Early Rifle Build

[jm190]

Hi All,
   I'm laying out the blank for my first build. I like the looks of the early rifles and I'm using RCA #18, 19 and 42 as inspiration. I'd like your opinion on whether I've captured the rough outline of an early rifle butt stock like those mentioned above. I married a Jaeger comb profile to an early Lancaster profile and added the step to come up with the outline in the photo. For perspective in the photo the height of the stock at the butt is 5-1/4" and the wrist height is 1-9/16". Any suggestions for improvement would be most appreciated.

Thanks!
John

[Mike Brooks]

Do you have parts that will fit those dimensions?

[TommyG]

Hi John,  One of the builds I am currently working on is very similar.  My son wanted a short gun(I know blasphemy!! but he has 20 yr old eyes).  So being partial to Moravian & Christians Spring schools, I laid out what is a short version loosely based on RCA 43.  Planning is everything.  What Mike said is very important.  You will need to see what will work and is available in components, have them in hand before you start to cut wood.  A TOW catalog is really a big help as you can trace locks, triggerguards, buttplates, etc. and see if they will fit before you actually buy them.  Another thing is even though these are contemporary and maybe somewhat of a fantasy build, they will still need to follow some sort of school or region and be somewhat believable.   It is challenging, but IMO very rewarding as you are the designer and the builder. Your on the right track. Have fun with it!! TommyG

[SingleMalt]

It helps me to make a paper drawing and lay the parts on it to make sure everything fits.  Copied to cardboard, this becomes your pattern.

[Goo]

Dont cut out the stock til after you inlet the barrel.

[Blacksmoke]

John,  How much butt drop did you figure on?  This is an important feature that can be adjusted before you profile the stock.
  "Just sayin"    Hugh Toenjes

[jm190]

Do you have parts that will fit those dimensions?

I do, well sort of...

I have a Davis Colonial lock chosen for the lack of bridle, two screws visible and slightly more curve on the bottom side than later American locks but less of a curve than Jaeger locks. I have an early buttplate; 5" x 2-1/4" with a radius instead of an angle where it meets the comb. The "sort of" is a cut-out of an early trigger guard with a straight finger rail. All these fit my profile. That's what I have in hand; everything has been selected but not purchased.

All were chosen for their similarity to components on early rifles presented in RCA Vol. 1. I'm not copying any particular rifle just trying to produce a representational (call it fantasy if you want) early American long rifle.

John

[jm190]

John,  How much butt drop did you figure on?  This is an important feature that can be adjusted before you profile the stock.
  "Just sayin"    Hugh Toenjes

I have approximately 3-1/2". The RCA volumes don't list drop dimensions so I've been using the drop listed for pre-carves from the same period of early 3rd quarter 18th century as a guideline.

John

[Clowdis]

Do you have parts that will fit those dimensions?

I do, well sort of...

I have a Davis Colonial lock chosen for the lack of bridle, two screws visible and slightly more curve on the bottom side than later American locks but less of a curve than Jaeger locks.

Just a personal opinion and it's worth what you paid for it, but I wouldn't select a lock without a bridle if I was going to shoot it a lot. Bridles were added to locks to for a reason and that was to support the tumbler and sear and keep them from wearing from the constant spring tension on both parts. You may find yourself constantly correcting for sear engagement as the lock wears. Get the bridle.

[Sawfiler]

The Davis Colonial does have a bridle on the tumbler but it doesn't have one on the frizzen. I have shot mine a fair amount and have not noticed any issue with the screw bending.

[rich pierce]

Just a couple comments on your design. Perfectly straight comb lines almost appear concave. Just a smidgeon of convexity can correct that; easy to do when you shape the buttstock. Next, the step wrist and how it blends to the buttstock is very individualistic and gives a definite architectural feel. On Oerter’s and Niehardt’s rifles the wrist swells as it enters the buttstock. Isaac Berlin’s step-twisted rifle has a longer, slimmer-appearing wrist that gives a very different feel. Many contemporary makers of early rifles seem to over-do the step wrist. Few originals have step wrists that are quite abrupt but one old favorite is. It’s not a lefty. Mirror.

[Clowdis]

The Davis Colonial does have a bridle on the tumbler but it doesn't have one on the frizzen. I have shot mine a fair amount and have not noticed any issue with the screw bending.

Oops, my bad.

[jm190]

Just a couple comments on your design. Perfectly straight comb lines almost appear concave. Just a smidgeon of convexity can correct that; easy to do when you shape the buttstock. Next, the step wrist and how it blends to the buttstock is very individualistic and gives a definite architectural feel. On Oerter’s and Niehardt’s rifles the wrist swells as it enters the buttstock. Isaac Berlin’s step-twisted rifle has a longer, slimmer-appearing wrist that gives a very different feel. Many contemporary makers of early rifles seem to over-do the step wrist. Few originals have step wrists that are quite abrupt but one old favorite is. It’s not a lefty. Mirror.

