Critiques requested b4 I proceed

[b bogart]

I said I would and I accept all comments. Want them before I finish up. If modifications are needed I can do them before I overlook an important item. And yes I have thick skin!!!!

[Dennis Glazener]

Bogie,
Looks good so far, the only thing I notice off the top of my head is that the lock panels around the tail of the lock need to be lowered. On a Siler the wood should come to where the bevel starts on the lock plate.

Also the tang bolt looks to me like it needs to be countersunk deeper.

Not sure since I can't see it very well but it looks like more wood needs to come off on the oblique sides. Make less of an abrupt drop down to the barrel.
Dennis
 

[Meteorman]

My advice - put some shoes on !   

hard to tell with the shadowlines, but maybe lock panel wants to come down a bit more ?
IOW, the lock (plate) should maybe should stand a skosh more proud of the panel surface.
transition at rear of lock panel looks maybe a little abrupt.
looks like you eased into it a little more on the sideplate panel, which looks better to me.
just my 2 cents. probably overpriced.
how long is your nosecap ?
/mm

I see Dennis just beat me to it, but I'll post anyway.

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

I would bring the sides of the forestock down to 1/16" below the center of the side flat of the barrel.

 I would also file the wood behind the oblique flats of the barrel closer to the angle of those flats...make the top of the breech area angle down frm the tang to the top of the lock and side panels...they should be flat and as close the same angle as the obliques of the barrel as you can get them given the width of the gun across the breech.

Looks like you are about ready to start carving!!

[Jerry V Lape]

I can't tell for certain from the overhead photo of the breech area - double check that your lock bolster is seated flush with the side flat of the barrel.  It appears to me to be tipped out at the lower edge but that might just be the photo.  You want that bolster fully seated square against the barrel. 

[Ky-Flinter]

Looking good Bogie.  Nice tight inletting, good job.  I agree with above, especially Dr. Tim's suggestions on the breech area, make it flat and as close to the barrel angle as possible, then either "round it over' or "scoop it out" to make the transition to the barrel.  It will look better than a vertical corner.



Keep us posted on your progress.

-Ron

[Dave B]

The bucks county guns are among my favorites. You are looking really good on what you have already done and only a couple of things I can see would be helpful for you to think about doing. the first is the for-end is not shaped with a good V profile yet. You may want to run the area immediately behind the for-end cap. At the risk of rocks, I use the golden mean to determine how far this should be. Using your eye ball will be good enough. The only other thing is the under side of the butt stock to the trigger plate. The line needs to be a sweeping arch continuous from one point to the next. You kind of have a flat spot in the middle of the line. I like to use a flexible rule to sketch the line. to check this put your eye on the level of the toe plate and sight along toward the trigger guard. Allow no wobbles.

[Tom Currie]

Looking at the fourth picture down I would suggest you define your comb by slimming it down some and bringing it to more of a point. It looks sort of heavy to me. Bucks county guns are pretty slim , so if thats what you are going for removing excess wood is a good idea.

[Rolf]

It may be an optical illusion, but in the second picture from the top  it looks like the front of the trigger gard is off center.

Best regards

Rolf

[flehto]

I'm now totally confused on the Bucks County upper fore end shape. Have read where some are "V" shaped w/ an oval MC, some are oval including the MC while others have a "V" shaped, open ended MC w/ RR groove and the pics aren't clear as to the fore end shape. Are all 3 shapes HC? Am presently building my 9th BC and thought that finally I've got all the correct info on what makes a BC LR, but now there's  seemingly  differing info on the fore end and MC shape .
  Anyways to me, for a slim BC LR, the web has to be thinner than most styles { I make mine slightly less than 3/32"@ the breech  and 5/32" @ the muzzle}. The upper "line" of the forestock is approx. .04-.05 below bbl centerline and 2/3 of the  RR  shows. The present BC build has a lower fore end height of 1" and an upper fore end height of .660. Man, it's really hard building LRs w/o "hands on" viewing of originals, but photos will have to do and many thanks to those who have sent me BC photos...the pics have answered many questions.....Sorry for the hijacking....Fred

[Roger Fisher]

Yes, show more side barrel flat to avoid the buried look.   Assume your tang bolt is just a working bolt. Should be set in deeper and if it is now a flat head (can't tell) should be rounded some.   I like the way you threw the tail of the lock and side panel out.  Assume you have the bolster neatly against theside barrel flat.  I noticed also that the forward tang of the t guard looks a bit off center not sure.

I really should avoid giving other folks gun building advice so take it for what little its worth.   

[Tim Crosby]

 Bruce,
  Looks like you are on the right track and getting some good advice. Thanks for posting your progress so far and asking for advice/direction. That’s what this site is all about, learning, teaching, sharing and researching.

 Tim C.

