Forestock dimensions

[stoneke]

I an doing the final shaping/sanding of my Chambers M Silver Virginia rifle and have questions concerning the side standoff of the wood. Customarily a 1/16" of wood is left standing out from the barrel flat. (I have maintained this on the smaller rifles that I have built.) With the VA rifle, I am presently at a uniform 3/32" standoff at the apex, following the contour of the swamped barrel, and this is pleasing to the eye. Since this is a rather large rifle, should I still strive for the 1/16"?
Also is the stock standoff dimension the same for the forestock area forward of the lock panels and up to the entry pipe? This is currently 1/8" at the apex. What should I reduce this too? Thanks for your input.
Keith

[ken]

Hi there! I generily go by the apex at the nose cap and follow that all the way back to the lock panel

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Sorry to have taken so long to answer your thread keith...was at an archery tournament all weekend.  I measured the thickness of my Virginia's forend last night, for the first time, because I don't aim at a particular dimension when I'm making it.  The amount of wood along the barrel channel at the muzzle is determined by the apex of the curve of the nose piece, just as Ken said.  The nose piece in my parts set was smaller that the muzzle of the barrel, and I had to file quite a lot out to make it fit.  This ended up favourably, as the distance from the apex to the side flat of the barrel is just over 3/32", actually .098" or a #40 drill bit.  This continues toward the breech evenly until I arrive at the entry pipe where the width gradually increases, ending at just under 1/8" at the molding around the lock panel, actually a #31 drill bit.  I will add, regarding the shaping of my forend, that the top edge of the forend right from the lock to the nose piece is well below the centre line of the barrel.  This came about because of lock inlet, and similarly, the nose piece's installation.  The result is that I was able to give the whole forend a nice round convex shape to take away any hint of slab sidedness.  Even though this rifle has a voluptuous butt, her forend is lovely and slim.  This is one of my favourite rifles.

[Acer Saccharum]

You can also work it the other way: shape your forestock, and then make a cap to suit the contour.

Most forestocks I have seen don't have a little flat at the top, rather, a knife edge, or rounded top edge.

[Jim Kibler]

That 1/16" rule should not be a rule.  There is nothing wrong with 3/32".  I think 1/16" is often too thin and prefer something in the range of 3/32.  Many originals were thicker than 1/16" as well.  Forget about the rules someone invented.   Find how orginals or good contemporary rifles are built and use this as a guide.  Also trust your eye as to what looks good.   

[Jim Kibler]

One more thing.  I realize that with a parts set your muzzle cap shape is already determimed, but If building from a blank, I think it is much more sensible to shape the forestock out and make your cap to fit.  Just what Acer mentioned above.  I see some go about making the cap first or using a factory cap and shaping the stock after fitting the cap.  Don't think this is the best approach.

[stoneke]

Thanks to all who responded. This was very helpful.
Keith

[Mark Elliott]

Most of the early Virginia rifles that I have examined had forearms sides that were between 3/32" and 1/8" thick.   They did not taper from in front of the lock panel to the nose piece, although I find it hard to make them that way as I like a little taper.   Wallace Gusler had told me that he saws all his forearms down to around 3/32" thick and then just smooths everything out not worrying about whether they are exactly even.  My own observation bears out this approach on the originals.

As to using the thickness at the nose piece as a guide.   I  shape the forearm like I want and made the nose piece to fit, not the other way around.

Mark E.