London made copy of Lancaster Flintlock Rifle

[timothy prouty]

It look like it's should have a Bridal because of the pin in the middle

 

[Stophel]

It does have a bridle. But only on the tumbler, not for the sear.

This seems not uncommon for much earlier locks, and apparently, not uncommon for "later" cheaper English locks like this one. This lock is the common variety flat faced, engraved, round pan, no pan bridle, Ketland lock. It could be 1770's... or maybe a tad earlier, or later. Someone who knows Ketland locks could probably tell you the approximate date by the stamped Ketland name inside the lockplate.

 

[Artificer]

This pic shamelessly stolen from the internet... somewhere, I don't recall.

I have seen photos of others like this, but the particular guns don't spring to mind. One might like for this lock to be around 1770's period, but it might not be. This may or may not be something that was completely passe' by the time that the trade rifles were being made, I don't know. English locks are NOT my specialty.

WOW!!! Thank you VERY much for posting that picture! It is most surprising to me, to say the least.

I guess it was seen as an upgrade over a "no bridle" lock to keep the small shoulder of the Cock from bashing into the lock plate and that being the only thing to stop the forward momentum of the cock? Although... I keep looking at the cock and am not entirely sure there is a shoulder that would normally hit the lock plate? Maybe the small shoulder is already at rest on the lock plate and that is why it isn't readily noticeable? I am not sure.

It also seems to me that this would not have saved much money over a bridle that went over the sear screw in the period, since the majority of hand work in making and fitting the bridle is in the part forward of the sear screw? I wonder how many pennies they saved on each lock by the bridle not going back over the sear?

The lock date might be from the 1770's, after all, though of course I am not very familiar with these locks.

Below is a link from dearly departed Gary Brumfield's site showing original locks and scroll down to a "Flat faced English trade quality lock signed Blair. (ca. 1775-1785)."

Another note written there says, "No exterior or interior bridle puts this lock in the lower end of quality and price but it is still nicely engraved." So they saved money by not having an interior or exterior bridle, BUT they spent money on engraving to make it more "showy" where the customer would notice. Sharp business sense?
http://www.flintriflesmith.com/antique_gun_locks.htm

Gus

 

[Artificer]

When I first saw that "No Bridle" Blair lock on Gary's site years ago, I was stunned they were making "No Bridle" locks that late, even for use "to the trade" as they used to say.

Of course it saved money on making the locks and that meant they could provide the guns cheaper, but I have also wondered that they must have realized the guns would not last as long before needing repair without at least an internal bridle? Was that a deliberate part of the idea to ensure NA's, and other peoples the guns were traded to, would have to bring the guns back more often for repair?

Gus

 

[Stophel]

Since I posted the one picture (maybe no one will get mad), might as well show the outside of the lock..

The cock is a replacement. It does not appear to be reconverted at all.

I apologize, I did not mean to veer us off course from the topic of British trade rifles. :wink:

 

[Artificer]

Actually, if it means anything with me being the OP of this thread, I was delighted to see you mention the locks may have not had a bridle that covered the sear and the pics you posted.

Since they did not always use a bridle on the pan on trade rifles, a bridle that only covers the tumbler is something one might have found in the locks of such rifles. Even if not, I'm very glad you mentioned them and posted the pics.

Gus