Author Topic: Bonewitz sideplate (Read 8163 times)

Dr. Tim-Boone · « **on:** August 28, 2012, 04:01:34 AM »

So how thick should the brass be? 1/16th " or 1/8th" or?

Dave B · « **Reply #1 on:** August 28, 2012, 04:04:27 AM »

I think you could make the 1/8" work well.

T*O*F · « **Reply #2 on:** August 28, 2012, 04:12:30 AM »

Tim,
I think I've still got a couple of cast ones if yer interested.

Dr. Tim-Boone · « **Reply #3 on:** August 28, 2012, 04:28:30 AM »

Dave, I am going to have to make this one to fit the existing lock bolts and still be parallel too the bottom of the side panel, but I appreciate the offer. The 1/8' cast one I have is not right. The rear lockbolt hole is too low by a bunch!! I/8 " just seems so thick.

Acer Saccharum · « **Reply #4 on:** August 28, 2012, 04:30:23 AM »

3/32 works, unless you gotta buy brass! I agree on 1/8" being thick.

Dr. Tim-Boone · « **Reply #5 on:** August 28, 2012, 04:33:09 AM »

I am going to check with a friend to see what thickness the originals are... I never thought much about variation in thickness on sideplates, but apparently there is quite a bit from builder to builder.

I think I have some 3/32 in the garage.... thanks Tom

Acer Saccharum · « **Reply #6 on:** August 28, 2012, 04:47:02 AM »

Tim a thinner plate leaves more wood on the stock in that critical region.

bama · « **Reply #7 on:** August 28, 2012, 06:02:28 PM »

Tim one thing I have learned from looking some originals over the years is that the brass mounts on most of them were much thinner than I expected. The side plate on one of my rifles was cast. It is not guite a 1/16" in thichness except were the lock bolts go, bolsters were cast on the back side to give extra strenght for the bolt heads.

Now I will say that the side plate is a little on the fragile side but it has held up for 209 years as the rifle is dated 1803.

Acer Saccharum · « **Reply #8 on:** August 28, 2012, 06:23:50 PM »

Not to change the subject too much, but I notice old castings that are extremely thin. Did the old alloys cast better(alloyed w/more toxic heavy metals?) or was a better molding process used? They didn't have centrifugal or ceramic shell 200 yes ago, but I gotta tell ya, I am impressed with many of the castings I have seen, thin, and excellent detail. Thick castings waste material, and add weight to a gun.

docone · « **Reply #9 on:** August 28, 2012, 06:38:21 PM »

The castings of back then were made by centrifigul casting. The equipment was different though.
If you can picture back when we were young, we attached a string to a small weight and spun it around. The same principle was employed in casting also. They used the investment pot as a casting frame. A chain was attached to the rim, molten metal was poured on the sprue and the investment was spun around.
Another approach was steam casting.
Much find gold work was done with steam, using a potato!
Beeswax was used as the model, and a ceramic slurry was poured around the wax. The wax was burned out, also fixing the ceramic.
Now, a larger than what we would call usual sprue hole was opened up prior to burnout. The wax was burned out, and then metal was molten on the mold. A potato was cut in half and put on the molten metal.
Imediate fillout. The steam pressure forced the metal into small voids. I have done some good castings this way. I have done this with a paper towel in a can also.
So they could make intricate castings back then. They just had to make their own equipment and it was a little more difficult to make. This is on top of sand casting.
Sand casting I have difficulty with, investment I am comfortable with.

LynnC · « **Reply #10 on:** August 28, 2012, 06:39:12 PM »

What's really amazing is how thin and detailed the cast brass English Trade Gun Serpents were. French trade gun furniture is super thin too, even the trigger guard. I've seen thin castings with amazing detail made using very fine sand (jewelry grade?). I've been slowly getting the basic casting equipment together and hope to one day give it a go.

I think I've wandered off topic.....

JTR · « **Reply #11 on:** August 28, 2012, 07:10:26 PM »

Tim,
I'd think it depends if you're going to use a beveled side plate, or a flush fitting one.
I'd think Bonewitz would be a beveled plate, so 3/32 to about 1/8 would be about right. I measured a couple beveled plates on my guns (not Bonewitz) and one was .110" and the other .131.

John

Dr. Tim-Boone · « **Reply #12 on:** August 28, 2012, 10:43:08 PM »

Thanks John. That is helpful.

Dave B · « **Reply #13 on:** August 29, 2012, 07:26:36 AM »

I think 1/8" is not too thick. Here is a picture of an original, it is thicker than 3/32nds

If you use the thickness of the side plate compared to the size of the screw in the trigger plate as a scale comparison it is almost as thick as the width of the screw. Mine are usually 8/32 screws so I use an !/8" hole to drill out for taping them. Now you could use the thinner plate if you didn't inlet it.

Dr. Tim-Boone · « **Reply #14 on:** August 29, 2012, 04:04:09 PM »

Great Pictures Dave! very helpful.. Looks like 1/8" is about right. I think it has to have a shallow inlet to look right.

Thanks

caliber45 · « **Reply #15 on:** August 30, 2012, 10:26:09 PM »

Don't have any friends familiar with the builders/regions of yesteryear, so I'll ask: Is it pronounced "Bone-wits" or "Bonnie-wits?" Just wondering. I've figured out Dickert, Lancaster, Hawken, etc. -- paulallen, greencastle, IN

James · « **Reply #16 on:** August 30, 2012, 10:53:03 PM »

I have heard it said as "Bon-a-witz" by a respected builder.

Acer Saccharum · « **Reply #17 on:** August 30, 2012, 11:34:22 PM »

I'd be taking points off for 'Sideplate too thick', or 'sideplate not inlet deep enough'...and I'd be wrong. Hahaha

Dave B · « **Reply #18 on:** September 01, 2012, 04:41:16 PM »

I went back to measuring the side plates of several of my originals and they were all with the exception of one closer to 3/32 than 1/8". I dug out my Germanic fowler anticipating the clear evidence that the Germans like there side plates hefty. Of course it was the thinnest of all of them just .063 thick, just over 1/16"

.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v648/DaveB44/DSC_0697.jpg The interesting thing about it is that they took a cross peen hammer to the back side to stretch it out and make it slightly domed so on a flat surface the thickness of the plate is perceived to be greater

Acer Saccharum · « **Reply #19 on:** September 01, 2012, 05:00:45 PM »

Thanks for that insight, Dave. It's great to learn how other people 'fix' things, especially with a voice from over two centuries ago.

Dr. Tim-Boone · « **Reply #20 on:** September 01, 2012, 05:03:44 PM »

I'll get some more measurements and insights into Bonewitz methods today. Thanks for all the help.

Dr. Tim-Boone · « **Reply #21 on:** September 02, 2012, 04:46:33 AM »

!/8th it is! Bonewitz carving is incredible!!

Acer Saccharum · « **Reply #22 on:** September 02, 2012, 04:55:19 AM »

I hope you like to carve, Dr. Tim. I think you'll get plenty of practice!

Tom

Dr. Tim-Boone · « **Reply #23 on:** September 02, 2012, 05:45:49 PM »

I think i will stick to something resembling his more basic early carving Tom. looks like he did a lot with a small v parting tool.. very nicely scraped backgrounds and low but nicely modeled relief... practice, practice, practice, eh??

rich pierce · « **Reply #24 on:** September 02, 2012, 07:53:37 PM »

Even his early work intimidates me. I'll send you some pix you might not have.

News:

Author Topic: Bonewitz sideplate (Read 8163 times)

docone

caliber45