Mark: Thanks so much for the additional photos. Yes, obvious it was originally made without a butt plate. Would not really be that unusual. Which also leads me to believe........while it may have seen military use or other actions, the lack of a butt plate, as well as other observations, make me think this gun was made for a private individule. It's certainly one of the more interesting guns I've ever seen.

If you get a chance, can you take a couple more photos of the frizzen and pan area from different angles ? Thanks.

Rick

Hi Richard.

All the "stress" parts of the lock are hardened. Which, as you mentioned you would want. Especially the sear on these horizontal sear locks, which is the weak point.
That "ceramic" look on the lock is just do to the parts not being polished out yet. That's just how the castings come out. Will look much better after polishing.

No. Believe it or not, I still have not had the Torador out yet. Can't seem to stop dabbling with other gun stuff to get to the range. :o

You might try a pre-greased wad with an over-powder card. Some guys like it better.

Rick

OK. Here's another "transition" type of lock copied from an original in a private collection. This is called a Snaplock, from a Dutch/Swedish gun from about the first-second quarter of the 17th Century. Again, with the large proportions, this lock would have been fitted/refitted to a stock similar to a matchlock of the period.
Even with it's arcane look it functions quite well. It is a very simple design. You have to manually move the pan cover to expose the priming powder before firing, just like a matchlock. There is only a full cock position, with the only safety feature being to leave the frizzen in the forward postion until the anticipated need. While very simplistic, this lock would have been much preferred over a lit match from a matchlock. Just another variation of of the experimentation during the first half of the 17th Century.

By the way, I am currently having a gun made using this lock. Should be fun.

Rick

AND A COUPLE MORE..........

"If you get a chance, can you take a couple more photos of the frizzen and pan area from different angles ? Thanks."

Rick



Absolutely, Rick, and this time with a cell phone that takes better pics than that crappy digital camera I bought. Once again, thank you for all of the information you have relayed to me about this piece. Also, thanks to Marcus, Richard, Fernando and Phillip for your comments and knowledge. It is not my specialty, so I will definitely be saving all your info for my records. Thanks!
Mark

Mark,

It I sOur privilege to view this new gun of yours! Very hard to find in the wild!

Rick, Keep us posted on the build utilizing this lock.
It looks like it's uncle was a Baltic lock....
It also looks simple enough to build. I Must try one, hopefully Soon!
Is your lock based on this one? I had it saved as Must Make!

The Torador will do better with wads I'm thinking, as the little -short homemade Tusco-Emilian likes them. Yes, pre-lubed as you suggested!.

Hi Richard

I am sure this Baltic lock is a close cousin of the one I posted. The similarities are unmistakable. One unique feature on the Baltic lock, which you can't see in this one photo, is the striking surface of the frizzen is "L" shaped. The L at the bottom of the frizzen being used as a pan cover. Must have been some of the first thoughts at making the frizzen and pan cover one piece construction.
Here is another Baltic lock showing this detail. As well, this lock still retains a matchlock style pan cover. LOL But it does show the continued experimentation of lock developement.

Rick

Yet another "transition" style of lock. This is what is commonly referred to by collectors as the English lock. Sometimes referred to as the Jacobian lock.
Probably developed at/just before the early phase of the English Civil War period. Here we see the standardization of the frizzen and pan cover being one-piece construction. As well as the addition of the "dog" style external safety catch. Yet still retaining the horizontal sear, external hammer stop, and bridle arrangement from the snaphaunce lock period.
Progress was slow back in this period. But it never the less continued on it's way to the eventual "French" style flintlock.
Of interest, during the English Civil War period there would have been matchlocks, wheellocks, snaphaunces, English locks, and early forms of doglocks all being utilized at the same time. I'm sure that many matchlocks during this period were re-fitted with one of these lock variations.
This style of English lock must have been popular as there were locks/fragments found in diggings from the northest New England area of the USA.

Rick

End of context Rick ? ;) .

Hi Fernando.

LOL. Yes, I'll stop here. :D

Rick

We'll wait for additional pics of Mark's lock. Thanks.

Rick

Will hopefully get more pics soon. In the meantime, here's another with very similar pan, screwed trigger guard and a spanner (?) over the frizzen...

http://www.icollector.com/Very-Rare-...sket_i13751171

And another (boy, I hope mine could fetch these prices!!! :eek: )

