Is the single screw holding the lock on most caplock Mt. rifles enough to keep the lock secure on the side of the barrel and stock? I also wonder about the small sideplate. I feel they add a bit of support to a weak area of the stock. Should a screw or pin be installed on both front and rear ends of the sideplate? :hmm:
-
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 -
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
Southern Mt. Caplocks
- Thread starter rdillion
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
IMO there is no reason for having two screws holding the lock in place other than tradition.
From a strength standpoint that one #8 screw passing behind the barrel and into the lock is capable of developing well over 150 pounds of force. Even lightly tightened it will generate over 50 pounds of force and a lock shouldn't need more than that to keep it in its mortice.
I would not suggest that a 18th century flintlock should only have one screw holding the lock like the mid 19th century guns did. The originals had two screws so modern recreations of those guns should also have two screws.
Now, I will admit that on my .36 cal flintlock "Boys Rifle" I do only have one screw holding the lock in place. I used a wood screw with a matching head to hold the forward part of the side plate in place but that is because the ramrod holes location prevented me from using that area for a thru screw to the lock.
A forward wood screw like this to hold the front part of the side plate in place IMO is totally acceptable but I don't believe that side plates were held in place with the use of pins.
From a strength standpoint that one #8 screw passing behind the barrel and into the lock is capable of developing well over 150 pounds of force. Even lightly tightened it will generate over 50 pounds of force and a lock shouldn't need more than that to keep it in its mortice.
I would not suggest that a 18th century flintlock should only have one screw holding the lock like the mid 19th century guns did. The originals had two screws so modern recreations of those guns should also have two screws.
Now, I will admit that on my .36 cal flintlock "Boys Rifle" I do only have one screw holding the lock in place. I used a wood screw with a matching head to hold the forward part of the side plate in place but that is because the ramrod holes location prevented me from using that area for a thru screw to the lock.
A forward wood screw like this to hold the front part of the side plate in place IMO is totally acceptable but I don't believe that side plates were held in place with the use of pins.
Thanks for the info. I am at Deer Camp right now and yes we are on line here at camp. We also have electricity, sat. T.V. and running water here in the middle of nowhere. Going to try to get one with my 40 cal flinter. Wish me luck.
Similar threads
