• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades

Lock evolution

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Col. Batguano

75 Cal.
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
5,027
Reaction score
1,401
This weekend I was watching some videos on gunsmithing, and the maker was saying that the better quality locks have safety catches so that a bump in the butt that releases the hammer will not cause a discharge. Instead, there is an interceptor lever that will prevent a discharge. The only way to make the gun discharge is through pulling the trigger. That will engage the safety lever and get it out of the way before the hammer sear is engaged. That sort of arrangement is there on the better break actions of today (SxS / O/U).

Since traditional side locks are substantially the same as a break action lock, (without all the cocking and ejector stuff in them) that safety arrangement would certainly work. My question is; when did that arrangement evolve, and, are there any lock makers today that are actually manufacturing locks that way? It certainly seems much safer arrangement that's for sure.
 
Like a lot of things this may have earlier origin than you might think.

With that said, You begin to see these safety locks on finer English stuff (mostly pistols) in the 1770s and beyond.

The Rifle Shoppe, Blakely and Sons UK, and I think Jack Brooks have castings for these. I know of none being offered complete unless assembled by the Rifle Shoppe.
 
Some worked on the sear and others simply blocked hammer rotation forward by pushing against teh square tumbler shoulder that passes through the lock plate.. This one is a Tower piece with the hammer removed. Although broken now, you can see how it would block the hammer from rotating forward when engaged.
http://images.yuku.com/image/jpg/f5926bd6d6a031937f28c435fd0296105f93875a_r.jpg

Safety on double shotgun.
https://www.trackofthewolf.com/imgPart/aan-766_7.jpg

Bond gun of later 'water-proof' pan design
http://www.flintlockcollection.net/wp-content/uploads/No325Bond6-400x197.jpg

Thonon of Liege
http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/84310589...honon-in-lige-circa-1800-two-stage-cyrj0x.jpg

Small 'pocket' or 'muff' pistols often carried them on upper frame
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/05/02/47...83a628bbb3--flintlock-pistol-picture-show.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Of those that you referenced, are they manual safeties, or do they automatically disengage when the trigger is pulled?
 
Don't know with absolute certainty. The ones engaging the sear probably disengage at trigger pull, the others I'm not sure of. Some had to be manually slid back to release.
 
The Pedersoli "Mortimer" rifle has a slide safety on the lock behind the cock. It engages the tumbler inside the lock and prevents it from rotating if the trigger is pulled. If the lock is on half cock, cocking it fully, disengages the safety. If the gun is on full cock, the safety has to be pulled back manually to be able to fire the gun.
 
Hi David,
Photos below show the sliding safety bolt on a pair of pistol locks I built. The third photo shows the bolt slide forward into the tumbler notch, locking it at half cock. The covering spring shown in the last 2 photos has a nub on its end that puts pressure on the bolt. These safeties are kind of a pain because you have to pull the cock back slightly to reduce pressure on the bolt from the tumbler so the bolt can be slid back releasing the safety. They are intricate to make especially on small pistol locks like this one. However, these locks are the finest and fastest flintlocks I have ever used.
dave

AHhwwRd.jpg

kVyKmN6.jpg

ZIm6LMH.jpg

03485fm.jpg

nHWQcD1.jpg
 
Dave: That is a beautiful lock !!

Here is an original British Military 1835 lock. It has the typical safety notch in the tumbler. But while in the half-cock position, it also has an external (only) sliding safety that engages in a cut out behind the hammer. But you have to physically slide the safety back from the hammer before you can bring the hammer to full cock.
Also note the frizzen arm and spring are mounted inside the lockplate.
Seems like they were trying to incorporate all the latest features. You can occassionally find these locks in almost unused condition. My guess is they quickly became surplus with the begining of the percussion era soon afterward.

Rick




 
Col. Batguano said:
This weekend I was watching some videos on gunsmithing, and the maker was saying that the better quality locks have safety catches so that a bump in the butt that releases the hammer will not cause a discharge. Instead, there is an interceptor lever that will prevent a discharge........ My question is; when did that arrangement evolve, and, are there any lock makers today that are actually manufacturing locks that way? It certainly seems much safer arrangement that's for sure.

Col., the intercepting sear did not come along until well into the breechloading era. My references say ca. 1860. It would be out of place on a muzzleloader--non-traditional, if you will. However, they are still used on "best" sidelock guns made by firms like Holland and Holland and Purdy.
 
Hi,
Not true. Both John Twigg and John Manton (who was once his foreman) employed an intercepting sear that solved that problem. The main issue during the flint era, was that it simply was not needed. Have any of you had a flint gun go off from half cock if the butt was banged and the lock was properly made and maintained? In truth, this is a solution looking for a problem.

dave
 
That's kind of my thought too. With an exposed hammer gun, the hammer can be manipulated and engagement can be felt as to how positive it is. Also, the locks are pretty much made to be taken off and worked on. It's a nifty feature, and a good selling point (safer gun), but really not as necessary as the salesman would likely have you believe. Still a good way to get a customer to disgorge another tonne of Pounds though.

With an internal hammer gun, be it either a box lock or side lock, you really can't manually play with anything without taking the gun apart, and with most of them, they're really not intended to be taken apart and worked on by the average shooter. I know that I have never taken apart any of my internal hammer double guns before anyway.
 
Back
Top