|
|
Post by hawkeyes on Mar 10, 2020 8:45:33 GMT -7
I wanted to share some information regarding a particular area of building rifles which I find to be of great importance. That area would be of finishing a lock. While I'm no expert builder I choose to be someone who has learned the craft, studied techniques, acquired resources from many master craftsmen such a Gusler, House and Buchele, talked with others, asked questions and has gotten the feet wet/ dirty by doing. I've accepted failures along the way by learning from those mistakes and pressing on. A multitude of methods and knowledge has been learned and sharing that with others who are interested is vitaly important. I'm strictly going to focus on the lock of a rifle. Why just the lock? Well, simple really. The lock itself is one feature that really draws the eye in. This particular piece sets presidency for the chain of events that takes place once the trigger is pulled, sear disengages the tumbler and the cock falls, striking flint to steel. It alone is a precision piece and a work of art. My methods are solely my methods and just that. They are not intended to be "the only way". While many more modern routes can be taken to speed the finishing process I personally advise against them. Why is that? Simple mindset yet again! I feel a connection of working each piece individually by hand. This offers total control over every movement, it allows me to personally make the tool an extension of my own hand. The depths of detail can be carefully monitored and the overall quality controlled. This imparts a piece of the builder, a quality that is imparted by the hands of the craftsman, an imperfect perfection. Historically the single most important tool on the builders bench is the file. Some new to building will rush and purchase a set of files, which many will never be used. Money is spent were it could have been saved and applied elsewhere. I prefer to make my own tools, historically this was very true but not often plausible, files are one example of that. A GOOD quality file is essential and required, there are truly no substitutes. I personally prefer Grobet swiss pattern files for intricate lock work, and I only use two... That is it, two files for 90% of my finishing work along with chalk. I have a set of six Grobet files, all purchased individually. The two most used for lock work are an equaling and half round, both a #2 cut. With these two files every nook, crevice and cranny is worked producing the finished product. Now, this brings me to another area that is important and that is being able to study actual 18th century pieces. I find this important for multiple reasons, but I'll be concentrating on lock finishing. Every 18th century lock is handmade, no machining, or casting. The handmade aspect reflects that in the appearance and overall finish of every single part. Now, there indeed is a difference in shady finishing and quality finishing, every 18th century lock I've examined reflected quality finishing work. Small file marks and other natural imperfections per the process are evident and they are on my locks as well. Sandpaper (not commonly available) and other "modern tools" were not at their disposal, which leaves the file and other natural abrasive compounds being the soul source for finishing supplies. In theory, the point I'm trying to drive home is that rifles of the period were not 100% perfect, imperfections existed and they still do today even on our kit guns. Modern society has the mindset of perfection due to consistency and repeated duplication by machines. That is fine and certainly an achievement of progress through time, but those mass produced rifles have one serious flaw. That is the lack of imperfection imparted by the hands of a craftsman. So, here are is one of my imperfect locks, freshly completed that exhibits finishing by my own two hands and file.     |
|
|
|
Post by spence on Mar 10, 2020 10:39:39 GMT -7
Beautiful work, beautiful lock.
Spence
|
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyes on Mar 10, 2020 11:02:04 GMT -7
Beautiful work, beautiful lock. Spence Thank you sir! |
|
Keith
City-dweller
Bushfire close but safe now. Getting some good rain.
