• Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

Which Rifle?

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Supposing that someone did get the (apparently mediocre) Traditions with their less-than-perfect lock; why can't the lock be tweaked into better functioning?

What is the actual difference between a great and fast lock and one that is a few miliseconds slower? Could a few minutes with a dremmel make a difference?

My ideal outcome will be the economy Traditions, followed by a Kibler, followed by a Chambers followed by .......
I can agree that the performance of the locks could be improved with some polishing. I think like most people myself included a Dremel tool is the fastest way to totally screw up anything I touch with it. You also have to remember that many of those rifles are using a patent breech designed for a percussion rifle which is not an ideal set up for a flintlock.
 
If you buy a Traditions flintlock rifle the lock is more likely to work just fine than not. I've heard of some owners of factory rifles having to heat and bend the hammer slightly to get a good scrape on the frizzen. Usually some polishing and figuring a good way to mount the flint is all you need.
 
For all the complaints about Tradions not being HC a look at originals at Museum of The fur trade will show a lot of guns that look the same
There's much more than a similar profile that makes a gun historically correct. Design, components , and architecture all come into play in order to create an arm that has the detail, handling, and performance of an original gun. It all comes down to what floats your boat.
 
There's much more than a similar profile that makes a gun historically correct. Design, components , and architecture all come into play in order to create an arm that has the detail, handling, and performance of an original gun. It all comes down to what floats your boat.
This is absolutely true. However think about a bench copy of a Bess, vs a perdisoli. Ones as near to perfect as you can get, ones is modeled after
But the experience of shooting one will be no differnt
I like my Centermark, although it’s a less then accurate copy of an original
Money counts, time counts, quality counts, all goes in to a decision on what to get.
You can’t expect a Chevy to be a rolls, but a Chevy can get you to work
Sometimes you need a Chevy on your way to a rolls
 
OK, so what exactly are the features or specification of a great lock as opposed to a bad or mediocre one? Why can't a manufacturer take an excellent lock and make an inexpensive production lock with those features? The Chinese do that all the time.
 
I can not remember the last time I bought a new factory produced gun. Get into this with the best used gun you can afford. Absent abuse these guns wear well.
Save your pennies for a couple of years and then have a good builder make you a rifle. I have done that twice and those two are among the very best things I own.
 
OK, so what exactly are the features or specification of a great lock as opposed to a bad or mediocre one? Why can't a manufacturer take an excellent lock and make an inexpensive production lock with those features? The Chinese do that all the time.
Market forces.
There just are not enough of us who want traditional ml to drive the market.
And prejudice too.
Look up Indian guns. Bombay pipe bombs, curry poppers. Well you will be hard pressed to find much difference between an Indian bess and a Perdisoli, their locks spark like there is no tomorrow and tge shoot as straight. The wood sort of looks like walnut, but ain’t. They are a safe as any ml
But there is a prejudice against them
There is also the wow factor.
Besses came in dozens of models, the use of which is highly time specific.
The ‘77 charley was made for ARW reinactors. It’s incorrect. Americans got the ‘66 or ‘63.
What’s the difference? To my eye minor cosmetic details, but to some those tiny details are highly important
The old Navy Arms 1803 was a fine gun, but built with a modified zouave barrel. It was incorrect not only in caliber but rifeling
I would be happy to own one, but the details are enough to make it a no no to some.
My SMR has an incorrect German lock, and a straighter stock than real SMR. It mocks be yet, but I’m happy with it.
It would be cost prohibitive for a company to try to market to civilian living history buffs today.
Let’s say you want to do area specific in 1830 impression. A mountain man or Santa Fe Trail man can cross over equipment, but a mountain rifle isn’t right for an Ohio or Tennessee farmer, or a Maryland market hunter, and it’s out of date for a Plainsman of 1850 or a setteler/ militia man of 1812.
Think of the nightmare a company would have producing an ‘authentic styled federal period’ gun
 
