Side plate thickness

[DrRed]

On page 119-120 of P. Alexander's book "The Gunsmiths of Grenville County" he talks about the side plate panels at the breech always being < 1/4 inch and usually thinner than this. My Chamber's York is much thicker as you can see:



and much thicker than the lock side.



I was thinking about taking at least 1/16 inch wood off the panel, re-inletting the side plate, and reshaping the side plate moulding.

He also states the side plate should be parallel to the bore and not parallel to the swamped barrel.

What do you guys think?

Bob

[David Rase]

I make lock and side plate panels follow the flare of the barrel.  Panel thickness needs to be the same for both sides IMHO.  As far as a standard thickness, that is dependant upon the lock.  My lock plate is only inlet a maximum of 1/16" into the wood after bottoming out the bolster to the barrel..  I file the bevel to intersect the lock panel thickness.  Wood should never be higher then the lock plate bevel for fear of splintering out wood from the inlet when removing the lock.
DMR

[smallpatch]

Dr Red,

The bolster on your lock is what determines the thickness of your lock panel, which should be duplicated on the side plate side.  The swamped barrel is what determines the shape of that area, thus giving the whole gun that nice trim, tapered look.

I have no idea why he would want the side plate side NOT be parallel to the swamp in the barrel.  That is what gives that nice tapered appearance.  To me, it would flatten out that side of your gun, no longer symmetrical, and make it look quite unsightly.

When building a kit, quite often, I have almost eliminated the original pre-carve side plate molding in the process of making the same thickness as the lock side.  There is usually plenty of wood that needs to be taken off.  

I would just continue to inlet your sideplate where it is, and with a large sanding block, sand down the side plate side till it's the same as the lock side.  You'll love how much it slims the whole gun down.

Hope this helps

[DrRed]

Thanks. I'll sand it to the same thickness as the lockplate and keep it parallel to the swamp. I'm surprised how much extra wood is on a good precarve but I guess it's better to have too much than too little.

Bob

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Looks like you are in a good spot..Simply make the side panel the same thickness as the lock panel.......Now where you will get arguments is whether the pannels should be paralelle to the barrel or the bore....... Best I have been able to tel that depends on the gun you are making a copy of.. or your own aestheic taste......They do look nice when tapered to parallel with the barrel!!

[Don Getz]

Follow Dane's advise.   Keep that lock panel parallel with the side of the barrel........NOT WITH THE BORE, that is, unless
you want a screwy looking gun.   I never read Peter's book, but if he said this, he is WRONG..........wouldn't be the first
time...............Don

[Roger Fisher]

And some folks also taper that lock bolster to tip out the lock tail a bit more.

[smallpatch]

Like Dr Tim said,  the lock bolster is parallel to the swamp of the barrel, so the lock panel WILL be tapered as well.  The sideplate panel should be the same.

[Acer Saccharum]

Some guns with extremely flared breeches will have the side panel not parallel with the flare of the barrel, and not parallel with the bore, but some angle in between. This is to try to keep the bulk of the wrist down, to promote better architecture through the breech and wrist areas.

English doubles angle the lock and panel tails in toward the wrist. They pull a lot of tricks to get the guns slimmer in the wrist area.

But you have a rifle, and if it were my gun, I'd make the side panel same thickness as the lock panel, parallel with the side flat of the barrel. Side plate material would be about 3/32". That leaves 1/16 in the wood, and 1/32 above.

Tom

[Dphariss]

On page 119-120 of P. Alexander's book "The Gunsmiths of Grenville County" he talks about the side plate panels at the breech always being < 1/4 inch and usually thinner than this. My Chamber's York is much thicker as you can see:



and much thicker than the lock side.



I was thinking about taking at least 1/16 inch wood off the panel, re-inletting the side plate, and reshaping the side plate moulding.

He also states the side plate should be parallel to the bore and not parallel to the swamped barrel.

What do you guys think?

Bob

You need to find other books to read.

Dan

[Eric Laird]

I'm no great fan of P.A. - he always seems to make things so much more difficult than they need to be - but like everything else, he and his book have good points. I definitely wouldn't recommend it as an only or even first book - you need to go through it, accept the good and drop the rest. That said, before anyone hammers him too hard has anyone looked at the quoted area to see what he's talking about. I haven't - I'm not even sure where the book is right now - but it seems to me that at one point in the book he was talking about making a copy of an original - maybe the "feather" gun - in which the side panel was indeed parallel to the bore. If I recall, the point was that the side panel and edge of the cheekpiece were in the same plane, possibly indicating that the maker was working within the constraints of a blank that was narrower than preferred. Maybe this isn't the point that DrRed is talking about, but I don't remember P.A. saying ALL sideplates should be parallel to the bore - if he did, then that was one of those bits of information that fits the "drop the rest" model!

Just my 2 cents!

Eric

[Jim Kibler]

I've seen guns with the panels parrallel to the side of the barrel, kicked out and kicked in.  Some of these may have been mistakes, some likely were not.  Depending on the circumstances, good results can be acheived any of the ways mentioned.  With that being said, it's pretty standard to run it parallel to the side of the barrel.  Trying to create "rules" for the longrifle is fraught with problems.

[bluenoser]

I agree with elaird's assessment of P.A.'s book.  Overall, I would rate it my second choice behind Bouchelle's book.  However, I take it with a grain of salt since there are a number of things in it I consider questionable.  The quote in question is on page 120.  If I am reading it correctly, he claims that, of ten original guns examined, (apparently) all had sideplate panels parallel to the bore as opposed to the side of the barrel.  He goes on to explain the advantage of doing so, which he claims is the ability to get rid of the hump of wood behind the oblique flat of the barrel.

It should be a simple matter for those members of this forum who are fortunate enough to own originals to prove or disprove the claim.  Just lay a straightedge along the sideplate panel and see if it parallels the bore or the side of the barrel.  I guess it would be a moot point with guns having parallel sided barrels.

Laurie

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

It would be interesting if those who have originals would do this measurement and report their reults by builder and or time period of the build. PA does say this is what he found on the old guns he lists and that the parallel to the barrel taper is a modern convention.  Also that the sideplate was thinner than the lockplate............