1842 Springfield Lock Question

[Michael Bodner]

I have an original 1842 Springfield Smoothbore that I intend to post for sale. However, I am confused by the lock. Its original and the internal parts are all stamped with (presumably) Inspectors marks (C 9). However, when you pull the hammer back to full cock, you REALLY have to pull back to what I consider, 'too far'. I compared it to another original and to my eye, it appears as if the tumbler is incorrect. But its got the Inspectors stamps!!!

In order to get to full cock, the front 'lip' of the tumbler is hitting the spring, requiring a second compression of the leaf spring.

Has anyone ever heard of this? Is it common to some locks? Or is this some sort of mis-match? Its definately a '42 type lock. All the other parts appear to be identical to another lock.

Of course, pictures would be helpful and I'll try to get some. Just tossing this out for discussion.

-Mike

Below is hammer down, half cock, and full cock. Note how the main spring is over compressed at full cock. Obviously I could start grinding down metal, but I would hate to do that to an original part only to find out a better approach.

[Lou Lou Lou]

Yes, there is a problem. Send it to me and i will fix it free of charge and send t back to you when i am done using it.

[gemmer]

I compared the internals and the tumbler positions on my 1816 and 1842 locks and the pics of yours are alot closer to my 1816. The tip of your tumbler moves the end of the mainspring alot closer to the bottom of the
lock bolster plate than on my '42 lock, but is about the same as on my '16. My best guess is that your lock has an 1816 tumbler, but I'm sure others will jump in on this one.

Duane

[John Holland]

With the exception of the main spring which is a M-1842, the rest of the internals are very close to M-1835/40 parts. I say close because the shape of the bridle at the top is a bit different from what I am familiar with.

The alpha/numeric markings on the parts are usually what were stamped on the parts during a flint to percussion conversion process to keep the parts together.

Just my observations.

John

[Michael Bodner]

Kewl!! I knew you guys would have some insight.

So, how do I make this work better? John - Sounds like you vote would be the mainspring.

Any other options??

-Mike

BTW: The lock plate is dated 1850 - I wonder how M-1835/40 parts would have been installed into an 1850 lock.

[gemmer]

Kewl!! I knew you guys would have some insight.

So, how do I make this work better? John - Sounds like you vote would be the mainspring.

Any other options??

-Mike

BTW: The lock plate is dated 1850 - I wonder how M-1835/40 parts would have been installed into an 1850 lock.

Perhaps a bubba job? My reconverted 1816 lock was a real mutt. Lots of time and too much money to get it right.

Duane

[Michael Bodner]

Certainly NOT a bubba jobbed gun.

Probably the original spring busted sometime in the last 160 years and being a '42 smoothbore, someone installed a '42 spring and left it at that.

-Mike

[gemmer]

Certainly NOT a bubba jobbed gun.

Probably the original spring busted sometime in the last 160 years and being a '42 smoothbore, someone installed a '42 spring and left it at that.

-Mike

The spring is correct for a '42. It's the rest of the internals that are suspect.

Duane

[MR. GADGET]

Mike,
Bring it to me or get up with me at nationals, we can get you fixed up.

We can go talk to Terry up on suckers row and get you the parts you need and swap them out.

See you there...

[Michael Bodner]

Jon,

Where do you camp now (that you're out of the swamp?) Palmetto moved up the hill. Old camp site is reoccupied.

Which Sutler is Terry?

I tried the spring from the 1919Aa - Kept popping out..... : - )

-Mike