slender

[aflo]

Is there such a thing as a rifle that is too “slender”?
I know that it is an article of faith for some folks that removing wood is the answer to everything but I occasionally see guns that just look fragile and weak.
Maybe it has to do in some cases with the type of rifle or the “school”.
Thoughts?

[Acer Saccharum]

I've seen some that just didn't look right. Anorexic might be a good term.

[Vomitus]

  I feed my "slender" JP Beck fifty to sixty "mouthfulls" every Sunday and she doesn't gain any weight at all!   I can't even look at the "fatboys" anymore.
  Ok, some schools are more robust then others and I respect that but my choice is with the slim ladies! Opposites attract!

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

I think the only time you might run into 'too skinny' might be when using a 3/4" or 13/16" barrel.  Yet I've seen some Southern Mt. rifles that carried light barrels that were well proportioned.  I like a rifle to weigh no less that 8.5 pounds, so I use barrels that have a nice fat breech.  Even so, the wrist on my Kuntz rifle is small enough to be able to put my thumb and finger together around it without touching wood.  Mind you, I can pick up a basket ball with one hand too.  So that's not much of a measure.
I think proportion is more important than dimension.

[Jim Kibler]

Yes, any longrifle can be made too skinny.  Stock shaping and architecture is a complex subject.  Shaping must be done in a very subtle fashion to create the most aesthitic appeal.  This is a subject that sometimes I think is overlooked.  Some time ago I remember a notable builder downplaying the importance of architecture and making some comment to the effect of it being a simple task and something all good gunbuilders easily master.  In my view it's not like this.  It's a constant push to learn to refine things more and more.  I've thought it would be fun to make a few guns completely void carving and push the architecture to the point that the gun totally stands on it's own based on the shape and form.

[Acer Saccharum]

Jim, I agree on your take, a bit off topic, but a subject near and dear to me. The form of the gun is the core of its beauty; it should stand alone as a beautiful object without carving, without fancy wood. We are talking the basic form, with no decorative elements.

You can dress a toad in finery, but it's still a toad underneath all the glitter.

[aflo]

There is a quality to some surfaces that are ultra taut and “shear” in nature. It has nothing to do with flatness or roundness but rather a feeling that the surface is under tension, like a soap bubble, as opposed to flaccid and fat, like a potato. I tend to believe that this quality is more important than the total quantity of wood in a particular area. I see this quality in Brancusi sculptures and some automotive and aircraft surfaces too.
The other thing is the flow of surfaces in the intersection areas, most notable between the wrist and butt. Some builders make these transitions with such skill that you just want to fondle it with your fingers.
Sorry, I don’t mean to creep anybody out here.

[Vomitus]

  Jim,
 Build us a fowler,raffle it off here! I'm sure we could find a good cause. ALR?

[fm tim]

The KRA DVD on lehigh rifles contains a good example.  It as a plain rifle by an unknown builder that is beautiful.

[Martyman]

I reckon you can get a rifle so thin that it's fragile. I think it gets down to being proportional. I would rather see a rifle thats a little bit thin in stead of one that's a little too fat.

[Jim Kibler]

A little pudgy can be beautiful.  So can bare bones skinny, but each needs to have good shape and form.  Trying to describe this sort of thing with words doesn't seem to ever work too well.

[Acer Saccharum]

A little pudgy can be beautiful.

I prefer "Rubinesque" over 'pudgy'. Voluptuous, even. I am talking about guns, folks, just so your little minds don't start to wander too far from the topic.

[LehighBrad]

A longrifle builder once said to me, and I won't mention his name, "keep removing wood until you get scared....then remove a little more." Well....being a rookie, I got scared when I began cutting in the breech bolster!

[Majorjoel]

  If your forestock is as thin as the wings of one of those old toy balsa wood glider airplanes.........You may have removed just a little too much wood!

[B Shipman]

But not by much.

[Bernard]

Slender is good. Typically when you are finished the upper fore stock should be barrel width plus 1/16 on each side. I t should have a web 1/8 between the bottom of the barrel channel and the top of the ram rod groove. The lower fore-stock should be 3/32 thick on each side and be 1/8 below the ram rod hole at the trigger guard tapering to 1/16 thick at the ram rod entry. A bit more than half of the side flat of an octagonal barrel should be visible above the stock. Lock panel and side panel wrist and but stock should be sized to accommodate the lock and style of butt chosen.
My 44"50CAL Christian Hawken weighs in at 6.65 lbs and is a delight to carry all day long.   

[Ed Wenger]

Can they be "too slender"?  I guess so, but like Jim and Tom are talking about, I think everything is tied into architecture.  I know it's an area I struggle with constantly, and I think a fair number of contemporary builders tend to make guns a little "thick".

The one thing I'm most often struck by when I examine original rifles, is their slender, almost delicate aspects.  Not all are that way, especially earlier guns, but even they have an almost petite nature to them.

      Ed

[Acer Saccharum]

I was shocked to view some of JP Beck's work in person, at how delicate the guns are. From all appearances in RCA, the guns look bulky and heavy. Nothing is farther from the truth.

[heinz]

If you can take a look at Buchele's book on Recreating the Kentucky rifle it has a good explanation of the various surface geometry that goes into the buttstock.. You might find it helpful on this road to perdition you are starting down.

[aflo]

Although I am of the opinion that many of these guns are too slender, it is informative and interesting to hear from the mainstream viewpoint - and it is truly an informed and historically studied point of view.
On the buttstock, I have that book and it is EXCELLENT.  I could never have made it through my first rifle without it. I think I have read it cover to cover at least three times, not to mention a lot of specific reference on certain areas. The buttstock surfaces being slim and shear I can understand and totally agree. I think it is mostly in the forestock areas that I deviate (is that the right word?).

[Acer Saccharum]

The mass off the buttstock of determined by the hardware...barrel breech and lock....buttplate...and lastly, guard.  If the stock is not taken down enough, the hardware looks small on the gun, or it looks like you picked the wrong hardware.

For a slender gun, one can file down the hardware some.

Tom

[Vomitus]

  I loves dem!

[Eric Smith]

The mass off the buttstock of determined by the hardware...barrel breech and lock....buttplate...and lastly, guard.  If the stock is not taken down enough, the hardware looks small on the gun, or it looks like you picked the wrong hardware.

For a slender gun, one can file down the hardware some.

Tom

Acer if you want to shorten a buttplate from say 4 3/4 down to 4 3/8, would you reduce the width also? The width of this buttplate is already smaller that the origianal BP width. RCA # 28 verses RGoehring #8.