A little help with architecture?

[pjmcdonald]

If anyone is so inclined, I’d appreciate some help on the architecture of this buttstock please. Looking at it in photos, something just doesn’t look right to me but I can’t put my finger to it yet. Maybe it’s late, I’ve had a whiskey, and my eyes are playing tricks. In any case, I’d like your thoughts.

Thanks,
Paul

[Top Jaw]

I would defer to some other more experienced builders, but the comb to wrist transition seems a little off.  Looks like a long 45 degree angle in the pics.  I believe it needs to be more pronounced, and less sloped here.  But don’t make the wrist too long in the process. 

[flatsguide]

Maybe too much pitch in that it gives a very pointy look in the butt area. It also appears that the the curve of the butt plate stops curving and it looks straight in the last 1/3 of the way to the toe. That’s just my “opinion”. Then again it may be just a copy of an original and that what you have is correct.
Cheers Richard

[rich pierce]

Are you emulating a particular gunsmith’s work or just doing your own creation? You do appear to have a long wristed gun. That’s something I like but is not universal. I’d spend time making sure the top line of the wrist from breech to comb flows well. I’m not sure if there’s a flattish area where the tang is then almost of the curve is after the tang screw area. Photos can deceive. Study the top line from breech to buttplate in isolation without looking at the whole buttstock.

I don’t normally like a cheekpiece to be perfectly parallel with the toe line.

Photos can be deceiving but it almost looks in one shot like the wrist is almost a faint step toe. Might be the light. Run a straightedge up the toe from buttplate to the trigger and see what’s happening as you get to the wrist transition.

Better to have the gun in the hands of another builder to get feedback.

[Lucky R A]

Take the goose neck out of the wrist.

Ron

[James Wilson Everett]

Guys,

What I believe can be improved here is the "humped-back" appearance at the top of the wrist just near the barrel/tang interface.  I see this often with newly made guns, but rarely on originals.  The reason, in my opinion, is the different way breech plug tangs are made today as opposed to originals.  looking at this photo:



The top breech plug has a sharp/square transition while the bottom breech plug has a rounded/curved transition.  The top being a more original shape and the bottom being modern.  As we bend the tang downwards into the wrist area, the original will bend much closer to the barrel end than the modern resulting in a much more pleasing top of the wrist shape.

My advice: file/hacksaw the breech plug transition from round to square, then you can begin the downward bend much closer to the barrel end and reduce the "humped back" top of the wrist.

Does this make sense?

Jim

[EC121]

Most modern plug manufacturers leave too much metal on the plug.  Because I am building for fun, and time is not critical, I routinely saw off all the extra metal and remove the radius area.  There is no reason for a tang to be more than about an eighth of an inch.  All that is needed is room for the counterdrill/countersink for the screw.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

You have thinned the stock coming back from the wrist into the comb area on the lock side...not sure if you have done the same on the off side just forward of the cheek piece.  Look down from above the wrist to determine if the cheek are needs more hollowing out. at the transition to the wrist.
If it were mine, I would bring the bottom line of the cheek piece up about 1/4".  This will amplify the triangularity of the buttstock, having lines that converge at the lock panel.  Your cheek piece too, might be a little on the thick side.  About 3/8" above the plane of the stock is all that is needed.

[pjmcdonald]

Thank you all for your suggestions. Very helpful.

Rich, I had originally been looking at a couple of McKee rifles. One in Ivey's book and one posted in the collectors forum. They are long wristed as well. I think I'm going to have to remove and reinstall the buttplate to bring the comb down. Comparing with the photos I have, mine is too triangular. I'll also bring the tail of the cheeckrest up a hair.

Toe line is straight. Checked it. Photo makes it look there is a slight step.

I'll also look at adjusting the topline from breach to nose of comb. It's already getting mighty slim but I can make some tweaks.

I really appreciate the feedback. Honest critique is encouraging and helps get me back on track.

Thanks,
Paul

[rich pierce]

Paul, you’re going to have a fine rifle there. Lots of times I let my tools sort things out and give flow to the shapes. I use regular files held almost lengthwise and cutting lengthwise. If one holds the tools with a light grip, high spots can be felt and smoothed out. Don’t be afraid to file lengthwise, lightly, from the breech straight down the tang from the breech onto the top of the wrist. Light pencil marks every 1/2” or so across the grain show what’s getting smoothed and where low spots are.

[Ed Wenger]

Paul..., what’s the length of pull?


