Louie's observation on the tang is a good point - when you have the chance to see one of these originals with the long o'er the comb tang out of the wood, the metal is very thin, and most that I have seen still ended up with cracks through the wrists. So it seems to just be pure style.
The whole idea of how the unique features on these guns evolved, how early, and who was the "first" is really a mystery. We know Russell Bean (son of William) was working by the 1790s, but don't have a documented gun in its original form by his hand to study, to my knowledge. One wonders if there were features that we would readily recognize as being early versions of those distinctive East Tennessee features that became so widespread on the surviving examples of later pieces - the banana patchboxes, long tangs, distinctive architecture - on his work.
The Bulls came to East Tennessee in the early 1790s and were working near, and intermarrying with, the Beans by right around 1800. John Bull is believed to have worked in Maryland before rejoining the family in Tennessee. So again - questions - does the evolution you see in his style indicate that he was a prominent influence on the general style of the East Tennessee rifle between 1800 and the 1820s, or did he gradually evolve his work towards a regional style and customer preference that was already in place by the time he got there?
One last thought on the lock panel thing - think of them as architectural features that were made in balance with the scale of the barrel and other proportions of the rifle, rather than simply a frame for the lock. Just my opinion, but I believe that is what the original gunmaker thought. He probably shaped them out to what looked right visually with the proportions of the gun, and shaped them pretty close to final form, before inletting the lock. Small English style locks were ubiquitous by that time - that was what was available and if it worked, it worked.
Guy