OK, so what exactly are the features or specification of a great lock as opposed to a bad or mediocre one? Why can't a manufacturer take an excellent lock and make an inexpensive production lock with those features? The Chinese do that all the time.
We have the locks made by Manton and Twigg and others. These great locks were made from forged parts and then properly hardened and tempered to throw lots of sparks. That level of quality requires a lot of hands on labor. L&R makes a reasonable reproduction of the Manton lock. Chambers, Caywood, Kibler and Zornes make excellent locks. Bob Roller did. The Rifle Shoppe has castings of the appropriate locks that require considerable work to harden an finish a lock. Miroku, made a good lock for their Brown Besses and Charlevilles.
Pedersoli and Traditions have manufacturing limits on making locks to their price points. They can harden and temper parts in large batch lots but have the labor to assemble the locks to be functional, but perhaps not exceptional. The cost of labor and training in the Western world can not compare to the cost of near slave labor in China.

The difference between excellent and mediocre or bad locks isn't that the parts don't look similar, it's the talent of the hands on craftsmanship in the finishing of the locks.
 
OK, so what exactly are the features or specification of a great lock as opposed to a bad or mediocre one? Why can't a manufacturer take an excellent lock and make an inexpensive production lock with those features? The Chinese do that all the time.
A good example would be Siler locks. The finished locks that Bud Siler sold and the ones Jim Chambers sell today are excellent locks. The problems come from the as cast lock kits they sell. I have put a few of them together and it takes some time to assemble and tune one to make a good lock. I have known guys who used only Siler lock kits but they had all the tools and equipment to turn out a lock comparable to the finished locks in a reasonable time. The problem comes from people who are taking shortcuts, They drill oversized holes for the tumbler instead of turning the tumbler down to size. They just file the casting gates down and don't polish the parts etc. The end result is a lock that is barely functional. Most of the complaints on Siler locks can be traced back to these individuals. I got burned once on a small Siler that I bought from a guy at Friendship as a finished lock. It needed some sanding but when I went to use it in a rifle I found out none of the parts had been hardened.
 
Any of the locks made from cast parts are a gamble. Any barrel with a chambered breech is going to less reliable. Any of the price points mass market guns will have plain wood.

For not much more money you can buy the highest quality flintlock kit ever produced.......Kibler. Pay once and enjoy the hobby. Buy the cheap rifle and you may walk away in frustration.

I have assembled many Kiblers. All three types. I like my SMRs very much. I recently got a Woodsrunner. I am now gravitating toward it. I found the Colonial the be to large and cumbersome. Every rife has a wonderful lock that makes flints last for a very long time and is sure fire. Kibler used a traditional breech plug and a liner.
 
Supposing that someone did get the (apparently mediocre) Traditions with their less-than-perfect lock; why can't the lock be tweaked into better functioning?

What is the actual difference between a great and fast lock and one that is a few miliseconds slower? Could a few minutes with a dremmel make a difference?

My ideal outcome will be the economy Traditions, followed by a Kibler, followed by a Chambers followed by .......
Curious ... what comes after the Chambers?
I've never assembled a traditions kit, but I did assemble a CVA Mountain Rifle about 45 years ago. A good kit can teach you A lot about how things fit together, inside and out. Also about architecture, and proper transitions from one part of the gun to another. Studying photos of originals is a must in that area too. I looked at the Traditions offerings, and you aren't going to learn a thing about architecture from them. A person can learn a lot from a Kibler kit if they take their time and pay attention... as opposed to just slapping it together. Chambers, Dunlap, and others will be a bit more of a learning curve. But if you do your homework, be patient, and take your time, you'll learn more.
 Something to think about, for whatever comes after Chambers...
 
Any of the locks made from cast parts are a gamble. Any barrel with a chambered breech is going to less reliable. Any of the price points mass market guns will have plain wood.

For not much more money you can buy the highest quality flintlock kit ever produced.......Kibler. Pay once and enjoy the hobby. Buy the cheap rifle and you may walk away in frustration.

I have assembled many Kiblers. All three types. I like my SMRs very much. I recently got a Woodsrunner. I am now gravitating toward it. I found the Colonial the be to large and cumbersome. Every rife has a wonderful lock that makes flints last for a very long time and is sure fire. Kibler used a traditional breech plug and a liner.
I am in total agreement. Kibler’s colonial lock is the finest lock I have ever owned or seen. I don’t think any other production lock has a posted bridle that fits into holes in the lock plate. This keeps the tumbler truly centered and does not count on screws to retain perfect alignment.
 