       Ed

[pjmcdonald]

Ed
Right now the LOP is about 14-1/2”. Adjusting the comb line and butt, it will come down to about 14”. Should still be comfortable for me.

Before doing major surgery, my plan is to blow up some photos and print them. Make cut outs and try penciling in adjustments. Like a plastic surgeon writing on a person with a sharpie. I started with drawn out plans but went astray somewhere along the line.

If I do adjust, it will take the height of the butt from 5-1/4” down to about 4-3/4”.

I think one of the things that didn’t look right to me is that the rifle is very slender from the wrist forward but then has this massive butt. Freddy Mercury singing “Fat Bottom Girls” just flashed through my head. They may make this rockin’ world go round but not an Appalachian style longrifle.

Paul

[Ed Wenger]

Paul..., I figured it was a little longer LOP, and think that has something to do with what you’re looking at.  Personally, I don’t think it looks all that bad.  I agree with Rich about the cheek piece, and generally, most longrifles had a very slight curve to the bottom of the butt stock, which can help with slimming the look.  I like your plan of using templates.  Also, don’t get locked into the height of the butt piece.  On rifles with longer LOP’s, the stock will often be bigger (taller) as you go back, so I think you’re on to something regarding the height of the butt stock.  Draw som lines on the stock and see what you think.  Along with your templates, I think that will be very helpful.  Best,

       Ed

[flehto]

With modern breechplugs it takes a bit of "straying"  {anyways for me} to rid the top line behind the breech of the dreaded "hump". To begin.....the back of the  bolster is filed down so it  doesn't protrude as much   and along w/ this, the large radius is reduced to at most a 1/32 radius. After the breechplug is installed, I start the downward slope  behind the breeh 1-1/4" up the bbl. This makes the top flat wider than the tang  so the oblique flats are filed to match the tang width ......this "fakery" isn't noticeable if done right. I don't reduce the tang thickness before doing this work because the tang thickness is reduced when the above work is being  done. The tang thickness ends up being  greater at the end than behind the breech......Fred

[Scota4570]

"Right now the LOP is about 14-1/2”. Adjusting the comb line and butt, it will come down to about 14”. Should still be comfortable for me."

I am 5'10" 230 # and have significant shoulders.  My first build was 14 1/2" lop.  I now find that rifle uncomfortable to shoot.  I strain to reach the trigger.  Unfortunately is has a fancy patch box and I can not shorten it.  I'll probably give it to a tall friend at some point. 

After assembling a couple of Jim Kibler's SMR I learned to appreciate a shorter length of pull.  My main club shoot rifle is now 13 1/2" LOP.  That makes sense to me now.  I also shoot High Power.  The serious shooters use a telescoping stock.  In the off hand stages they shorten the stock.  That bring the center of gravity closer to the body.  It helps a lot.  Since ML are mostly shot off hand  erring on the side of short is a good thing. 

[Daryl]

I know what you mean, Scota4570.  My Beck has a 14" pull and it's difficult/uncomfortable, to reach the trigger.
I'm 6'1 and 240lbs.(hopefully get down to 220 this summer) and it's reach is too much. I do prefer 13 1/2" pull rifles.

[Tim Crosby]

 These may be easier to look at:

 

[bama]

Just so everyone knows, Paul stands about 6'-7" tall so a 14+" pull will be comfortable to him. Paul I know that you like the Carolina guns and their kind of funky stock architecture. The only thing to me that seems a little off is the long comb and the short wrist. Going through Bill Ivy's book I noticed that the Jessie C. Conley rifle on page 256 has stock architecture very similar to what you have. So from that stand point I would say that you are pretty spot on. The Matthew Gillespie on page 266 has that far forward cheek piece and the rifle on page 280. So don't be to quick to make any major changes. How does the stock fit you now? If it fits, don't mess with it.

[pjmcdonald]

Thanks Jim, but I’m only 6’5”. But with a neck like an ostrich and arms like an orangutan. It fits pretty durn well.

My real job has gotten in the way of my gun work, so it will likely be next week before I get back on it. In the meantime, thanks for all the feedback. I’ll spend some evenings going back through books and studying.

Paul

[pjmcdonald]

And Ed, I remeasured with triggers back in. Solid 15” LOP. She’s long!

PJ

[Ed Wenger]

Paul..., that is long!  I’d echo Jim’s comments, especially if it fits you nicely.  Good luck, have fun, and don’t pull your hair out, sometimes we have a tendency to make mountains out of mole hills in the search for “perfection”.  Best,


              Ed