|
|
|
24th November 2017, 09:09 PM
|
#1 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,207
|
|
|
|
|
24th November 2017, 11:58 PM
|
#2 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,207
|
More pics...
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 |
|
|
|
|
25th November 2017, 12:00 AM
|
#3 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,207
|
More dog lock!
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.
|
|
|
|
|
25th November 2017, 12:02 AM
|
#4 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,207
|
More pics-
Pics...
|
|
|
|
|
25th November 2017, 12:05 AM
|
#5 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,207
|
Last ones-
The last, I promise! Unless more requested, that is-
|
|
|
|
|
25th November 2017, 02:28 PM
|
#6 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 803
|
Rick,
Very good photos of the lock! Thank you for that. First thing that struck me about it, is how Hard it looks. As in, case hardened. Should be of course, but it looks like ceramic! Should wear very well if you stock it up. Nice to see the 'simple' details. I want to make one at some time! Did you get to try your toradar yet? Mine is getting better, but doesn't like patches. Mark, Thank you for the additional photos,...though some hurt my eyes! Can't see any problems, maybe the odd screw replaced, nothing major. Agreed it would never have had a buttplate. Congrats again! R. |
|
|
|
|
25th November 2017, 05:22 PM
|
#7 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,207
|
Note that this musket isn't stamped. I know not all were, but is this any indication of where it was used? Wouldn't an English CW gun have the proper government marking? Export? To the Americas?
|
|
|
|
|
25th November 2017, 06:17 PM
|
#8 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO area.
Posts: 1,633
|
Quote:
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.  You might try a pre-greased wad with an over-powder card. Some guys like it better. Rick |
|
|
|
|
|
25th November 2017, 06:07 PM
|
#9 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO area.
Posts: 1,633
|
Quote:
If you get a chance, can you take a couple more photos of the frizzen and pan area from different angles ? Thanks. Rick |
|
|
|
|
|
25th November 2017, 06:01 PM
|
#10 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO area.
Posts: 1,633
|
Quote:
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 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
