An early English dog lock musket

[rickystl]

Originally Posted by fernando

Now that you have a context and Mark's acquiescence ... and the moderator's Amen; shoot them, Rick .

OK. Thanks. I'll start posting here.

Rick.

[rickystl]

This is an exact replica of an early English snaphaunce lock. The castings were taken from an original lock from a private collection. If my memory serves, the first reference to the snaphaunce lock was from about the 1570's. One difference between this original style, early lock and the latter Moroccan variations, is the extra large proportions of this lock. The lockplate measures just over 9.5 inches long by 1.5" wide. Part of the reason for it's large size may be that back in this period it was easier to forge larger parts than small.
This lock would have been fitted to a gun closely resembling the English matchlocks of the period. Or re-fitted to an existing matchlock.
These snaphaunce locks were made with only a full-cock position. The only "safety" feature being to leave the frizzen (battery) in the forward position, away from the stricking hammer, till the need was anticipated. However, on this lock, there is a clever additional safety feature added. There is a swinging bar on the tail of the lockplate, when positioned rearward, blocks the trigger bar from any movement. This way, the lock/gun could be kept in the full, ready position during transport. Must have been considered a big improvement back then.
Anyway, you can probably see the details in these photos. One of the earliest lock designs to succed the wheellock.

Rick

[M ELEY]

This one from an auction site,already sold...

http://www.ambroseantiques.com/flongarms/dog.htm

[M ELEY]

Here we go again. Some are better, some not so great. After these, if there are any specific views anyone wants, let me know!
Mark

[M ELEY]

Note the stock end doesn't look like it ever had a butt plate. The lock looks snug with the stock, no gaps and the metal patina matches the barrel. I know we discussed that the lock might be a replacement, but I don't think so. The whole piece appears to be made as one piece.

[M ELEY]

Pics...

[M ELEY]

The last, I promise! Unless more requested, that is-

[rickystl]

Originally Posted by M ELEY

This one from an auction site,already sold...

http://www.ambroseantiques.com/flongarms/dog.htm

Hi Mark.

Thanks for the Link. Notice the "general" stock profile on the one from the Ambrose site is similar to yours. He dates the piece to about 1650. Could be. But I would put it a bit closer to the 3rd Quarter of the 17th Century. Notice the common three screw lock. And the small exterior screw on the tail of the lock like yours.
But IMHO the lock on your's pre-dates the lock on the Ambrose gun. It's the best "transition" style of doglock I've seen. The really wide, flat pan and the very robust frizzen on your's is really neat. I was not refering that the lock on your gun was a replacement. The entire gun looks all made together. I was just saying it is possible that your gun was assembled maybe in the Third Quarter utilizing a lock that was already made sometime in the second-third quarter of the 17th Century. I do think your gun pre-dates the fourth quarter. It's certainly the earliest doglock I've ever seen.

Rick