AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Gun Building => Topic started by: Nhgrants on October 15, 2018, 02:07:07 AM
-
Is the panel on the side plate side supposed to be the same thickness as the panel on the lock side?
I try make shape of the side panel the same a the lock panel. Thanks
-
Most people find symmetry appealing and if you do it different, they will think it’s a goof-up. But on early guns the sideplate side was often parallel to the bore, while the lock side flared with the barrel. This may have been done to help with cast off.
-
It would also include the added bonus of having your lock bolt heads making full contact/square to the lock panel. i have personally never tried it, as Rich mentioned the symmetry thing.
-
Just another question inside this topic......
Is there anything wrong with soldering a shim on the lock bolster to keep the lock flat parallel to the bore ? I realize this would likely make the front of the lock mortise flair out just a bit.
Thanks
-
Just another question inside this topic......
Is there anything wrong with soldering a shim on the lock bolster to keep the lock flat parallel to the bore ? I realize this would likely make the front of the lock mortise flair out just a bit.
Thanks
Assuming a swamped barrel, right? But why would one want the lock panel to not flare?
-
Most people find symmetry appealing and if you do it different, they will think it’s a goof-up. But on early guns the sideplate side was often parallel to the bore, while the lock side flared with the barrel. This may have been done to help with cast off.
I didn't know that Rich - tks for the info. Always something to learn on this site.
-
[/quote]
Assuming a swamped barrel, right? But why would one want the lock panel to not flare?
[/quote]
My point exactly...... Thanks Rich
-
Hi NHGrants,
How lock panels were shaped depended a lot on the makers and style. One thing that is universal though, you can only see one panel at a time so little differences likely will go unnoticed. British makers tended to make the lock and side panels parallel when viewed from the top. Because most barrels they used had a lot of flair at the breech, the thickness of wood along the barrel channel thinned toward the breech to keep the side panel from flaring out with the swamp.
(https://i.imgur.com/FCgf0U6.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/xsGBzNN.jpg)
The Brits also were not fussy about keeping the shapes of the panels the same. They fitted the lock panels to the lock and often the side plate panel to the sideplate, as I did below.
(https://i.imgur.com/vMLAxTd.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/8uCwHKg.jpg)
Here is a New England fowler treated in the same way
(https://i.imgur.com/qAGdYvm.jpg)
On Germanic guns and many American long rifles one or both panels flair out toward the butt following the contour of the barrel and the panels were roughly similar in shape but I think the old timers were not too fussy about that.
(https://i.imgur.com/u57p7v4.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/7J5zoH4.jpg)
Note on the rifles I built above there is not a lot of flair, although on some original guns there was depending on the shape of the barrel. There is an advantage to the British treatment because it is easier to contour the top of the stock at the breech to merge with the barrel flats than if the stock flairs out. However, widening at the tails of the panels has the advantage of creating a wider more robust wrist.
dave
-
British makers tended to make the lock and side panels parallel when viewed from the top. Because most barrels they used had a lot of flair at the breech, the thickness of wood along the barrel channel thinned toward the breech to keep the side panel from flaring out with the swamp.
With a round breech, the barrel has to have a flat filed into it for the lock to snuggle up to, which on a tapered barrel will bring the lock closer in line with the bore than it would be with a octagon breech. So I would think that with a round breech you can't have the side panel follow the flair of the barrel lest it result in a really wonky wrist line, particularly if there is going to be cast-off.
-
Hi,
The parallel sides were not the result of flared round barrels on British guns because the same treatment applies to guns with common octagon to round (Spanish form) barrels as shown in the photos. The first fowler has a round barrel, the second has a Spanish barrel.
dave
-
Hi,
The parallel sides were not the result of flared round barrels on British guns because the same treatment applies to guns with common octagon to round (Spanish form) barrels as shown in the photos. The first fowler has a round barrel, the second has a Spanish barrel.
dave
Right. I was just pointing out a round barrel with a flat for the lock wouldn't have the lock following the contour of the barrel anyway, so a round barrel would seem to require parallel sides for good architecture. That doesn't preclude them from using the same treatment for octagon breeches, of course, and it makes sense to me that they would use the same established and accepted architectural features for both kinds of barrel since both kinds were used contemporaneously by the same clientele. I do think that the necessity for accommodating a round barrel explains why English architecture goes one way and German and American longrifle architecture goes another, though.