Posts: 990 
|
Post by Keith on Mar 10, 2020 14:52:35 GMT -7
I wanted to share some information regarding a particular area of building rifles which I find to be of great importance. That area would be of finishing a lock. While I'm no expert builder I choose to be someone who has learned the craft, studied techniques, acquired resources from many master craftsmen such a Gusler, House and Buchele, talked with others, asked questions and has gotten the feet wet/ dirty by doing. I've accepted failures along the way by learning from those mistakes and pressing on. A multitude of methods and knowledge has been learned and sharing that with others who are interested is vitaly important. I'm strictly going to focus on the lock of a rifle. Why just the lock? Well, simple really. The lock itself is one feature that really draws the eye in. This particular piece sets presidency for the chain of events that takes place once the trigger is pulled, sear disengages the tumbler and the cock falls, striking flint to steel. It alone is a precision piece and a work of art. My methods are solely my methods and just that. They are not intended to be "the only way". While many more modern routes can be taken to speed the finishing process I personally advise against them. Why is that? Simple mindset yet again! I feel a connection of working each piece individually by hand. This offers total control over every movement, it allows me to personally make the tool an extension of my own hand. The depths of detail can be carefully monitored and the overall quality controlled. This imparts a piece of the builder, a quality that is imparted by the hands of the craftsman, an imperfect perfection. Historically the single most important tool on the builders bench is the file. Some new to building will rush and purchase a set of files, which many will never be used. Money is spent were it could have been saved and applied elsewhere. I prefer to make my own tools, historically this was very true but not often plausible, files are one example of that. A GOOD quality file is essential and required, there are truly no substitutes. I personally prefer Grobet swiss pattern files for intricate lock work, and I only use two... That is it, two files for 90% of my finishing work along with chalk. I have a set of six Grobet files, all purchased individually. The two most used for lock work are an equaling and half round, both a #2 cut. With these two files every nook, crevice and cranny is worked producing the finished product. Now, this brings me to another area that is important and that is being able to study actual 18th century pieces. I find this important for multiple reasons, but I'll be concentrating on lock finishing. Every 18th century lock is handmade, no machining, or casting. The handmade aspect reflects that in the appearance and overall finish of every single part. Now, there indeed is a difference in shady finishing and quality finishing, every 18th century lock I've examined reflected quality finishing work. Small file marks and other natural imperfections per the process are evident and they are on my locks as well. Sandpaper (not commonly available) and other "modern tools" were not at their disposal, which leaves the file and other natural abrasive compounds being the soul source for finishing supplies. In theory, the point I'm trying to drive home is that rifles of the period were not 100% perfect, imperfections existed and they still do today even on our kit guns. Modern society has the mindset of perfection due to consistency and repeated duplication by machines. That is fine and certainly an achievement of progress through time, but those mass produced rifles have one serious flaw. That is the lack of imperfection imparted by the hands of a craftsman. So, here are is one of my imperfect locks, freshly completed that exhibits finishing by my own two hands and file. Excellent post, thank you. Keith. |
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Mar 10, 2020 22:38:34 GMT -7
Hawkeyes,
I salute you for mentioning exactly which files you use. Much too often, this information is never mentioned and that's a shame when passing things on to others.
That is a nice job of hand filing and that's from someone who taught OJT's (Apprentices) how to precision file flat and draw file steel. Gunsmiths of the period had a huge range of files available to them from Britain and other sources and they used finer files than some use today, to finish the locks. They did not call lock assemblers "Lock Filers" for nothing in the period.
As you pointed out "Glass Paper" was not commonly used by gunsmiths in the period, but they had other things they used instead to polish the locks. Sometimes they burnished the metal with different shapes of hardened steel burnishers, either as short cut or after using finer polishing media. They also used stones of varying type and grit, but they also used pieces of hardwood they specifically shaped to fit certain areas of the locks and used different grades of abrasive and oil on the sticks to give a higher polish than filing. They only used one type of abrasive and oil on each stick and of course replaced the sticks as they wore too much.
As to the finish on the inside of original locks, that can be surprising and even on some fairly high quality locks. I inspected a very high quality original wheel lock a few years ago and while all parts that needed fine filing and polishing got it, they left some rather course file cuts in places that didn't require polishing. Also, they seemed to have left some saw marks as a common rule, on bridles, especially.
The absolute finest flintlock lock I was ever fortunate enough to see and work on was one by the French Master Gunsmith Nicholas Noël Boutet, Armourer to Napoleon. It was shot by the Team Captain of the French Team in the 1998 World Muzzle Loading Championships at Wedgnock, UK. It was on a Saw Handled Dueling and Target Pistol ca. 1810. Everything on the inside was polished to the highest degree. Unfortunately, someone who IMO criminally called himself a gunsmith, had done "a trigger job" with what looked like a Snag Grinder. I was so infuriated that such superb work was so desecrated, I might have wrung the neck of the imposter, had he been around. Long story short because I did not have access to a welder or oxy acetylene torch, it took almost six hours to carefully hand file the tumbler and stone and polish as required. I hoped Mssr Boutet forgave me for not being able to do a complete job, but at least I got it back in shooting shape for the competition.
