Drawing and Plans

[jamesthomas]

 I was looking at MBS and Tracks Drawing an plans for their various rifles et-al. I am interested in their English Fowling gun, has anyone used these and how easy are they too follow and understand.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Before ALR, I have collected many of these over the years.  Before I had access to original and good contemporary work, they were helpful to me to understand rifle geometry.  The design work is already done, in other words, and is a good foundation from which to step out and create a rifle.

[Eric Krewson]

I used Track's plans for my last gun, came out pretty nice. One thing to remember, the plans are a reference and measurements will be in the ball park but not exact unless you have the same components as the builder used to make the plans

I found this out while using a set of Beck plans for my first rifle. There was an inch difference in where the sear of the lock in the plans was located and the lock I was using for the build. I would have lost an inch of trigger pull if I had already cut my stock length to match the plans. Luckily I had left plenty of extra wood on the butt stock.  

[kaintuck]

Ah men to that!.....trace out on cardboard the tracks plans 1st....cut the cardboard and place all the parts, see how it shoulders and feels......the the cardboard piece is your templet to keep......I have Jacob then cut me a wooden template to put up in the rafters for for there builds.....

Marc n tomtom

[Mark Elliott]

I used the plans that accompanied The Recreation of the American Longrifle to build my first rifle.   It only bore rudimentary resemblance to a proper longrifle.   I really think there is a better way to approach rifle building.    The only exception is that the purchased plan will allow you to create a cutting template for the profile you want.   You do need some kind of template to start.    Otherwise,  the layout would be very trying.    Use the template to start creating your own plan on the the stock blank.   You should draw that plan using the actual parts you are going to use and draw it in two dimensions (lock side and top).   Use one of the good building books for the measurements between parts and for process, but I think drawing your own detailed plan on your stock blank is the best way to go.   You should layout and measure everything at least twice before you cut anything.   

[jamesthomas]

 Thank you all, I was hoping they would help, now to buy them and try them out. I figure a Fowler would be a bit easier to build if my back will let me. I really need to find a better Doc. than I have now, and he's the "New one" seen him 3 times, and I have my doubts already  (Sorry for going off topic).

[Thom]

I ordered a set of plans from someone years ago. I was so disappointed because there were no cross sectional views. I was a board draftsman before computers and I can draw a side view. Or design a top view. What I want to see most is a cross section of the forestock. Wrist and cheek peice would be nice.
Thom

[Thom]

There are plans from different venders that I would like to purchase, but they never state if the plans include cross sections.
Thom

[E.vonAschwege]

I hope your back feels better James!

Plans are tricky - I've seen some good ones and many that I would only use as tinder.  Track's plan of that fowler is one of the better ones available for study, though please remember that you don't have to use the exact hardware shown on the plan.  Study photos in books and online and allow yourself some freedom of expression.  Erik K - nice looking fowler!

Both of my parents are architects, and I grew up with a drafting table in my room.  I used to draw a fullsize plan of every project I built (after handling original guns).  With time and experience I've started to do that on the side of the stock blank, and now I usually transfer my projects onto paper after they're built.  Sections are something that are nearly impossible to understand from photos.  The only way to have a good idea about them is if you've handled the original gun, or are studying someone else's plan that has accurate cross sections drawn.

A lot of plans are drawn to accompany popular kits and precarved stocks, and are drawn specifically for use with X lock and Y barrel and Z hardware.  I prefer to draw the original as it is, then "alter" (on paper) the appearance of commercially available parts - with a list somewhere on the plan of what parts are suitable for the project.  I'm slowly adding plans available to my website, but it's hard to do mail order when moving around so much lately - in another 6 months I plan to devote a good month to blueprints and make about 20 to 30 different plans available of all sorts of rifles and pistols I've handled.  My biggest trouble is finding someone who'll print large enough format on heavy enough stock.  

-Eric

[Mark Elliott]

The cross-sections are usually all the same, mostly.   The wrist and lower forearms are ovals with the apexes on the center lines for almost all guns.   The upper forearms vary a bit, but mostly they are a rounded "V" shaped with the apex of the curves at the intersection of the side and bottom diagonal flats of the barrel.   The curve at the top terminates at the barrel about 40% up the side flat.   From the apex, there is a slight curve toward the ramrod groove.  The curve terminates at the ramrod groove about 40% of the diameter up from the bottom of the groove.  The termination is a fine, but not sharp edge   The shape of the comb is a tapered cone based on the heel extension of the butt piece.   The curve of the top of the cheek piece runs smoothly up to the bottom of the comb, just above the intersection of the wood and the heel extension of the butt piece.  The curve at the very top of cheek piece is what is formed by the rasp or plane that you use to form it.   The bottom of the cheek piece is a flat plane perpendicular to the underlying curve of of the butt stock.   The curve of the butt stock is a tapered cone running from the curve of the butt piece to the curve of the wrist.  The curve at the intersection of the comb and buttstock is based on the rasp or plane used to form it.   

