An early English dog lock musket

[fernando]

End of context Rick ? .

[rickystl]

Originally Posted by fernando

End of context Rick ? .

Hi Fernando.

LOL. Yes, I'll stop here.

Rick

[rickystl]

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

Rick

[M ELEY]

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!!! )

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

[rickystl]

Originally Posted by M ELEY

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!!! )

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

[M ELEY]

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!- ).

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...

[rickystl]

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