Gus
|
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyes on Mar 11, 2020 2:50:55 GMT -7
Hawkeyes, I salute you for mentioning exactly which files you use. Much too often, this information is never mentioned and that's a shame when passing things on to others. That is a nice job of hand filing and that's from someone who taught OJT's (Apprentices) how to precision file flat and draw file steel. Gunsmiths of the period had a huge range of files available to them from Britain and other sources and they used finer files than some use today, to finish the locks. They did not call lock assemblers "Lock Filers" for nothing in the period. As you pointed out "Glass Paper" was not commonly used by gunsmiths in the period, but they had other things they used instead to polish the locks. Sometimes they burnished the metal with different shapes of hardened steel burnishers, either as short cut or after using finer polishing media. They also used stones of varying type and grit, but they also used pieces of hardwood they specifically shaped to fit certain areas of the locks and used different grades of abrasive and oil on the sticks to give a higher polish than filing. They only used one type of abrasive and oil on each stick and of course replaced the sticks as they wore too much. As to the finish on the inside of original locks, that can be surprising and even on some fairly high quality locks. I inspected a very high quality original wheel lock a few years ago and while all parts that needed fine filing and polishing got it, they left some rather course file cuts in places that didn't require polishing. Also, they seemed to have left some saw marks as a common rule, on bridles, especially. The absolute finest flintlock lock I was ever fortunate enough to see and work on was one by the French Master Gunsmith Nicholas Noël Boutet, Armourer to Napoleon. It was shot by the Team Captain of the French Team in the 1998 World Muzzle Loading Championships at Wedgnock, UK. It was on a Saw Handled Dueling and Target Pistol ca. 1810. Everything on the inside was polished to the highest degree. Unfortunately, someone who IMO criminally called himself a gunsmith, had done "a trigger job" with what looked like a Snag Grinder. I was so infuriated that such superb work was so desecrated, I might have wrung the neck of the imposter, had he been around. Long story short because I did not have access to a welder or oxy acetylene torch, it took almost six hours to carefully hand file the tumbler and stone and polish as required. I hoped Mssr Boutet forgave me for not being able to do a complete job, but at least I got it back in shooting shape for the competition. Gus Thank you Gus for the kind words. Much appreciated! I actually like the #2 cut which is obviously my personal preference. I do have a few 0 cut files but find they produce to much of a shine for me, also as you know it also is much more difficult to maintain a consistent finish, as in imperfections are much more noticeable. One of my preferred polishing components is strictly brick dust and mineral oil... Regular red bricks are so easy to pulverize into dust and it indeed makes a fine polishing compound. I've personally used clover compound, 400 grit finish and honestly prefer the simple brick dust and mineral oil. One of my golden rules is NEVER allow anything but a hand tool to touch any portion of a lock, or any portion of a rifle for that matter. As I mentioned before, certainly I'm no expert builder. Just someone who takes pride in doing my best and learning how to improve on what skills I've gained. I'm very obsessive over details and spending an entire day or two finishing a lock is something easily done for me. It's therapeutic and rewarding to see raw castings become something beautiful, strictly by the use of nothing more than your hands and simple files. |
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Mar 11, 2020 9:06:23 GMT -7
Hawkeyes,
Here is something on period bricks that you may not know and can prove very useful when choosing bricks for various degrees of abrasiveness for brick dust.
Many years ago, I bought some paperback books on trades from Colonial Williamsburg and one of the trades mentioned was Brick Makers. They had a rather extensive section on it, as they had built repro period brick ovens and made bricks themselves. They explained that bricks were graded according to how close to the fire the bricks were in the brick kilns. The ones closest to the fire were the toughest and they used them for structural work. Further away from the fire in rings were bricks that were less tough and the outer rings of bricks were the least tough bricks. The bricks from the outer rings were often used for outside brick walls and even "filler" for walls.
I have a friend who worked in the brick industry for years and they sometimes supplied bricks for 18th century restorations. So I asked him if he could get me some 200 year old bricks, which he said he could. I then asked specifically for bricks from outside brick walls and even the filler bricks. I told him I would be happy with broken bricks. He looked at me like I was crazy, but I explained I thought those bricks would provide less coarse abrasive brick dust for polishing metal. Had to explain that as well, grin. Anyway, my theory proved correct and I wound up with two or three grades of abrasiveness for brick dust.
While not everyone is lucky enough to live where you can actually get 200 plus year old bricks for brick dust, it still applies that bricks from outside walls, like garden walls, can supply you with finer grades of brick dust.
Gus
|
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyes on Mar 11, 2020 16:13:08 GMT -7
I'd very much like some period bricks... I'd likely display them!
|
|
