Fusil fin stock pitch allowance for short barrel

[ddoyle]

Hi:

I am building from a TOTW fusil fin plan using a 20 inch NSW barrel and a blank. It is my first build and the short barrel was a nod to economy and to the fact that there is half the length to inlet. Ultimately this is a 'practice' build in anticipation of a more pricey full length build. I have been lurking and reading here for some time and I promise I wont call this gun by anything other then an "apprentice gun"
loL I understand nomeculture can be irritating. Plans for the .575 smoothbore is ground sluicing roadside grouse and 30 yard deer killing.

After many an hour of laying out parts and templates, thinking and pondering I am getting close to laying a saw to the wood.

After reading and doing the measuring outlined in the tutorial section I am happy with the TOTW pattern in terms of fitting me. BUT

My question is this:

With the short barrel should I be doing anything different in terms of Stock Pitch? There is obviously a ton of pitch in the stock as shown in the pattern which is designed for the 40 inch barrel.
I have the idea in my head that stock pitch if determined by barrel length and this is defienlty not the barrel length that the guys who built the original and drew the plans had in mind

I have been long in the planning/sharpening/tool making phase of the project and am very much looking forward to moving along but also really want this gun to point well.   Any advice would be much appreciated.

[The other DWS]

In my research in small town Candian museums years ago I saw more than a few much modified old guns guns that had started life as various grades of french trade guns and "militia" fusils.  Over the years most had their barrels cut back and most had been converted to percussion.  All kept the original long gun butt/barrel geometry as near as I could tell. Most were local "treasures" and behind glass. I even saw a couple that I am convinced had been restocked on this side of the Atlantic with the original, though modified, hardware.
One I really fancied started life as a premium grade trade fusil,  It had been cut back, converted to percussion, and the smoothbore barrel replaced with a rifled barrel.  It must have been owned by one of the First People sinc the stock had been roughly carved with some clearly Native art motifs.

If t'wer me I'd be inclined to simply make it as though it was a cut down fusil fine. 

From a matter of personal interpretation and understanding. Arms tend to evolve to fit the need.  Long barrels are fine for accuracy and make for better bayonet handles.  They work well well in the more open woodlands typical of much of the middle latitude climax forest.  farther north where scrubby brush, cedar swamps, and traveling in canoes were a major part of the cultural and natural environment shorter barrels seem a bit more practical.  If my recollection is correct even the various 18th century "rangers" often switched from full length standard military muskets to shorter lighter arms for their woods-work.   JMHO obviously

[Bill of the 45th]

I wouldn't change the pitch, but I would make your full size drawing full length, so that the fore stock is proper dimension for the fore stock with a 44" to 46" barrel.  The Davis version of the Fusil is much more accurate than what Track offers.  Short barrels just don't look right on anything but Yeagers, Blunderbus', and pistols , but that's just me.  I would consider doing more research, and saving up some more dollars to do it justice.

Bill

[greybeard]

If it is possible that you can gain access to any British shotguns and can measure the pitch on those stocks  you can't go too far wrong. The brits built guns to be recoil friendly.
That is a starting point for you.
Bob

[ddoyle]

Hey thanks guys, Much appreciate the replies.

In terms of the fore stock I have been studying pics and am still in the deciding phase might need to flip a coin on that one as I am of a dozen minds on it.  A shorter forearm  makes the thimbles fit a bit better the long for arm leaves me with   a thimble almost on top of the entry pipe and looks cluttered.

I am mostly interested in the guns handling/shouldering characteristics and that is why my current focus is on the butt.  Seems that I'll be ok with the as designed pattern.  I can leave a small amount of wiggle room in the layout and that gives me time to worry over it as I get the barrel in.

No worries on needing to save more money, we kill/eat $3 K or more of game meat a year around here so there is always a budget for new guns. Plus this gun will make it out of the truck alot more then the 5 foot version ever will

DWS know of any good western Canadian museums that I should get to. I am Northern B.C but get around a bit.

THanks again I appreciate the help,

[The other DWS]

Sorry,  most of my research was in Ontario, and that was nearly 30 years ago.   The Canadian National Museum has had some good publications on the guns of the trade.  But the bulk of what I have read dealt mostly with the "as-imported" condition examples. rather than the nearly used up working examples.  I was more concerned with the late 17th and 18th century stuff.  I know that HBC did a lot with a later and somewhat simpler style and some of them were shorter barreled.
The NA also used also used cutdowns on occasions when they wanted to conceal them under their blankets  Ie, the early phases of "Pontiac's Uprising".   there's always been a market for sawed off shotguns

[ddoyle]

Thanks DWS, I am actually sitting about 5 k as the crow flies from  3-4 HBC posts, Locations changed over time. Who knows some day I may kick up something for the museum.

[Vomitus]

 Where in Northern BC are you. A bunch of us live in Pr.George. Many of us have replicas. Pm me if you wish.