Lock panel preparation

[Jerry V Lape]

Currently laying out my lock panel preparatory to inletting the lock.  I have already calculated the finished thickness of the wood.  But  questions came to mind.  How thick do you leave the wood panel until the lock is properly inletted? 

Part two involves an german style lock with the beveled edge on the lock plate.  Do you take all wood down to the level of the beginning of the bevel (so the bevel is higher than the wood or is the wood somewhat above the lowest part of the bevel? 

[Stophel]

When inletting the lock, you DEFINITELY want the bevel completely exposed.  The wood should not extend above the bevel line (and it doesn't hurt to have it a bit below...)

As to leaving "extra wood" while inletting, I do leave a TINY amount of "extra wood" and don't take the surface down with a file or scraper (down to where it is at or slightly below the bevel) until I'm pretty much done.  It is an easy area to damage, so a hair bit of extra wood is ok until you are done, however, don't try to inlet any more than you have to.  It's just a lot of unnecessary work to have even an eighth of an inch more wood than final dimension to have to inlet through.

[rick landes]

You may want to decide how deep to cut the plate in the lock bolt area. I have seen presentations with the bolt head base flush or slightly above the wood. I like the base to mate with the bevel edge..like the head is next to the plate, not on the plate. JMHO

[Jerry V Lape]

Rick,  I am not sure what you mean by the bolt head base.  None of my references use that term.   I would appreciate an elaboration please? 

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

I usually inlet the lock as if it were perfectly flat.  yes, it means there is another 1/16" - 3/32" of wood to cut through, but upon shaving that off after the lock is in, the inlet is perfectly clean and sharp.  Like Stophel, I leave some for final scraping/sanding so that the edges remain sharp just prior top applying finish.  And he's right on again about how deep to inlet it.  You do not want any of the bevel below the lock's panel, in other words, the whole bevel rises above the panel.
There is a spot where the panel and the wood are level and flush.  At least that's how I do it.  And that's right behind the fence of the pan where there is no bevel filed into the plate.  There will be a notch cut into this short flat for the cock to rotate without interference from the wood.

[Jerry V Lape]

Thanks for the discussion.  I did my previous gun similar to D. Taylor's description and planned on doing this one the same way.   Since I was working on this aspect, I thought the questions might be of interest to the newer builders and it was useful to me as a review of what I did before.  Always interesting to hear the tips you highly experienced and skilled builder bring to the discussions. 

[Jim Kibler]

My preference is to cut the lock panel very close to final size before inletting the lock.  I may have .015" or .020" extra, but that's about it.  I don't want to inlet through any more wood than I have to.

[Stophel]

Same for me with inletting any part.  Get the wood pretty close to finished shape and dimension before inletting buttplates, sideplates, triggerguards, etc.  Inletting down through a lot of extra wood is not only lots of unnecessary work, when I do it, I end up with a crummier inlet, since it's hard to see what's goin' on with a deep inlet.

[Hank*in*WV]

Also by leaving too much wood, when you finally do bring it down to the final level, the lock panel grows wider making the margin too thick. Hope that made sense.

[rick landes]

Rick,  I am not sure what you mean by the bolt head base.  None of my references use that term.   I would appreciate an elaboration please? 

Jerry Please accept my humble apologies; I read lock plate and thought side plate. I was working on one and I guess it just transferred over. Again sorry for the confusion....

[Jerry V Lape]

Rick, thanks for the explanation.  I will shortly be working on the side plate and your posting will be useful there.  It is very clear now.  Not having a milling machine I will have to figure out how to cut the seat under the bolt head down to the bevel height.  Probably be able to do it with an old forsner drill bit with the spurs ground back and the drill press. 

[KentSmith]

I go down far enough to cock the hammer and flip the frizzen open - wood level with the top flat of the plate, then removing the lock, take it down another 32nd or so about 1/32 or even 1/64 above the start of the bevel.  Finish it off last of the stock work prior to carving so everything is crisp.

[keweenaw]

The current trend is to put the lock plate in to the bevel.  One can look at many, many original rifles by the best makers, J.P. Beck for example, and see that most of the time the lock bevel edge was below the wood line.  And it's not like the locks wore in deeper as the bolster can't go deeper than the barrel.  One may ask why that was done?  The answer seems to be that to get the wrist thickness and architecture wanted the tails of the lock panel simply have to be farther apart (wider) than could be achieved with thinner lock panels.  So maybe the judges at Dixon's would rate you as an amateur or rube if you have your lock set in deeper and they surely would have rated many of the old masters in that category along with you.

Tom

[Jim Kibler]

Great point Tom.  I've experienced this first hand in making a "copy" of RCA #42.  I made the lock to duplicate the original including the bolster and plate thickness.  When inletting the lock and setting up the lock panels I soon became aware how the original was over inlet.   Caused a bit of difficulty in getting the proper widths at the panels and wrist, but I got things worked out.  The bigger point of this message is that many of the things we think to be correct or right were not necessarily believed to be so in the original period.  The more you closely study original guns the more you  will realize this.  Some may argue that these things are simply mistakes, but it isn't that simple. 

[rick landes]

...Not having a milling machine I will have to figure out how to cut the seat under the bolt head down to the bevel height.  Probably be able to do it with an old forsner drill bit with the spurs ground back and the drill press. 

I cut mine down with a palm wiggle engraver. It takes a bit of effort, but the brass cuts out in a rather measured way. I then scrape the area smooth. A bit of sandpaper on a dowel finishes it off.

I am sure others have easier ways. I am gifted with coming up with the more challenging methods first and foremost.

