AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Gun Building => Topic started by: Bill Raby on July 10, 2019, 06:20:42 AM
-
I am working on a Lancaster rifle based on the Isaac Haines plans from Track of the Wolf. I have the cheek rest carved and I think it looks pretty good. But I am second guessing myself. The plans do not show how far the cheek rest should stick out from the stock. As it is now, it stands out .32 inches at the rear and a bit less at the front. Just wondering if that is about right, or does that seem a bit too much? Not sure If I could cut it down lower or not. Any other suggestions would be welcome.
If you are watching my You Tube series on building the Lancaster rifle, here is peek a few weeks into the future.
(https://i.ibb.co/grdXqFX/cheeck-rest.jpg) (https://ibb.co/p1QsVrs)
-
After looking at the picture it looks like the front of the cheek rest has to move back about a half inch.
-
Height of cheekpiece seems about right. Would be nice to see a shot from below. I’d take 3/4” to over an inch from the front of the cheekpiece.
-
That cheek rest is waaayyyyy too far forward.
-
Bill, if you are following a particular builder, you'll need to extrapolate how far back the front of the cheekpiece needs to be for any carving on the wrist. If no carving I'd being done on the gun, cheekpiece length, while it varies greatly, probably averages three to four inches at the maximum. Height varies too, but about a quarter inch or a bit less seems average.
-
I worked it over a bit more tonight. I moved the front back a bit and cut it down to where it sticks out about a quarter inch above the stock. Here is new photo.
(https://i.ibb.co/qnwscPR/cheek-rest-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/GJj28bV)
-
Since you are building a rifle in the Lancaster school, and you have the cheekpiece so far forward you might want to look at the work of Henry Albright. Albright typically set his cheekpieces forward such as you have. He had a very nice carving design to compliment that placement.. Several of his rifles are pictured in Shumway's book as well as many others. Just one way out since you can not move the rear back where it belongs...Ron
-
Since your open to suggestions.....Too late now but you have quite a bit of pinch in the wrist right in front the comb. Also, there's something funky going on with your lock panels from what little I can see of them.
-
Like Mike says, the lock panels look a bit different.. I am attaching photos of a Lancaster rifle.. Not by your maker, but might be of use to you...Louie
(https://i.ibb.co/FbG3JZT/PICT0007.jpg) (https://ibb.co/svLRQxY)
(https://i.ibb.co/YNb1F12/PICT0008.jpg) (https://ibb.co/j8HQPQh)
(https://i.ibb.co/5MbVBDz/PICT0010.jpg) (https://ibb.co/YRHGp9K)
-
Thank you for the replies. I just checked the plans that I am working from. I have the back of the cheek rest only 1/8 inch further forward than it shows on the plans. Wrist is pinched a bit in front of the comb by just under 1/8 inch. You guys sure do have an eye for proportions! I think I can do the actual work good enough but I still have a lot to learn on getting everything just right. Lock panels are definitely funky at this point. I have not done much work in that area yet, but I still have plenty of wood there to work with. I will be starting shaping the stock around that part before too long. Any suggestions for that area would be appreciated.
-
Hi,
The actual Haines rifle (the famous mint condition one shown in Shumway's RCA 1) has a long wrist and cheek piece as well as lock moldings with tight radii. I suspect these plans are from a rifle by John Bivins not an actual Haines. If you look at Weil's "Contemporary Makers of Muzzle Loading Firearms", the second, third, and fourth rifles by Bivins look very much like the pattern for this one and show a pronounced pinching or narrowing height at the wrist, and long cheek pieces.
dave
-
I am using the Isaac Haines plans sold by Track of the Wolf. I don't know if that comes from Bivins or not.
-
Plans can sure help but looking at pictures of originals will help a lot. Regarding the lock panels, yours appear to have concave borders in the tail areas. Most original flintlocks have convex transitions in the area by the tail of the lock.
-
Hi Rich,
You need to look at the pristine Haines rifle in RCA 1. I believe the lock moldings are very concave all the way around.
Bill, I don't trust TOW plans. I suspect some are based on modern recreations and not originals.
dave
-
I spent some time looking through books. I have the lock panels concave all the way around. Looks like most of the Lancaster guns had lock panels concave in front and convex at the back. Seems that Haines has done it both ways. There are some that are concave all the way, but it is certainly not the norm. I think I have enough wood left in there to go to convex. Undecided what to do on that part. I have a little time before I get to working on that part.
-
Hi Bill,
I am not sure you have sufficient wood left to change the lock moldings at the rear. There are at least one or 2 Haines rifles with moldings similar to yours. To get a convex shape without the molding looking like a rounded over picture frame, the molding are not cut in, rather they are shaped as the natural process of shaping the wrist.
(https://i.imgur.com/iZBEfcg.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/qpIxwQL.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/fYGkSNo.jpg)
Then once the contours are shaped and brought almost finished condition, a simple incised line or stabbed in line outlines the outer edge of the molding and the background wood is relieved to a very shallow depth. The finished moldings actually still have roughly the same contour as the rest of the stock with only a slight cut in for the edge of the molding.
(https://i.imgur.com/DzjJYUE.jpg)
That may be hard for you to do now. I will be building a Chambers Haines kit next and I'll probably do the moldings just as you have done because the owner wants the rifle to be fairly close to RCA #81 albeit the barrel will be shorter. I don't prefer moldings to be cut like that but Isaac Haines is making my choices this time, not me.
dave
-
I don't think the Haines rifles in question are cut in nearly as hard as this one in progress. Don't feel bad, this is a mistake many less experienced folks fall victim to. Smart Dog's pictures should help a great deal.
-
just a noobie question. While you are questioning whether it looks right, I would like to know does it feel right?
-
Hi Bill,
I am not sure you have sufficient wood left to change the lock moldings at the rear. There are at least one or 2 Haines rifles with moldings similar to yours. To get a convex shape without the molding looking like a rounded over picture frame, the molding are not cut in, rather they are shaped as the natural process of shaping the wrist.
(https://i.imgur.com/iZBEfcg.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/qpIxwQL.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/fYGkSNo.jpg)
Then once the contours are shaped and brought almost finished condition, a simple incised line or stabbed in line outlines the outer edge of the molding and the background wood is relieved to a very shallow depth. The finished moldings actually still have roughly the same contour as the rest of the stock with only a slight cut in for the edge of the molding.
(https://i.imgur.com/DzjJYUE.jpg)
That may be hard for you to do now. I will be building a Chambers Haines kit next and I'll probably do the moldings just as you have done because the owner wants the rifle to be fairly close to RCA #81 albeit the barrel will be shorter. I don't prefer moldings to be cut like that but Isaac Haines is making my choices this time, not me.
dave
Thank you!!! That is exactly what I needed to see. I actually did it exactly that way at the top and the bottom. I just have the concave parts at the front and the back. Probably too late to change it, but if concave is correct for some of the Isaac Haines rifles, I will go with it.
-
I am using the Isaac Haines plans sold by Track of the Wolf. I don't know if that comes from Bivins or not.
FWIW, I just bought those same TOW plans, and they apparently do represent a Bivins recreation of a Haines rifle. So you're two steps removed from the real thing.
Still...looks like nice work to me!