Swivel Breech Progress

[pushboater]

Will, it's been a while since I last posted on the progress of my Swivel Breech Project.  I'm still working on the Swivel Blocks and the Action.  Things have been going extremely slow.  The further along I get in the project, the longer things seem to take.  Something as simple as drilling a hole takes 3 or 4 days.  I'll lay out the hole, double check my measurements, check them again, sit and ponder for a day or so, check the measurements again, set up the drill press, double check my set up, test drill a couple of holes in some scrap, sit and ponder for another day or so and then finally drill the hole.  I guess I'm just keenly aware of the fact that if I make just one mistake I'll ruin 6 months worth of work.  I did pick up a rather nice piece of Red Maple and made the decision to recreate a Bucks County style of rifle.  I've always admired the Stock architecture of the Bucks County rifles.  I went ahead and drew out my design on the stock so that I would have something to look at for inspiration even though I know that It'll probably be 3 or 4 months before I actually cut wood.  This will be the first Bucks County rifle I've built so if anyone sees anything in my design and layout that doesn't look right please feel free to comment so that I can make changes before I start cutting.  Any comments or suggestions are appreciated.

[PPatch]

hehe... you sound like me, step-by-step, think about it, setup, think, more thinking, drill (shape, sand, whatever). Ah $#*!... I coulda done it different... think think think... then move on, its only a project, others will follow.

Good luck on your project, nice drawing on your blank. Being a rank armature at this rifle building I can't inform you if yours is correct but I do know there is nothing wrong with being carefull and double checking each step as you go, that leads to a better result.

dave

[Curtis]

Looks like you are on the right track, it will be a fantastic rifle.  You need to learn to trust yourself more.  Sure, you will make mistakes, but will will also learn how to fix them.  Most mistakes will set you back, but not necessarily ruin 6 months of work.  Learning how to fix those mistakes will open up all kinds of new possibilities for you.

Curtis

[Dphariss]

The only thing I would have done differently was to put the fence against the swivel action.
Adding 1/4" here adds about 1/4 to the size of the cock needed.
L&Rs #1700 pans & frizzens work well for this. I also use a smaller frizzen spring.

Dan

[Lucky R A]

     I am more than a little surprised that you would choose to mate a swivel breech action to a classic Bucks Co. stock.  I am aware that William Antes built at least one swivel breech, but although Antes is one of the progenitors of the Bucks Co. school, he was well before the classic Bucks Co. architecture fully evolved.  Classic Bucks Co. school guns which many admire are by their very nature long and slender---swivel breech guns, not so much.     John Shuler Sr. one of the classic Bucks Co builders moved with his family to Liverpool, Perry Co. and there they built a boat load of swivel breech and o/u double rifles---that bore little resemblance to the slender graceful classic Bucks Co. gun and were mainly of the percussion period.   With all the time you are taking not to make any mechanical mistakes, I would suggest you go back and reevaluate your architecture, possibly consider the Antes swivel breech as an alternative...

[pushboater]

Thanks for the comments.  They're much appreciated.  In respect to the pan placement I was going for an earlier more massive look.  I cut and used a chambers Early Ketland lock plate for the front pan sections and subsequently felt that I needed to use the Early Ketland Cock in order to keep the geometry correct.  If I moved the Cock back in order to move the pan further back against the swivel block it would have resulted in a longer rear lock plate.  I'm kinda in agreement with Dave Waters in that I feel that a shorter rear lock plate is more desireable and simply looks better.  Also, as the pan sits now, the vent hole is almost flush with the front of the breech plug face.  First compromise.  Do you want a shorter rear lock plate or a pan fence that sits against the swivel block?  In retrospect, I could have moved the cock back at least another 1/8" which would have cut the pan fence to swivel plate distance in half.  An additional 1/8" length to the rear lock plate would have been almost unnoticeable.  I'd still have a problem with the vent location.  As it sits now, I'll probably end up having to shorten the breech plug and the breech end of the barrel in order to relocate the vent hole forward enough to clear the front of the plug.  of course, I could always notch the face of the breech plug as I've seen on some rifles.  That would be one option.  Dave Waters built and used a patent breech which gave him a little more leeway in respect to the placement of the vent.  I'm not using a patent breech so I'm kinda stuck with the minimum, (for safety reasons), .500 breech plug length.  Since I've never build one of these before and I'm only using Dave Waters book as a general road map, I've had to make some compromises in respect to what would be the ideal situation and what I'm going to have to end up doing for my particular situation.  Talk about a learning experience!  I guess that's another reason why things are going so slow.  I should have taken a little more time in the planning and designing stage and worked out these problems a little better before plunging in maybe a little prematurely! 

