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.

 

[TRP]

It's 46 inches, 80 caliber, Rayle / Douglas. Definitely not a Charleville barrel.

 

[rich pierce]

I’d say just enjoy and shoot your gun. If I was seriously interested in a doglock from a specific period, I wouldn’t buy a doglock and see if it fits. No offense intended - I’d research original guns of the period. I’d not look at anyone’s reproduction. I’d be looking at books, auction catalogues and museums. Then I’d document all the details. Stock architecture, stock wood types, barrel dimensions and gauge and form, lock designs and so on. Then I’d build one. If I couldn’t build one, I’d see what parts are available and who makes the best reproductions.

 

[TRP]

None taken, you're right. Good advice, what I'd do if I were as serious as I ought to be. As I said, I just got silly with English muskets. I'm grateful for all you all's help with this. I'll post another silliness tomorrow!

 

[rickystl]

Interesting Thread. I seem to recall sometime during the 1990's (?) or sometime just before The Rifle Shop started business, there was a small trend of shooters wanting to re-create flint guns from periods earlier than the traditional French style flintlock period. Primarily, it seems doglocks were the primary interest. While stock blanks were available and barrels could be custom made, there were no locks readily available. So for the locks It looks like they had to improvise. LOL The OP's looks like it is one of those guns.

About three years ago I sold a similar type gun to a fellow Forum member that I bought second-hand years before. Fortunately, I kept photos. I'll post them next.

Rick

 

[rickystl]

here are some photos.....

 

[rickystl]

As you can see in the above photos the lock was made using a standard Siler lock - with what Jim Chambers calls his "builders lock plate". This allowed the builder to shape the lock plate to whatever is desired. So this gun had to be built sometime after Jim started to offer the "square" lock plate option. This looks like it was an attempt to roughly copy an English (Jacobian) style lock from about the 1640-ish period. Notice the fake type dog catch and hammer stop added just for looks. Even a three screw lock screws. Pretty clever. LOL

 

[TRP]

An interesting adaptation! Now, posting another folly of my Bess interest-

https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/...-land-and-where-could-i-find-a-barrel.186068/

 

[FlinterNick]

here are some photos.....

View attachment 353531View attachment 353532View attachment 353533View attachment 353534

Very interesting I’d get rid of the pan bridle