Great tips, thanks! I prefer subtle over abrupt.
John

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

An observation pertaining to the architecture of the stepped wrist, if I may.

Your profile drawing on the wood has the step along the bottom of the buttstock appearing BEHIND  the comb.  On the two other examples posted, the step comes IN FRONT OF the comb.  That makes a huge difference in the grace of the stock, in my opinion.

[jm190]

An observation pertaining to the architecture of the stepped wrist, if I may.

Your profile drawing on the wood has the step along the bottom of the buttstock appearing BEHIND  the comb.  On the two other examples posted, the step comes IN FRONT OF the comb.  That makes a huge difference in the grace of the stock, in my opinion.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention; much appreciated. Exactly why I posted the photo; to hear from those with experience.
John

[Elnathan]

Well, I don't have much experience, but I've spent a lot of time looking at stepped wrists...I think that the wrist tapers too much as it is.

One think you need to decide is if you want to give the stock a bit of a belly, or have the line of the stepped wrist run parallel to where it would be if there was no step, or if you want the lines to converge in such a way that it gives the gun a subtle Roman nose look. The Edward Marshall is an example of the "belly" look, the Brass Barrel Gun runs parallel, and RCA 43 has a bit of roman nose to its overall shape. All have stepped wrists, but the overall effect is different - the belly shape is more typical of German rifles, I think, while the other two are more American in look.

I think the location of the step is determined in large part by the size and placement of your triggerguard. Originals can have the step either before or in front of the comb, BTW. I think what you are going to have to do is adjust the location of the comb nose to fit the look you are going for rather than the location of the step.

How big is your barrel at the breech?

[n stephenson]

An observation pertaining to the architecture of the stepped wrist, if I may.

Your profile drawing on the wood has the step along the bottom of the buttstock appearing BEHIND  the comb.  On the two other examples posted, the step comes IN FRONT OF the comb.  That makes a huge difference in the grace of the stock, in my opinion.

Taylor is correct  , the step NEEDS , to be in front , of the comb. There may ? be some originals , that are different . They look better as stated by Taylor .  Nate

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Here's a couple of pics of the only stepped wrist rifle I've made:  a little Jaeger in .62 cal. and left eyed.  My reference material was Steinschloss Jaegerbuschsen (spelling may be incorrect.)  Until you have examined a large number of original pieces either by personal handling, or at least through images in reference books, I would not try to draw my stock profile from memory.  Details are everything.

[Elnathan]

An observation pertaining to the architecture of the stepped wrist, if I may.

Your profile drawing on the wood has the step along the bottom of the buttstock appearing BEHIND  the comb.  On the two other examples posted, the step comes IN FRONT OF the comb.  That makes a huge difference in the grace of the stock, in my opinion.

Taylor is correct  , the step NEEDS , to be in front , of the comb. There may ? be some originals , that are different . They look better as stated by Taylor .  Nate

Not at all uncommon on German pieces to have the comb terminate forward of the step, particularly early ones. On American pieces, with longer wrists, it seems more usual to have the comb and step roughly line up, with the exact relationship between them depending on where you consider the comb to end and how you define the step. RCA 83 (Isaac Berlin attributed) and RCA 145 (sister to the Brass barrel Gun) are good examples of pieces in which the comb terminates just a bit forward of the break at the wrist - I think in both cases the stocker was trying to have them line up but didn't care if the nose of the comb kind of crawled forward just a bit.

As for looking better, that is a matter of taste. I kind of like the look, myself.

[Mike Brooks]

The Oerter I'm doing has the step and the comb nearly even. Darned near had an anxiety attack fretting over this until I got the books out and studied in detail. The step and comb, as mentioned above, seems to drift forward and back a bit. Probably something to do with how long the rigger guard rail was and how lay out and the actually stocking ended up on any particular day. I wonder how much the old timers worried about such things. I'll readily admit I like the comb back slightly from the step toe, but I have seen others where the break was even that are attractive as well.
 I'll point out to those actually considering a stepped toe, the pattern I made up for my Oerter had a barely perceptible step, I mean I would have had to have had to point the break out to most folks, but now that the stock is shaped out it looks humongous. As soon as I rounded off the underside of the wrist it really magnified the feature. I have built a lot of stepped toe guns in the past with the step as bold as the OP's pattern and believe me, there is no doubt about the step!

Here's a Brandenburg gun with the comb ahead of the step.

Here's one I did just about dead even.

CS rifle I did that's about even.

I,m not sure if there is a right or wrong way to do this, you're best bet is to study a particular school. Too the eye, some positions look better than others.

[Mike Brooks]

Here's the $12 gun I'm work on at the  moment, Oerter rifle. The step and the comb are about even as was/is the original.

[jm190]

Here's the $12 gun I'm work on at the  moment, Oerter rifle. The step and the comb are about even as was/is the original.

To my eye this configuration looks quite pleasing! Thanks for offering up your photos!