Capt. David

[Randall Steffy]

pushboater,
Hopefully you have come to expect mixed reviews, and are not discouraged or prone to drastic course change as a result of other's constructive ideas. I for one applaud you for proceeding into the the relatively unknown waters of swivel breech construction! You have a great start and I would proceed as you are, and plan now on a second wender to follow this one.
I echo Curtis and his advise to allow for mistakes and only make them once, when possible. Your's would be the first perfect build ever, were it possible, as perfection is by natural law, impossible. The next build can always be easier and end a bit closer perfection though. Press on...

[pushboater]

Lucky R A thank you for you comment.  I can certainly see your point and agree that the classic Bucks County Rifle is long and slender.  Part of my inspiration for this rifle came from the William Antes gun.  Also, a major inspiration for this rifle was the Swivel Breech that Peter Alexander built and shows in his book, "The Gunsmith of Grenville County.  That particular rifle is currently for sale on this forum by Bernie Tulino, (Oldgunguy), on a post dated Jan 9th, 2013.  It's rifle #5 of the 6 guns he has for sale.  That rifle has the classic Stock Architecture of a Bucks County rifle except maybe for the buttplate.  In designing that rifle Peter decided that he would become a gunsmith working around 1780 on the border of Bucks County and the Lehigh Valley.  George Shumway pointed out that at this point in history rifles in Colonial America were evolving and were not necessarily cemented into schools.  It should also be noted that Mr. Shumway dates the William Antes Rifle to around 1780.  And while I can see your argument, I feel that you are basing you thought process on surviving examples of rifles that can be viewed and examined.  Literally hundreds of thousands of rifles built during that time period have not survived to the present day and simply because there is not a present example to examine does not necessarily mean that one did not exist or was not made.  And although I love the William Antes rifle, I feel that the Peter Alexander rendition is more pleasing to the eye and is more representative of the Bucks County Style.  Mr. Alexander built a rifle that he felt could have been made during that time period and that is basically what I'm doing.  Is it Historically correct?  Who knows!  It may be!  Again, Thank you for your comment. 

Randall, Thank you for the encouragement, and believe me when I say that I'm far from discouraged.  I take all comments and constructive ideas into consideration and am truly appreciative of each and every one of them.  But in a lot of cases I have my own ideas and I go through my own thought process to arrive at a resolution to a particular problem.  Just because someone recommends something does not necessarily mean that I'm going to take their advice.  Sometimes someone Else's opinion makes a whole lot of sense and I scratch my head and wonder how I couldn't have seen that solution in the first place.  Other times I simply go with my gut feeling, whether wright or wrong, and learn from my mistakes.  Thanks again.

Capt. David

[gunmaker]

I don't know anything about building a swivel---But I do know Bucks co. rifles are among my very fav's....Keep it up....Tom

[Lucky R A]

Pushboater,
      You are certainly free to build whatever suits your fancy.  You are correct my observations are based on the surviving examples that we have to study.  This is exactly how the various schools came into being, studying the surviving pieces, noting the geographic areas they were made in, the similarity of architectural styles as well as the decorative elements.  I have been fortunate to have handled many of major Bucks Co. pieces, plus I have reviewed many unpublished photographs of many other lessor Bucks Co. pieces from early to late.  I feel pretty confident in what a Bucks Co. gun and it's elements should look like, as well as how the carving and engraving should be done.
       The piece you pointed out as your inspiration, actually bears little resemblance to a Classic Bucks Co gun. The carving and engraving is totally wrong for the school as are so many other details.   It is kind of like saying I love the looks of a  1957 Chevy, but when I build mine I will not use those fins. I will put dual headlights in it, and round Ford taillights.  I only point out these things so people with less exposure are not lead astray.  T.O.W. is classic for describing pieces as Lehigh Co. or Bucks Co. that bear little resemblance to the real deal.  You seem to have been extremely careful in your approach to building this gun, so I only wanted to point out that architecturally you were straying from the path of what you indicated was your objective.   If the Alexander rendition is what you want to achieve, then go for it.  ---it just won't be a Bucks Co. gun
          

