need more lift on entry thimble

[StevenV]

Question: What is the most lift one has gotten on one piece entry thimble? The reason I ask is I need .225 roughly. Must I go with two piece thimble? I am building a 40 cal, 15/16" barrel gun. Started out as no plans for embellishment just finish plain. Changed mind and looking at some carving and sliding wooden patch box. The gun was built early spring and shot in "the white" all year. Built mainly for competition shooting. From bottom of ramrod channel to top of forestock .620. Put in 5/16 pipe , leaves roughly .225 from top of pipe to forestock.

[Acer Saccharum]

Take some of the wood off the grip. Reduce the lift, in other words. Wood left on a gun in this area can make it look chubby.

Some of my slim guns start out with 1/16" of wood over the ramrod hole, but 1/8" is more the norm.

[Dave B]

Acer is right on her several originals with entry pipes and they are off set only very little. Its easy to over do the off set and get  a fat looking fore arm section.

[Don Getz]

Steve......here's a helpful hint on inletting that entrh pipe.    Get a piece of hickory ramrod about 12" long, scrape it down
until it will go thru the pipe easily, the taper it with the end rounded.   You can then try it into the entrh pipe as you inlet it.
Also, cut a notch into the big end so that when the rod finallly goes into the pipe and on into the hole, you can then drive
it out with  a scewdriver.........Don

[Dphariss]

Make a die, metal or wood, make a punch(s) and form the pipe into it to get the lift you need.





But I would take off the excess wood rather than making a rifle thats too deep in the forend. 1/8" over the rod hole is plenty.


Dan

[Sawatis]

Now THAT"S a serious die Dan...they steel or aluminum?
John

[Dphariss]

This one is Aluminum. Hardwood will work too. Its easier to put unwanted marks on the pipe with metal dies. Like everything there are trade offs. They also have to he grooved for any raised rings that might be on the pipe or these will be destroyed or seriously marred.

Dan

[whetrock]

(Very nice, Dan!)

StevenV,
If you really need/want to go .225, then yes, it is certainly possible to stretch a piece of sheet that far. (But as Dan said, 1/8 is usually plenty.) If you do want to stretch a piece quite a bit, then you may want to start with a slightly thicker piece, so that you have enough to stretch w/o cracking the edges or getting thin spots. You can then file back the pipe and the finial to a thinner dimension. (Or hammer them to shape, which also thins them down.)

A few old rifles had a highly pronounced "bump" between the pipe and finial. (Even more than what is shown in Dave B’s photos above.) On such pipes, the step up in the wood is generally within “typical” range, but the bump itself is sticks up higher. For an example, see the rear pipe on the famous RCA 42 (same rifle shown in William Ivey's book, #101"). Hershel House has used a similarly high “bump” on many of his Woodbury style rifles, including this one: http://contemporarymakers.blogspot.com/2008/12/hershel-house-double-patchbox-rifle.html   Such a detail doesn’t seem to have been a common feature on antique rifles, but it does occur, and perhaps more often on southern rifles than those from PA. (W.Gussler attributes RCA 42 to North Carolina Moravians.) A well sculpted bump or other raised relief feature there can lend interest to the transition between the forearm and rod groove, and artistically improve an area that can otherwise be aesthetically weak.

The reason I mention all this here is that some contemporary pieces seem to have intended to use such a bump, but the builders haven’t stretched it correctly. The result is that the pipe finial as a whole ends up being too high, which then requires too much of a step up in the wood at the transition from the rod groove to the forearm. The bump, if appropriately made, can give that transition point an illusion of “boldness” and strength without requiring an overly heavy forearm. The thickness below the rod hole is generally the same whether or not the rear pipe has such a bump. That is to say that a pipe with the bumped up area does not require a deeper forearm.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

These are great observations about entry pipes, and stock architecture.  Keeping the forearm nice and slender is a major component to the overall grace of a longrifle, especially in some 'schools' such as Lehigh Co/Allentown.  Here is an image of the pipes I made for my Jacob Kuntz build, showing the bumped out swelling in the entry pipe.  I used 1/32" or .032" thick brass and made the former out of a block of lead.  The punch I shaped carefully from mild steel, to create the distinctive concave and convex areas, and annealed many times during forming.  You will observe that there is only about 1/16" of a step or 'lift' from the groove to the lower edge of the forearm, in the picture of the original rifle in the background, and in my recreation.  The original photo in the background is credited to Acer Sack-o-rum (Tom Curran) and Eric Von Aschwege (Inigo Montoya).  

