Early 19th Century Appalachian Lock Panel shape? Second Round

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

GA Fowling piece ca 1815-1825  ............

Ok, here is another look at the work done from the lock back.  Since this is to be an 1815-1825 GA gun and the known GA guns have some similarity of style and a lot of variety.........I chose the following strategy.... carve the stock for the fowling piece with an emerging GA/Mtn style... The gun has no butt plate bu the Butt will be carved to look like it has a Wiley Higgins paneled butt plate The lock panels are sort of a compilation that I hope gives an Appalachian kind of feel and works well with the shape of the RE Davis late English lock...... The trigger guard will be a Fowling piece bow with no grip rail..... no entry pipe.

The Higgins guns have 2.5" pointed fingernail tangs with one screw..... I am considering strttching the tang on this standing breech to that length... your thoughts??

I have to say.. it shoulders very nicely!!

So please take a look and give me your suggestions for ways I can improve it before I go on and install the trigger/guard/pipes and barrel keys.











The dreaded lock panels

[Bill of the 45th]

Doc, can't think of anything to add, but me likey very much.  The idea of a faux butt plate is great, I've seen a couple done like that and they look fantastic.  Go for it.

Bill

[whitebear]

Doc what is the idea of the lump of wood about midway of the butt?

[Rasch Chronicles]

Whitebear,

That's simply a writer's contrivance in order to generate more commentaries.

Doc, Those are very pretty lines! The stock looks really nicely proportioned and it flows on nicely.

Best Regards,
Albert “Afghanus” Rasch
The Rasch Outdoor Chronicles™
Best Hog Hunting in Florida!!

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Doug, it will be a carved takeoff on the Higgins paneled butt plate. Since I will have no metal to protect it and it is a fowling piece I can't make the butt plate quite as curved. 

The cheek piece I used  is from another GA gun, not the gamecock.

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Ken Guy, your thoughts?

[Ken G]

Hi Tim, it's looking good.  I like you are getting outside the box a little.  The flower cries to be in the cheekpice to me.  That would give you a little more space for the Higgens style buttplate panels.  You might need to shorten the cheekpiece a little if it's crowded. 
I'm looking forward to seeing how that turns out.  I saw one that Ian Pratt did with some chip carving around the buttplate and it looked great. 
Cheers,
Ken 

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Thanks Ken.  Yeah I think the cheekpiece is the spot...... I was just scared away cause I have never seen a carved cheekpiece..........I do think that a low relief dogwood blossom would look outstanding there. The tail where the drawing  is now just looks like an afterthought..although once carved it would probably look ok................

I wonder what others think..decisions/decisions!!

[rich pierce]

I think you need another 1/2 or even 3/4" behind the cheekpiece and the lock panels still need a little work.  Still look a little thick and not flowing with the lockplate shape as well as it could.  When it comes to the flower  I'd start with an idealized flower picture not a real specimen, then fill in some details- think Lancaster daisy for example.

Here's an example of an idealized trillium.

[bgf]

Dr. Tim,
For what it is worth, I agree with Rich on the lock panels -- they are still a little wide and finish will make them grow 2x it seems (at least that's my best excuse). 

However, I also think you need to be careful given the angle of the lock -- too thin above tail, for example, and the panel will look small and there might be a big hump above it.  Same more or less goes for sticking too close to the lock outline.  I think you already considered this type of thing seriously after Guy's post on the last thread, so you are on the right track and very close it looks to me.   Better a little thick than a panel that looks out of proportion to the rest of the rifle.  One thing I noticed recently in looking through a lot of pictures was that the lock panel width is rarely perfectly symmetrical around the lock, which allowed them to adjust the panel orientation to the stock somewhat independently of the lock; this indicates to me that they valued the overall flow of the stock more than a strict rule about lock panel shape/width.   In your case, to me, that would mean that you could have it thinner under the tail and thicker above and still be HC.  As always, just some worthless opinions, but take them and get what little use you can of them .

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Given the early goof of having the tail of the lock way too low. ......I am having to find just the right compromise ...I think you hit the nail on the head bgf!!   

[Ken G]

Here's a square tailed lock I did a couple of years ago.  The lock panel has more of a pointed look to the rear than normal. I could have thinned the panels down from what I have.  

[bama]

Dr Tim I think she is shaping up nice. Lock panels varied a good bit on Southern guns, some wide and some not. I personally like the thinner panels and slim wrist but I have seen way more of these busted through the wrist and lock area than I have those with a heavier wrist and lock panels. If I remember correctly Higgens used heavier lock panels and since he is your inspiration then I think your lock panels are pretty close.
As far as the cheek piece I like it and it looks very similar to the Hobbs rifle I posted on the antique forum a little while back. Hobbs and Higgins where neighbors in Ga. before they moved to Alabama. I would be willing to bet that they had some kind of working relationship.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

I don't know very much about your subject gun, Tim, but I sketched in a panel outline that I would use if it were mine.  I think Ken has the right idea, and Ian Pratt uses a similar concept with more wood in the panel at the tail, and at the nose of the plate.  I really don't like thick wide panels.

The tail of the plate on Ken'[s rifle is well below centre, yet the panel evens it out nicely.  that's the look I'd shoot for.

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Wow, Now we are clicking... Thanks Bama and Taylor.  Good advice bgf..........Wiley's were a little wider than yours Taylor....AND I agree the thinner the nicer looking.....Maybe because we are biased by PA  rfle architecture..who knows.....  Anyway they will be coming down!!

Have any of you ever seen a relief carving on a cheekpiece??

Shaping this stock is  a lot of fun!!

The wrist on this gun will be higher than it is wide....  I have been handling the Richard Allen gun for a sense of size & proportion around the wrist .........slender!!!! I had it bored for a 5/16" RR so I hope she will end up very slim!!

[Dale Campbell]

Have any of you ever seen a relief carving on a cheekpiece??

Nope.  But if you shave real real good, and spend a long time aiming, you can see what it looks like in the mirror...

[bgf]

Dr. Tim,
I went back to look at the Gamecock this morning, and you are getting pretty close.  You could maybe go a little thinner on lock panels than current or even a little more than he did, unless you are going to inlay (or carve...) around the lock, but if you make it like the idealized PA rifle that is in vogue today, it will just look like everything else, which doesn't seem to be your aim on this project!  It is interesting, that I've always liked the Gamecock, but never paid much attention to the lock panels (how could I miss them esp. with those brass inlays?  There's a lot going on with that rifle!), which you obviously did!