Strange flintlock gun

SchildaBrit · 8th January 2020, 09:15 PM

"There are no marks or stamps on it and the brass pan..."

I'm not surprised. The fuzzy photos make it difficult to judge, but the cock appears to have been made up by bending sheet metal. And that makes it, in my eyes, a modern effort "in the style of...".

Lockplate also looks like a bit of modern sheet metal, cock fixing screw also modern? It may include some original parts, but the lock assembly as a whole is IMHO not from the same period as the musket - which looks like a cut-down.

All this is just my opinion. Better photos would help.

Fernando K · 8th January 2020, 09:41 PM

Hi

In my modest opinion it is a recently built lock. The cat's foot has a strange shape, it is not the C-shaped cat's foot (cock) of Boutet's productions, or in "gooseneck" or in the reinforced, like some English weapons or the "chien a espalet" "of the French. The anti-friction wheel in the frizzen spring, the rain-proof bowl and the cock top are seen in fine weapons, be they dueling or sports, never in military weapons. It is known that Ottoman weapons copied European designs, so they find "rainproof". For me, brass or bronze was chosen because they are easier to work. It would be necessary to see the inside of the lock, to see if something is discovered

Affectionately

corrado26 · 9th January 2020, 09:16 AM

.............and here some better fotos of the lock. I don't believe that the lock is a modern make, some items show the number "2" and its fit into the wooden stock is very good. It is correct that the frizzen roll normally has been not in use at any army but perhaps this gun goes back to the order of an infantry officer who wanted to have a faster shooting flintlock gun?!?!
corrado26

Kmaddock · 9th January 2020, 09:58 AM

A lot better pictures, thanks
It all looks v v clean to me and the screw heads are so perfect
My gut would say this is not a 200 year old gun lock
also those who know about fonts might recognise if the number 2 is a modern or not font
woodwork does look well aged though and if the fit is good this confuses me
Thanks for showing
Ken

fernando · 9th January 2020, 11:35 AM

The assembly numbers (#2) would place this lock in a not so modern time period ... unless its maker wanted to play tricks.
It would be nice to hear again from Fernando K, when he looks at these so much better pictures.

Pukka Bundook · 9th January 2020, 11:41 AM

I can not say anything about the age of this lock, other than it looks very competently made.
It is very well put together if 'new'.
Very good fit where the breast of the cock rests on the fence of the pan.
Very pleasing little lock!
I do not think it is new, although it looks that way.. well cleaned maybe?

Fernando K · 9th January 2020, 12:01 PM

Hi

Now, with better photos, I discover other inconsistencies. If the frizeen screw is located from the inside (inside the lock) to the outside, the spring screw would be too: here the screw has its head on the outside. In addition, as Corrado says, if a lock was wanted that fired faster, the real dock would be fixed with a nut nut, Here the design is the traditional one. The guard, in these models, is fixed in the front, by an ear that penetrates the wood, and which in turn, is fixed by a pin. Here it is fixed by a screw-O but, by a plate that at its end has the transport ring, also fixed by a pin. In other interventions, it has been said that the adjustment of the wood is very good, and that is not proof of authenticity. The wood may have been aged. A good test would be to establish the passage of the screws of the lock. It is known that formerly the screws were not standardized, and each factory had its own system. If the steps are modern, it would be one more test

Sorry for the translator. Affectionately

9th January 2020, 09:16 AM	#3
corrado26 Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Black Forest, Germany Posts: 1,226	.............and here some better fotos of the lock. I don't believe that the lock is a modern make, some items show the number "2" and its fit into the wooden stock is very good. It is correct that the frizzen roll normally has been not in use at any army but perhaps this gun goes back to the order of an infantry officer who wanted to have a faster shooting flintlock gun?!?! corrado26 Attached Images Last edited by corrado26; 9th January 2020 at 10:02 AM.

8th January 2020, 09:15 PM	#1
SchildaBrit Member Join Date: Dec 2019 Posts: 33	"There are no marks or stamps on it and the brass pan..." I'm not surprised. The fuzzy photos make it difficult to judge, but the cock appears to have been made up by bending sheet metal. And that makes it, in my eyes, a modern effort "in the style of...". Lockplate also looks like a bit of modern sheet metal, cock fixing screw also modern? It may include some original parts, but the lock assembly as a whole is IMHO not from the same period as the musket - which looks like a cut-down. All this is just my opinion. Better photos would help.

8th January 2020, 09:41 PM	#2
Fernando K Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 671	Hi In my modest opinion it is a recently built lock. The cat's foot has a strange shape, it is not the C-shaped cat's foot (cock) of Boutet's productions, or in "gooseneck" or in the reinforced, like some English weapons or the "chien a espalet" "of the French. The anti-friction wheel in the frizzen spring, the rain-proof bowl and the cock top are seen in fine weapons, be they dueling or sports, never in military weapons. It is known that Ottoman weapons copied European designs, so they find "rainproof". For me, brass or bronze was chosen because they are easier to work. It would be necessary to see the inside of the lock, to see if something is discovered Affectionately

9th January 2020, 09:58 AM	#4
Kmaddock Member Join Date: May 2014 Location: Ireland Posts: 543	A lot better pictures, thanks It all looks v v clean to me and the screw heads are so perfect My gut would say this is not a 200 year old gun lock also those who know about fonts might recognise if the number 2 is a modern or not font woodwork does look well aged though and if the fit is good this confuses me Thanks for showing Ken

9th January 2020, 11:35 AM	#5
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	The assembly numbers (#2) would place this lock in a not so modern time period ... unless its maker wanted to play tricks. It would be nice to hear again from Fernando K, when he looks at these so much better pictures.

9th January 2020, 11:41 AM	#6
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	I can not say anything about the age of this lock, other than it looks very competently made. It is very well put together if 'new'. Very good fit where the breast of the cock rests on the fence of the pan. Very pleasing little lock! I do not think it is new, although it looks that way.. well cleaned maybe?

9th January 2020, 12:01 PM	#7
Fernando K Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 671	Hi Now, with better photos, I discover other inconsistencies. If the frizeen screw is located from the inside (inside the lock) to the outside, the spring screw would be too: here the screw has its head on the outside. In addition, as Corrado says, if a lock was wanted that fired faster, the real dock would be fixed with a nut nut, Here the design is the traditional one. The guard, in these models, is fixed in the front, by an ear that penetrates the wood, and which in turn, is fixed by a pin. Here it is fixed by a screw-O but, by a plate that at its end has the transport ring, also fixed by a pin. In other interventions, it has been said that the adjustment of the wood is very good, and that is not proof of authenticity. The wood may have been aged. A good test would be to establish the passage of the screws of the lock. It is known that formerly the screws were not standardized, and each factory had its own system. If the steps are modern, it would be one more test Sorry for the translator. Affectionately