William III era musket in style?

 

[rich pierce]

That was my plan if it's correct. Am I right about it being a William III era musket in style?

Nick could say. I’m just dipping my toe into the early era. Not immersed yet.

 

[Clark Badgett]

The lock is a navy arms 1763/66 lock by Miroku, it was defarbed into a dog lock. The late was elongated, there is a welding scar at the top of the sear spring screw.

Most dog locks did not have a pan bridle or a French style sear spring too, it’s an ok defarb, not great.

Good catch. Also note the weld scars on the cock where the dog catch was added.

Someone also plugged and redrilled the lock bolt holes. Should have left them the larger 1/4”/6mm size.

 

[TRP]

I wondered, they do seem a bit thin.

 

[Youngblood]

Its pretty darn cool. And nice.
I like it

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

I thought so too! It's painful when taking a firing grip. It should project a little, though, to keep the dog from flopping all the way down, right?

Bolt tension alone should be enough to prevent the dog from flopping around, so that rear lock bolt should not project through really.

If needed, put a tiny drop of blue Loctite on the interface between the dog and plate, a dab on the threads and re-assemble. Tighten up and let set … you’ll be able to work it through … it will stay wherever you position it.

Also see this post here, about doglock questions, as it also has links to other posts, plus articles I have posted. One is a 157 page research paper all about the early locks to include doglocks, which some scholars consider the most misused term in the muzzleloading world!

https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/doglock-questions.179185/#post-2599739

 

[FlinterNick]

Bingo. That explains the lock to me. I was puzzling on it.

The gun is someone’s creation of a “could have been” early gun. Doglocks are not easy to source and this maker got creative.

Let’s see the side plate.

The plate is not bad, the decision to leave the pan bridle is a bit odd,

What i would have done in addition

1. Remove pan bridle and lowered the pan fence.
2. Set the French Frizzen spring aside, and fit a long land frizzen spring with a pointed / diamond finial.
3. Squared off the top of the frizzen.
4. Removed the finial in the cock throat, make it a round circle instead of a heart.
5. Change the top jaw to an earlier one, not pierced.

 

[FlinterNick]

Bolt tension alone should be enough to prevent the dog from flopping around, so that rear lock bolt should not project through really.

If needed, put a tiny drop of blue Loctite on the interface between the dog and plate, a dab on the threads and re-assemble. Tighten up and let set … you’ll be able to work it through … it will stay wherever you position it.

Dog catch is supposed to slide back freely, the post on its end keeps it from falling off the plate, you don’t want them overly tight because they can catch a full cock and break the screw.

 

[FlinterNick]

Nick could say. I’m just dipping my toe into the early era. Not immersed yet.

The internals is where it’s real fun on dog locks ! Especially defarbs, I’m sure this one has the miroku internals.

Real dog locks

Massive mainsprings you need a biceps workout to cock.

Beefy wide tumblers with three notches, the first notch is to catch the sear in case the cock flys off, half and full cock.

There’s a debate as to whether or not dog locks have half cock, I’ve seen two originals and they both had half cock notches, so why the dog catch… they didn’t trust the quality of their steel to hold steady.

Sear spring are almost the size of some rifle lock frizzen springs too.

Rifle Shoppe issues number 8 screws with their locks, but the original screws. We’re closer to a 12 with coarse threads, it’s a small detail but they had the right idea.

The plates were massive and thick, to support the very large parts and heavy use.

The Queen Ann Dog lock is one of the most impressive locks I’ve ever seen, has great geometry and is just massive, almost rampart gun size.

 

[TRP]

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.

 

[Clark Badgett]

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.

Your first question. To put it simply. Not really.

The maker used smaller lock bolts because he was more worried about the rammer channel. Notched barrels are not a problem.