[bgf]

The current trend is to put the lock plate in to the bevel.  One can look at many, many original rifles by the best makers, J.P. Beck for example, and see that most of the time the lock bevel edge was below the wood line.  And it's not like the locks wore in deeper as the bolster can't go deeper than the barrel.  One may ask why that was done?  The answer seems to be that to get the wrist thickness and architecture wanted the tails of the lock panel simply have to be farther apart (wider) than could be achieved with thinner lock panels.  So maybe the judges at Dixon's would rate you as an amateur or rube if you have your lock set in deeper and they surely would have rated many of the old masters in that category along with you.

Tom

The use of the word "trend" is absolutely right -- it's a fashion dictated by current authorities.

The judging guidelines at Dixon's seem aimed at either a particular master that I've never come across or an idealized composite of what some group considered the best implementation.  Obviously they have to have some basis for judging, otherwise it would be like Olympic gymnastics -- no rhyme or reason that any normal person can see.  On the other hand, using these arbitrary guidelines in practice seems to produce rifles that are less like originals rather than more.  It seems like there is often someone or other posting about his (or her) copy of an original which he "improves" by implementing Dixon-like best practices.  The results almost always fall short of the original (rifle or school) in both line and fidelity.  The reason this comes to mind now is that lock panels seem to be a common place for this to happen.  For example, we often see rifles "in the style of" or "following" an original with lock panels that by themselves follow no obvious rule, often violating one or two in fact.  The "copy" gets the rulebook read to it and has a lock panel that seems to float above nut-shell thin moldings.  It very seldom seems to improve or even match the original to do so, perhaps because the original builder did things intentionally or unintentionally to achieve some effect that may not be obvious to us except in its absence.

I think Jim nailed it when he said that these things which seem like mistakes may not always be mistakes at all, but in some cases either common practice for some builders or intentional variation from the rule in order to achieve some effect more important to the overall product.  The danger, of course, is the attitude that anything goes, which is not any more valid than rigid adherence to the rules.  It is, however, nice to see when someone presents a beautiful rifle that someone points out a "flaw" on, for the builder to have a well-reasoned justification for his decision, i.e., when something is done intentionally either in imitation of a particular style or because doing so enhance some more desirable trait.  Obviously, that approach is not totally risk-free, but I have a suspicion it might be a better one.  Anyway, I think we need to be very careful when any of our "rules" goes against a significant number of originals.  Just some pointless thoughts.

[Acer Saccharum]

Some may argue that these things are simply mistakes, but it isn't that simple. 

The word "mistake" is open to interpretation.

On a build, when you find that you have worked yourself into a corner, you do your best to work your way out, saving as much of your pride as you possibly can. This 'save' can add to the overall picture, or detract from it.

In the case of a lock being inlet a little too deep at at the tail, you must decide what is more important to you:  wrist architecture or 'correctness' of lock inlet. As mentioned in the Beck example above, JP Beck didn't let the lock inlet sway his overall vision.

Tom

Below is an original with a piece patched in the buttstock. Was it a mistake? Or is it a guy just trying to a save an otherwise beautiful piece of wood, get the product out the door, get paid and on to the next job? (above it is my bench copy with way too much fat on it )

[rich pierce]

I think makers have to work to their own standards and goals.  Those change as we learn more, see more, and develop a sense of style.  Working with the goal of a Dixon's (or any other gun fair) ribbon or best in class is not going to develop anyone's style.  We make the mistake of thinking that one way is right or best.  Guys like Fainot would be left out in the cold with that approach, but the guy made some cool rifles that really stand out.  If we just pick one small area of work, like lock panels, the variety in original work becomes apparent.  Do the same with forestock thickness along the barrel.  You'd be led by many to work for a hair-thin fore-end coming to a razor's edge at the barrel, but then run smack into an original that has some meat on it and looks "right".

All that blather aside, sometimes we do things the way we do them because we don't know better, do not have originals or fine contemporary work in front of us, or have problems "seeing" things.  That's where forums like this, shows like CLA, Dixon's etc can help us learn a lot.  But the best in my experience is to show your work in person to 3 or 4 makers whose work you like.  Be open to hearing suggestions and praise, listen to everyone, and figure out which suggestions or critiques will help you achieve your own goals.

[B. Hey]

Amen and amen, Rich ... very well spoken. Bill

[keweenaw]

Rich,

What one sees, both in original work and in photos, and how to interpret what one is seeing is a really remarkable thing.  I'm blessed in having Mark Silver as one of my best friends and in being in Mark's shop almost every week to see what he's doing (which right now is getting close to finishing an early Lancaster Rifle in the style of Dickert if Dickert had been a better carver and done silver wire accented relief carving. This is a  commissioned gun so I don't know if I'll be able to post any photos, I will if I can) and showing him what I'm working on and getting some advice.  Even when we're looking at the same photo of an original we sometimes have fairly divergent ideas of what's going on.  One would think it would be easy to look at a photo of a patch box and tell where the barrel of the hinge is relative to the surface of the box.  Sometimes it is, other times, like in a Beck or the original box Mark used as inspiration for his current build, it's not and having the barrel in an even slightly different plane can make a huge difference in visual effect. 

It's also interesting to hear the comments from the three different masters as Rich suggests. Things that jump out and offend one might not even be noticed by another who is jarred by some totally different thing.

But that's why we all love to do this and don't just buy plastic and stainless rifles.

Tom

[Pete G.]

"Correctness" is based on examination of original guns. Some judges in theses contests have more experience than others in this respect, however all originals are somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 years old, leaving one to speculate what the fit was when the piece was new. All wood changes as it ages. It most often seems to shrink, but anyone who works with old furniture for very long has also seen old wood that seems to have expanded from the original fitup. We base our collective knowledge of these things on speculative observation, and what is currently deemed correct may be close, but it is still best guess, no matter how you look at it.