L& R Manton Lock

[pamtnman]

All of this is just my opinion. Take it or leave it... Very few understand what a quality lock is. This enables companies that make sub-par products to survive. If you don't understand quality yourself, take advice from the very best.

I can't believe lock quality is as bad as it is and most don't realize it.

Jim

Anyone have experience with the RE Davis copy of the Manton? RE Davis Company | "Late English" Flintlock
And I need to say that price is not a consideration. I see that Kibler's locks are CNC from stock, and nothing is made better than that process. I would buy a lock from Kibler yesterday, IF it had the look I am after: The Manton waterproof pan

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
Yes. Go here.
https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=53970.0
dave

 

[pamtnman]

Hi,
Yes. Go here.
https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=53970.0
dave

wow well done, Dave. Really first rate work. Thank you for your guidance on this. I am still struggling on the lock. On the one hand, the RE Davis waterproof is the look I want. On the other hand, the Kibler late Ketland is the function I need.

 

[cal.43]

The Mantonlock at his place ;-)

 

[HSmithTX]

So my question becomes is the waterproof pan an advantage over a lock with a good frizzen fit? If so how much more rain and snow can it take than another lock with a good tight frizzen to pan fit?

I am gathering parts for a 62 cal hunting rifle and it will be built to hunt hard in whatever conditions I run into, and I really want it to be a flint gun. It needs to run in damp or wet weather.

 

[Comfortably_Numb]

That "blob" under the frizzen does nothing except gather fouling. The original locks never had a blob like that on them. They do it these days for ease of fitting the frizzen to the pan, it blocks you being to see light between frizzen and pan and still have a poor fit. I always grind the blob off.

 

[pamtnman]

So my question becomes is the waterproof pan an advantage over a lock with a good frizzen fit? If so how much more rain and snow can it take than another lock with a good tight frizzen to pan fit?

I am gathering parts for a 62 cal hunting rifle and it will be built to hunt hard in whatever conditions I run into, and I really want it to be a flint gun. It needs to run in damp or wet weather.

If you are solely looking for pure function and only a side of design consideration, the Kibler late English lock is probably impossible to beat. A well fit frizzen and powder pan should be fine. From what I have learned, the English perfected the flintlock in its last years, and thus the waterproof pan was born. It’s a pretty inventive design, and I’ll bet it works as designed. But it’s only necessary if you’re building a rifle that’s British. Otherwise you can choose whatever you want. The gun I’m assembling the parts for is a .62 British Sporting Rifle. Around 1810-1820 range. Height of mechanical perfection. Recessed patent breech etc So my build requires the waterproof pan. By the way I have been hunting with a .62 percussion rifle that Mark Wheland built to my specs, and it is the hammer of Thor. Guys who drop everything with their .45 round ball have my envy, but it’s moot now, because the British were correct in selecting big guns for big game. The .62 rifle was actually the British small bore until percussion really got under way. Plenty of percussion BSRs in 69 to 72 caliber testify to the owners’ desires to immediately bring to hand whatever they shot. You’ll like it

 

[HSmithTX]

Well, I was one of the guys that used to say PC/HC weren't important to me, but lately I have been saying to myself it isn't much, if any, harder and it isn't that much, if any, more expensive to do it right in regards to PC/HC when building something of near equal quality? I am going into it sort of backwards, but the end result should be what I want and still be more or less correct?

 

[Brokennock]

So my question becomes is the waterproof pan an advantage over a lock with a good frizzen fit?

I've read opinions and experiences both ways. Both my guns have older style locks and one doesn't even have a good frizzen to pan fit, both have given me no trouble in the rain with good practices on my part.
I have read some say that the "waterproof pan" design works.
I have also read others that say the wedge piece at the bottom ofnthe frizzen that fits into the pan,

simply helps channel water into the pan. This seems logical to me, but, of one follows the usual practices many of us use when hunting in wet weather, I should think it wouldn't matter.

 

[Khufu]

I've read opinions and experiences both ways. Both my guns have older style locks and one doesn't even have a good frizzen to pan fit, both have given me no trouble in the rain with good practices on my part.
I have read some say that the "waterproof pan" design works.
I have also read others that say the wedge piece at the bottom ofnthe frizzen that fits into the pan,
View attachment 209323
simply helps channel water into the pan. This seems logical to me, but, of one follows the usual practices many of us use when hunting in wet weather, I should think it wouldn't matter.

all my good locks have water proof pans, but I have a couple CVA guns from my youth that don't. I have never had any issues with either, the only difference I have noticed is speed of ignition and smoothness of the locks

 

[Robby]

Waterproof pan means, when arrive home empty handed and open the frizzen, to show your wife proof that it was raining.
Robby

 

[pamtnman]

all my good locks have water proof pans, but I have a couple CVA guns from my youth that don't. I have never had any issues with either, the only difference I have noticed is speed of ignition and smoothness of the locks

Can you show some pictures?

 

[Khufu]

Can you show some pictures?

sure, I can post a few ...

an L&R Queen Anne w/waterproof pan for my trade gun build

a CVA Mountain rifle converted to .32 cal with L&R RPL lock (water proof)

a British light dragoon without water proof pan

a CVA Tower pistol without water proof pan

an old Ultra-hi .69 cal smooth bore without water proof pan

a 1766 Charlville without water proof pan

a CVA Colonial pistol without waterproof pan

a Lancaster county with water proof pan

an old Kentucky pistol without waterproof pan

a new Kentucky pistol I am currently building with water proof pan

these are some of my flintlocks, I am always building more.

 

[pamtnman]

Thank you, Khufu.

 

[JoeG]

Waterproof is a marketing term that has no real use once it begins to rain. Water needs no gps to navigate, it always reaches its final destination.

 

[Khufu]

That "blob" under the frizzen does nothing except gather fouling. The original locks never had a blob like that on them. They do it these days for ease of fitting the frizzen to the pan, it blocks you being to see light between frizzen and pan and still have a poor fit. I always grind the blob off.

they are useful for at least 1 thing, they keep you from over priming the pan.

 

[Comfortably_Numb]

That little blob of manure on the bottom of the frizzen does nothing except collect fouling. They aren't historically correct either. I grind them off.

 

[Comfortably_Numb]

blob of manure? I didn't type that.

 

[Robby]

I never use the word 'manure' but it sure does show up a lot in my posting's!
Robby

 

[Norman Brooks]

Pulled this out of the bag last week to disassemble and discovered the sear is below the lock plate. As Comfortably_Numb said grind it off, which I did. Have got a little more inletting to do before I can test try it. Looks like it will require a minimal amount of polishing, no drag marks from the main spring or the frizzen spring on the lock plate, tumbler is leaving a drag mark on the plate. Not for sure who the lock maker is, it is a TOTW Type C Fusil. Has a D and other marks stamped on the inside. Davis lock??? Quality of locks need to improve.