[Mark Elliott]

Gary Brumfield told me a long time ago that there should only be 1/16" of wood between the ramrod hole and the bottom of the forearm at the rear entry.   I have built my guns and made my rear thimbles that way ever since.   I make my thimbles only with mandrels and a little punching with a rounded end of the rear thimble mandrel.   Everything else is done with files, but I start with 040" brass and .045" steel if they are to be filed.   This is what they do a the CW gunshop and those are the folks that taught me.   Blame it on them if I am doing it wrong.

[Acer Saccharum]

That particular photo is of the Kuntz rifle while in the display case.

[StevenV]

First let me thank those who replied, Thank YOU!. Now a bit more history and another question. The reason for the need for more lift then "normal" is the first drilling of ramrod hole went low. I plugged it as you can see and when shaping the stock went as thin (1.8" from top of barrel to bottom of stock) as I can and covered dowel plug  with tang of trigger guard. Guard was recommended by Reeves Gohering for school I am trying to stay with. I realize a lift much more than .1" is not "traditional". What I am not sure of , is can I take more wood off at the entry thimble area? I am of the belief that from the trigger guard tang to the rear entry thimble should be the same depth.The front of the trigger guard is 1.8" do I have to keep 1.8"at the entry thimble?Thanks again in advance.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

First, I see your guard inlet has not broken through into the rod hole, so I'm wondering, how much wood is there between the rod hole and the bottom of the stock?  If there's more than say 3/32", re-inlet the triggers and the guard to diminish the depth through that area.  I see you're using a Siler lock and that the retaining screws are high in the side panel.  Sinking the triggers and guard deeper will help in that area by narrowing up the panel from the bottom, and thus putting the for'd hole closer to the middle of the panel...  If there's enough wood along the bottom of the stock.
Your stock can taper from the lock to the entry pipe to further reduce the "lift".  If you can end up with 1/8" or less at the entry pipe, you're good to go.  As it is, your forearm at the entry pipe is going to be too deep and chubby.

[Acer Saccharum]

Hey, Taylor, chubby is MY word!

I see you're doing very careful and clean work. That is hard to do.

Just because the wood is there, it doesn't mean you have to use it all. Taylor's suggestion of removing more wood and re-inletting the guard and trigger is a good one. It causes me pain to think of re-doing all that hard work.

But then if you don't do it, you'll have the pain of looking at a stock that is just too full.

Sometimes, I work myself into a corner, and can't un-do what I've done, and then say to myself 'I'll get it right on the NEXT rifle'. I get to laugh at myself a little, and not take myself so seriously. But I will get it right on the next one.

Before you rework the trigger area, you can gently curve the underside of the forestock from the guard to the entry thimble. Look at it and decide if it looks good to you. If the lock area still looks too thick, then re-inlet the guard and trigger deeper.

[Bernard]

You can taper the forestock 1/8" from the trigger guard to the rear entry point. That helps keep the rifle slim looking. Like wise a taper of 1/16 to 1/8" in the depth of the upper forestock works well to enhance the slender appearance.
Good luck with any mods you attempt.

[Mark Elliott]

I am with Taylor.  I think there is a lot more wood that can come off that stock all around.   I would inlet the triggers and guard deeper until you break into the ramrod hole.  I almost always do.   Then taper the bottom of the forearm down to no more than a 1/8" web between the ramrod hole and bottom of the forearm.    All my forearms are tapered,  I don't think I have ever seen a good original that wasn't tapered.   Otherwise the gun looks too heavy.   Also,  it looks to me that you have too much wood in the upper forearm.   That is, the upper forearm is too round,  it should be more V shaped.     The lower forearm should be an oval to round and no thicker than 1/8" to either side of the barrel.   Believe it or not, you can properly shape the forearm with only 1/16" on either side of the barrel.   It took me about 10 guns before I was taking somewhere close to enough wood off the stock.  

Just so you know,  it is normal to for the mainspring to break into the ramrod hole and not unusual on large breeched guns for the ramrod hole to break into the barrel channel.  If you look at original guns,  the stocks look like swiss cheese on the inside.  There are holes everywhere.   A properly stocked rifle has very little wood in it, and the stock is extremely fragile with the barrel removed.    The area around the breech and through the wrist needs to be fairly solid, but the rest is kept from collapsing by the barrel and all the other components.  

Best,

Mark E.