forestock architecture

[Rich]

How thick do you generally make the forestock? 1/8 inch, 1/16th or some other amount. Do you generally make the forestock behind the entry pipe thicker than in front of the entery pipe? Should the final shape be egg shaped or more round? This area of the stock drives me nuts trying to get it to look right. I know the style matters, but I'm currently concerned with Lancaster, York, Virginia and Tennesse rifles.

[Ohioan]

On my rifle, behind the entry thimble is about 1/4, which is too thick I've been told.  Eh, newbie mistake. 

As far as what it should be.  I don't know.  I saw a nice original rifle that had amazing architecture.  The lower forestock was egg shaped, and then about a half-inch to an inch behind the entry thimble it transitioned to to a V shaped upper forestock.  The transition was amazing.  That was when I truly learned what "architecture" meant when applied to longrifles.  The rifle was early, around 1770-80, as dated by the owner.

So, I would say that its however you want to shape it.  Whatever feels right.  The tansition is also important. 

[rallen]

The general rule is 1/16 for the upper forestock tapering into 1/8 for the lower forestock about 1 - 1.5" in front of the rear ramrod pipe. Scary thin is just about right. Different schools deal with the ramrod groove and the swell of the rear ramrod pipe differently so check out the books. At 1/16" you are more or less just rounding the forestock to your guideline. There's not much to work with.
Ryan

[Stophel]

Most all of the old guns I have gotten to see (European or American) have fore ends right around 3/32".  From the lock panels, all the way to the muzzle. Some guns, like some Reading guns, can be a bit thicker.  I have NEVER seen any heavy tapering from the lock panels down to the rod pipes (not to say that there aren't any guns like that, just that I haven't seen it...and I haven't seen that much).  Some of the Lehigh guns MIGHT taper down...I haven't yet been able to determine that.   Some later 19th century guns can be down to 1/16", which is simply too thin for me.  19th century guns are NOT my "thing", so I know very little about most of them.

Hardly a statement of expert opinion, just my observations.   

[HistoricalArmsMaker]

I have had some good fortune in the handling of some originals and have some thoughts here. On mine, I try to copy the intended original train of thought of early stuff. If you look at these earlier rifles they have a lot of tapering going on following the shaped barrels. This is profound when looking down over the top of the barrel. They begin the taper from the lock panel and smoothly transition along the axis of the barrels profile. Its also noticeable in the side view as well. That dimension at the panel always begins from the lock! If the lock has a beveled edge like the Siler, the wood panel finishes at the base of that bevel, then the pannel drops off to the lower forestock based on very minimal carving. Its a step at a time in a gradual taper to the waist of the upper forestock!
I finish the upper forestock a little bit over the 1/16 because what we are seeing today on the originals is dead-dried-up-shrunk wood structure. I think they probably began life at less than 3/32 in the upper forestock and have lost around 20 to 30% of the granular structure due to the shrinkage over 200 years+. This thought is based on seeing some original pistols from private royal collections that have had the best care in comparison to the firearms found anywhere else. I think the early stuff best defines the best looking arms we are trying to emulate today. It is for me anyway.
Susie