PS: You know now that you’ve started we will expect more Progress Pics :)TC

[flehto]

Daniel Russell...thanks much for posting all your photos of Bucks County longrifles. ...every bit helps. Yes...I certainly do use too many abbreviations , especially on  initial use and do so because I'm a slow typist. Will have to reform , I guess. Don't recall where I read that some Bucks County LRs had upper forestocks w/  "V" shapes and  w/  muzzle caps  that were oval. .Just finished making and inletting the long tailed entry pipe....should be getting easier seeing this is the 5th one? Thanks again....Fred

[timM]

Bogie..........looking good.  Is this piece getting a side opening patch box (smile)?

In his book “Thoughts”, Mr. Kindig makes an architectural observation on three Bucks Co. rifles that haven't been mentioned.  “A wrist that is broader than high”  I have observed this wrist profile on other Bucks rifles.  I have also noticed open ended muzzle caps on at least two or three of those rifles that I believe retained their original muzzle caps.  I am sure of one Bucks rifle having a distinct V shaped fore-stock with an oval open ended muzzle cap..........so Fred you are on track.

A. Martins statement of removing wood till you're scared, then remove some more would be an applicable sentiment concerning the rifles I am drawing these observations from.  tim

[b bogart]

OK not so bad. I see where you all think I need more attention to the stock.
Roger is correct about the temp tang bolt. I shouldda known better! Dr Tim I think I may have the lock a bit high in the stock to flatten out the oblique area. I could slim the lock panel area a bit.
And yes Dennis and Mike, I had planned to finish taking the lock panel down a bit more just before staining. I was afraid of damaging the panel with the repeated withdrawl of the lock ( I'm a chicken).
Jerry and Keb, the lock fit is really good don't know why it looks like that in the pictures? It cycles like a dream too. TD Currie, I see what you mean by thinning the comb. DaveB I'll check for a flat butt line . timM I'm still trying to decide on a patchbox or not. I have one for it, but haven't decided.
Daniel Russel (Eric) you know that I am trying to build a "traditional" Bucks County rifle instead of a an ideal rifle. You have been very helpful thank you! I'm trying!
Oh Mike that was model for the toeplate
Tim Crosby--putting the pressure on me to produce more pics, my goodness
Thanks gentlemen, I think this has been a very good exercise, painless too!

[timM]

Daniel Russell:  Mr. Kindig's early landmark work did categorize some of today's accepted rifle making schools under the “Bethlehem” banner.

I am sure that the three rifles I am referencing would meet your criteria of a Bucks Co. rifle......... or most anybody else for that matter.  Take a look at No. 52, 53 & 54.

The rifle with the V shaped fore-stock I am solidly referring to lives in my gun  safe........no doubt about it being a Bucks Co. rifle.  Though it is not signed it posses classical features you might see in a A Verner, J. Shuler or a G. Weiker rifle.  About the other rifles I mentioned, I had the opportunity to handle them in the not real distant past.

I whole heartily agree that there always seems to be cases of  “exceptions to the rule” and for me that is part of what makes this realm so interesting.  I also do not doubt your observations concerning Bucks Co. rifles.  tim

[Dave B]

I just got to handle a original Shuler smooth rifle at the Oregon Gun-makers fair and it had the V shaped fore stock and a short muzzle cap like the one Dan pictured with the groove for the ramrod. Its a very slender sexy piece and several will be showing up next year for the fair I'll bet.  I saw a un signed bucks co smooth rifle that John Laubock had that had an oval fore stock. It had the classic architecture of the school and no patch  box.  The piece I saw at the OGMF didnt have one either but it was just fine with out it.

[timM]

Gentlemen,

I want to make my Bucks rifle public via the ALR Museum.......its a worthy rifle.  My intent has been to have a bit of resto done before bringing it out.  My planned restoration has been on hold due to my lack of gun money (smile)  Construction is how I make my living and that's been a bumpy the last few years.  tim

[b bogart]

Hey Tim, I'm in construction too and know what you are saying!!! We don't mind if it is a little dirty and rough. Your gun not me that is! Besides it will be the FIRST Bucks rifle in there (with more to come I hope!)

[b bogart]

Gentlemen I want to thank you for your suggestions. I have started making some of the modifications pointed out and am much happier with the way the stock is starting to shape up. I was correct the lock is a bit too high in the stock but I'll know better next time. Now to decide whether a patch box or not. I'll post as soon as my slooooowwww progresss shows some improvement. Again thank you!

[wmaser]

Is the wood screw in the back of the triggerguard typical of the Bucks rifle? My first thought was to close the hole, silver solder a tab and pin it. Then I saw the photo of the original....

[b bogart]

Here's an abbreviated update; patchbox





belly patch:

I'm working on my sights this week, going to try to keep them consistent with the school, but a little taller for modern shooting.