http://www.icollector.com/British-Qu...sket_i11407154

Hi Mark.
Thanks for these two Links. These are two more excellant examples. On the second Link, with a 1711 date on the lock plate, which I'm sure is correct. Notice by this date the lock is now a bit more simplified and doing away with the bridle between the frizzen and frizzen spring. Also note the butt stock is now a bit more streamlined and less cumbursome. Advancement was slow during this period, but did continue.
The first Link, with the Dunster Castle gun, they give a date of about the early 1660's. This also seems correct. Note how similar the butt stock and other features are to your gun. Here, the lock has earlier features than the 1711 gun. The lock retaining it's wide, matchlock type pan, frizzen bridle, etc.
Which brings us to your gun. As mentioned, the stock design on your gun is very similar to the Dunster Castle gun. But the lock on your's: The external hammer stop is a carry-over from the earlier snaphaunce/English locks. Also the frizzen on your gun: While very robust looking, it appears the striking face portion is more narrow than the pan cover portion. Seems like a curious, early feature from the locksmith who built it.
So with the current evidence, one could reasonably speculate that your gun - or at least the lock - pre-dates the Dunster Castle gun a bit. If someone with more knowledge, told me that your gun would date to the late 1640's to 1650's period, I could reasonably agree with them. In any case, it certainly pre-dates 1670. It would be great if someone who is an expert with these early English doglock muskets could view this gun, along with some detailed photos, and offer their assesment.
Meantime, looking forward to any lock photos you can offer.
It's a wonderful aquisition Mark. The earliest example of a doglock I have seen.

Rick

Thanks again Rick, for your attention to this piece and your valued knowledge on the subject. The earlier dating (third quarter 17th c.) is a blessing, because it indeed places it in the time of the buccaneers previously mentioned (take that, Fernando!- :D ).

Here are the final pics, taken via a cellphone which works better than the digital camera! I can provide more if needed. Thanks to everyone for your interest...

Hi Mark.

Oh, the pics from the cellphone are MUCH better. Thank you. I keep looking at that frizzen LOL. The design of the pan cover portion of the frizzen (and the pan itself) look like a carry-over from a matchlock. It is very robust looking.
Something else I noticed: There appears to be an empty hole between the rear of the hammer and the dog catch. Can you tell if that hole has threads in it ? All of these early dog locks I've seen were mounted using three lock plate screws. However, this gun has only two. And there doesn't seem to be any evidence from the stock that there were originally three. Curious. Possibly when the gun was assembled the gunsmith saw no need (or didn't have ?) a third screw and/or thought it unnessary (?)
Mark: Could I ask you for one more pic of the outside of the complete lock - using the cellphone ?

Rick

If i may stick my nose in, Mark ...
Rick, i am aware of the three lock screws meaning signs of earlier age but, is that a definite sign, or just an eventual one?
I realize my example is rather early but, it only has two screws. What would you make of it ?


.

Hi Fernando.

Eventual would probably be the most accurate. The three screw lock seemed to be dominate on early guns/locks - of English manufacture. But it's not a hard fast rule. A good example would be the British, First Model Brown Bess musket of 1728 used only two screws. But the British Sea Service musket of about 1738 continued the use of three screws. I guess the third screw was eventually faded out and simply considered unnecessary.
That lock you just posted looks typical dog lock but with a bit of Spanish/Portugese influence. Very cool.
Occassionaly, you will find a later dog lock that has a half-cock saftey feature on the lock tumbler (like a regular flintlock) but still retaining a dog safety catch as an extra safety. Curious.

Rick

Much obliged for your notes, Rick.

Hello Rick,

In regards to the hole between the hammer and catch, yes, it appears to be threaded. On the direct opposite side of the lock, corresponding to where this "screw" would thread through, there is a very small hole in the wood. I'm assuming this is where it would have threaded through if it were ever accessed? (it never was, apparently). I'll take that last picture soon and thanks again-
Mark

HIJACKING MARK'S THREAD ... AGAIN
 

You are right; this system has also been an option in this side of the canal.
This blunderbuss i locally acquired the other day has such lock fixation method. Also we can see in works like ESPINGARDA PERFEYTA that, the three screw system was used over here as early as from the XVI century. Perhaps early locksmiths saw it as a need to better fix lengthier plates, the Portuguese "molinhas", being a good example .


.

Hi Mark.

OK. So the lock itself was built to accept three plate screws, as would be common for these early locks. For whatever reason, who ever assembled the gun felt it unessesary to use the third screw. Or didn't have one available LOL
The two plate screws and the tiny screw on the outside of the lock plate tail being sufficient. With the exception of the tiny hole you mention, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of it ever having the third hole. Curious.

Anyway. If you can, a photos of the lock interior would be really interesting.

Thanks, Rick.

Hi Fernando.

WOW!!!! That is a very cool Portugese lock on that blunderbuss. And looks very early. Hope you start a seperate thread with the whole gun.

Yes, I'm sure you're right. The three screw system was likely to accomodate the longer lockplates of the earlier guns. Also, during earlier times, it would have been easier to forge parts of larger proportions than smaller.

Rick

Hi Fernando.

WOW!!!! That is a very cool Portugese lock on that blunderbuss. And looks very early. Hope you start a seperate thread with the whole gun.

Yes, I'm sure you're right. The three screw system was likely to accomodate the longer lockplates of the earlier guns. Also, during earlier times, it would have been easier to forge parts of larger proportions than smaller.

Rick

I already did, some time go ... HERE

Oh my. Somehow I missed this Thread. Thanks. Very interesting reading. And my belated congratulations for finally having the piece in your own collection.
By the way, you will occassionally see these frizzen spring shields on Ottoman/Eastern guns. I've seen them on both miquelet and flintlocks.

Thanks again for the Link.

Rick

Thank you Rick.
Your note on the frizzen spring shield noted.