Different small tweaks employed by different makers on slightly different locks. Woodward went some extra lengths in many unseen places. A real indicator of quality is often what the shooter never sees and will never know.
The previous discussion regarding quality, parts, inletting etc fell back to the 'well, it doesn't shoot any better' and 'what's the point?' and completely misses the point. Mass market factory produced guns were not as well made as bespoke bench-made one-off creations. They could not be.
I have limited my examples here to English guns in order not to upset anyone by pointing to qualitative differences with American examples because it always descends into nonsense when that happens. Anyway, I can make the point without and I think it is an interesting one for enthusiasts to ponder.
Refinement and the quest to make every action performed by the lock as close to perfect as could be, the quest to make each part as perfectly proportioned and perfectly fitted as could be are the true marks of quality.
Of course, some designs were aimed at making mass market, cost effective locks for lower priced guns (like the Baker mentioned by Shotgunlover).
These are some of the reasons that guns like the Woodward are far superior as examples of what a skilled gunmaker can do than are, for example, the Edward Lang, or the James Lang (which is still very high quality - the JL a good deal better than the EL).
Each lock illustrated shows small details which attest to the degree of care and perfection required. Some are better than others, while all are clever and all work very well and have survived for well over a century.
The refinement, the artistry, the perfection of interplay between all these unseen parts are part of the magic within a great gun.