Curious ... what comes after the Chambers?
I've never assembled a traditions kit, but I did assemble a CVA Mountain Rifle about 45 years ago. A good kit can teach you A lot about how things fit together, inside and out. Also about architecture, and proper transitions from one part of the gun to another. Studying photos of originals is a must in that area too. I looked at the Traditions offerings, and you aren't going to learn a thing about architecture from them. A person can learn a lot from a Kibler kit if they take their time and pay attention... as opposed to just slapping it together. Chambers, Dunlap, and others will be a bit more of a learning curve. But if you do your homework, be patient, and take your time, you'll learn more.
 Something to think about, for whatever comes after Chambers...
My first was also a CVC Mountain Rifle kit about 45 years ago. Next was a pre carve then a blank with the barrel channel and ramrod done. The kits offered today didn't exist back then. Yes the Chambers and Dunlap kits require more work but they also offer more options. they offer more styles and the option of making a percussion rifle, not every one wants a flintlock. Both offer a rifle for lefties. They offer an option of leaving off the inlet for the butt plate if you need a longer length of pull, the one size fits all just doesn't work for everyone. Dunlap will even leave out the lock inlet if you want to use a different lock. If you want to learn something of building a rifle instead of just snaping parts together then Chambers or Dunlap are a good choice then move on to a pre carve to learn more.
 
Someone had asked for differences. Note no bridal for lock internals on cheap imported locks. All parts are likely just case hardened.
Do the import locks work? Yes they will with various degrees of performance for a time. But not to the level of bette and more expensive locks. I’m not hating on import lock’s but it’s just reality.

Upper left is an L&R Manton copy and the other two are Traditions and Jukar. To the right are a Hammer / **** puller and press and a main spring vice.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0006.jpeg
    IMG_0006.jpeg
    1.7 MB
Buy the best you can afford, tweak it to the best of your ability, and then enjoy shooting it within whatever limits it gives you. Would you be better off with a Kibler? Absolutely. But if the funds don't allow it cheaper options will work.
 
For what it’s worth, a few years ago I had a CVA plainsman rifle. At about the 1000 round mark, the tumbler broke.
 
I should rephrase.....In my experience all flintlock rifles I have used with chambered breeches were less reliable that those with a plain plug and a white lightning liner. I have sold every rifle I once owned with chambered breech plugs because they were not reliable enough to suit me and required too much fussing around to be sure fire.

IMHO chamber breech flint lock rifles are made that way due to pressure from lawyers, not because they have any advantage. Quite the contrary, they are a pain the neck. And they are not any 'safer" actually the opposite due to accidental discharge issues from hang fires.

One good example was a Cabellas Hatfield. The plug was about 2" long. The liner landed in the middle of the plug. The chamber was about 0.22" in diameter. I got it for free and paid too much. I sold it for a very low price. I put TC, CVA and Traditions flintlocks in the same category.

IF such guns bring joy to someone I will not tell them they are having fun wrong.
 
I should rephrase.....In my experience all flintlock rifles I have used with chambered breeches were less reliable that those with a plain plug and a white lightning liner. I have sold every rifle I once owned with chambered breech plugs because they were not reliable enough to suit me and required too much fussing around to be sure fire.

IMHO chamber breech flint lock rifles are made that way due to pressure from lawyers, not because they have any advantage. Quite the contrary, they are a pain the neck. And they are not any 'safer" actually the opposite due to accidental discharge issues from hang fires.

One good example was a Cabellas Hatfield. The plug was about 2" long. The liner landed in the middle of the plug. The chamber was about 0.22" in diameter. I got it for free and paid too much. I sold it for a very low price. I put TC, CVA and Traditions flintlocks in the same category.

IF such guns bring joy to someone I will not tell them they are having fun wrong.
Chambered/patent breeches have been around in one form or another for a long time. The original patent was from Henry Nock back in the mid 1700s from memory.

The two guns I most often shoot are my fusil de chasse with a flat faced breech and my GRRW leman trade rifle with a chambered breech. There's no perceptible difference in lock/firing time that I've observed and both take about the same time to clean.
 
Back
Top