Does this lock panel look okay?

[Bioprof]

I carved out the lock panels on the Fordney longrifle that I'm building.   It might end up being a plain rifle as I'm experienced at engraving yet.   The lock is a late Ketland.   It sure has a stiff mainspring!

I always seem to not remove enough wood from around the lock panels so that they don't stand out much.  Does this look right?

[rich pierce]

Looks good.  Later rifles did not have super-thin lock panels as often, it seems to me.  A close-up would help us.

[Dave B]

I agree with Rich. You look like your getting close to where Mr. Fordney would have his panels at. I was checking the books and he has a tendancy to make the top of the panel thinner than the rest of it but not by much. The tail section of the lock panel looks good but I would thin up the bottom line just a tad. Thats being really picky though. It also may be the angle of the shot you took. There wouldnt be any thing wrong with leaving it as it is. I got to hold some original Fordney's at the KRA show and really like his style. You can pick one of his rifles out from across the room.

[Bioprof]

Dave,

I agree that the panel below the lock could be a little thinner.   I'll do that when I'm doing the final scraping/sanding.

Thanks.

[HistoricalArmsMaker]

The top of the panel is indeed thinner and also dives inward somewhat to make room for the inside hammer ledge to engage the plate. Check your lock. Look at how far this ledge extends inward when its down on the plate. Does it pass the decorative bevels base line. If it does, reduce this hammer ledge down just a little but make sure not to overcorrect. Keep the same basic shape but just correct as necessary. Original locks only engaged half of the plate here for a positive stop of the hammer. As you shape the panel inward to dodge it, you will begin to understand why the top reveal must be shaped the way it was!
Susie