Lock quality?

[Niederlander]

Hello!  I have a question about all the reproduction side locks out there.  From what I've seen, and keep in mind I don't have access to a lot of them, the reproduction side locks always seem a bit "chintzy" as compared to the original Springfield lock on my 1868.  The old ones just seem to have a better quality "feel" to them.  Is this just the design, or is it the quality of the lock?  I just got my Browning Mountain Rifle (really nice, by the way), and the lock has that same sort of "mushy" feel the other replica locks I've handled have.  Looking forward to your observations!

[Oregon Bill]

Niederlander: Your eyes are not fooling you. The locks turned out by the federal armories in the mid- to late 19th century were of outstanding quality, heavily built and properly hardened where needed. They were made for hard service. Modern locks, except from the very best makers, are made for profit first, service second.

[Forty Rod]

Coil springs last longer, are nearly impossible to break, and are more consistent, but they don't have the same feel.  Flat springs have a more "authentic" feel.

Pretty much started when Thompson Center began making their Hawken rifles and spread to Lyman and others.

It could be this is what you're feeling / not feeling.

[Niederlander]

No coil springs in the Browning, but it just doesn't have the same feel the Springfield locks have.  Our national armories put out fantastic quality pieces during that period, but I would suspect a lot of the civilian arms would have exhibited much the same quality.  You just don't see that in the replicas.