[Thom]

Quote: Mark Elliot

"The cross-sections are usually all the same, mostly. "

The fore stock cross section of a Vincent is certainly different than a JP Beck.  I do not get to look at many originals. In studying rifles my biggest question is what the forestock look like?

Thom

[gunmaker]

You can lay out a nice plan by copying tracks full size parts & play move them until it looks right AND two parts don't occupy the same spot....Tom

[E.vonAschwege]

The cross-sections are usually all the same, mostly.   The wrist and lower forearms are ovals with the apexes on the center lines for almost all guns.   The upper forearms vary a bit, but mostly they are a rounded "V" shaped with the apex of the curves at the intersection of the side and bottom diagonal flats of the barrel. 

   I think sections are one of the often overlooked areas when trying to faithfully reproduce a given school or particular arm.  I disagree that cross sections are usually the same - while true that the lower forestocks are typically an oval with the apex on centerline, the shape and fullness of that oval varies greatly.  The same can be said for the upper forestock.  For example, until I handled Kuntz's work, it's difficult to see that the shape of the lower forestock is almost as much of a V as the upper forestock, and that it transitions as it moves back towards the lock into more of a U shape.  The sections of some other rifles and fowlers have the opposite effect and look more cylindrical.  The maximum width may be closer to the barrel or closer to the bottom.  It's fair to call both examples oval, but to leave it at that isn't enough.  

   There are all kinds of guns that break the rules (if any exist at all), and for those it's helpful to have sections - I got to study a great Henry Mauger a couple weeks ago and would have never had a clue about its wrist or how bulbous the buttstock is without running my hands along it - now I know to inflate it like a balloon when I draw up sections for it.  After I handled that I played with a West Virginia gun with more hollow in the cheek and comb than I've ever seen anywhere else.  Not very comfortable, but really neat to touch and a total rule breaker with details that sections alone can tell.  
-Eric

[Thom]

What he said.

Thank you Evan. You are more articulate than I am. That is what i wanted to say.

[WadePatton]

I have two plans from Track that do have cross-sections.  The plans are a little different in their layout (the two that i have, TN and Early TN), but are well worth the 7 or 6 bucks charged.  There's a good bit of instructional information printed on the plans as well. 

[kaintuck]

"A 6ft woman has the same dimensions as a 5ft woman"............they both can be knockouts but vastly different in dimensions!!!
I too was a board draftsman for years then into CADCAM......so cross sections are just as important to me as any other dimension. The flow of one plane to the next is super important I feel.......these rifle aren't very forgiving to the eye if you get to heavy with a chisel or rasp.....OR leave to much wood somewhere....

Tomtom tells me that most important is when the eye of the beholder thinks the rifle is pretty. Then it's right.

I like kentuckies, and north eastern tenn rifles......Virginias too.........but you can keep them uggy "club butt" injun guns.....

Marc n tom tom

[Mark Elliott]

I know I didn't explain what I meant very well with regard to the cross-sections.   It is quite hard to do without pictures.    Given my understanding of the rules I put forth,  the actual cross section of each gun would be different, but they vary only by the constraining dimensions, mostly set by the major components.    There are significant exceptions, but I have seen them so infrequently,  I think they prove the "rule".    Perhaps,  the "rule" exists only in my mind.   I would probably have to write a book to fully explain my understanding.    A colonial Lancaster and a mid-19th century E. TN rifle look very different.   However,   as far as I am concerned,  once you have the correct lock, barrel and mounts,  you use the same tools, procedures, and basic contours to create them.   The best example I can give is drawing an oval in a CAD program.   That oval can be contorted into all sorts of extremely different cross sections, but they are all an oval.   The dimensions of the longest and shortest diameters set the shape of the oval.   I contend that it is exactly the same for most gun wrists for example.   Now,  I realize that some schools do not use an true oval in the wrist, but in my experience, most do.   The differences can be very subtle, and you do need to understand these when you recreate certain schools or makers.    I still treat these as exceptions or variances from a base line.