[pushboater]

Lucky R A,
      You are a very lucky man indeed to have had the opportunity to have handled so many original Bucks County guns.  I on the other hand have only photographs of originals to study in an effort to try and gain my knowledge.  In my original post I indicated that my objective was to build a Bucks County Style swivel breech, and that I had always admired the stock architecture of the Bucks County rifles.  When I said that Peter Alexander's Swivel Breech was a major inspiration for the rifle that I'll be attempting to build I was talking about the architecture of the buttstock.  I made no mention of the decorative details.  The architectural details are what make the rifle, not the decorative details.  An architecturally sound rifle will stand on it's own merits without any decorative elements whatsoever.  But if I understand you correctly, the shape of the buttstock, as I've drawn it on my stock blank, has strayed so far from the path, architecturally speaking, that it wouldn't be considered a Bucks County Rifle?  If that is the case then please tell me what school my rifle, as drawn, would fall into so that I can correctly label it and stop calling it a Bucks County Style rifle. 

     Does anyone else on this forum consider the shape of the buttstock, as I've drawn it on my stock blank, so far off base that it wouldn't be recognized as or considered a Bucks County style rifle?  Again, I've never built a Bucks County style rifle and I'm curious to hear if I'm really that far out in left field on this.  I've still got plenty of time before I start to cut wood and I've got a BIG eraser.  Personally, I don't feel that I'm THAT far off.  Again, any and all comments are appreciated. 

Capt. David

[Lucky R A]

Hi David,
        I in no way want my comments to be considered adversarial or condemning, my objective is to share a bit of knowledge.  You are absolutely correct that I have been fortunate to have handled as many original Bucks Co. originals as I have.   It wasn't until I spent hours measuring and photographing RCA 63 that I realized how slim that rifle really is.  Of course, while I was studying the rifle, I made an outline of it.  Few will dispute that RCA 63 "The Verner Rifle" is anything other than the classic Bucks Co. rifle.   
     At present, I have a gun in for restoration that I could lay on top of the Verner outline and it would match perfectly.  Is this other rifle a Bucks Co. gun?---No, it is actually the product of an unknown southeastern Berks Co. maker.  It is obvious that the unknown maker was influenced by some maker further east in the area of the Bucks Co. school.  So the outline of a stock (what I read you referencing as architecture) does not make something a Bucks Co. school gun.  I can use the same outline to build a Lehigh or several other guns depending on how I sculpt and embellish the stock.  The decorative details do make all the difference; however, on the above referenced southeastern Berks Co. piece, the patchbox, triggerguard, buttplate and carving are all wrong for a Bucks Co. piece.  The outline, butt stock architecture and the forestock molding are right, but otherwise it missed the mark.  To use another analogy other than the 57 Chevy one --If you have a English setter can you cross breed it with a Beagle and still have an English Setter?
      Now to something more constructive.  Your outline is of the more "extreme" Bucks Co. style.   RCA 65 would be a good example that exhibits this extreme underbelly curvature.   Andrew Verner and John Shuler Sr.  are prime examples "classic" Bucks Co. makers and design.  I would use either the Verner or Shuler butt plate rather than the butt plate with the rounded heel, that appears to have been pounded from strap brass that T.O.W. sells.  Alas, my friend the Devil is in the details.     Best wishes Ron

[pushboater]

Ron,
     RCA 63 is truly a magnificent rifle by a true master and you have been indeed fortunate to have been able to handle and examine such a fine specimen.  In reference to the rifle you are currently restoring with "The Verner Rifle" outline, I guess Mr. Shumway was correct when he stated that at this point in history rifles in Colonial America were evolving and were not necessarily cemented into schools.  I'm inclined to think that at this point in time the roads were improving and travel was becoming a little easier which in turn facilitated the more rapid exchange of information and ideals.  I'll give you a thought to ponder.  To my way of thinking, such a piece could have been built in Bucks County.  Nothing went to waste back then.  I can see a Bucks County gunsmith reusing the furniture of a battered and otherwise useless Berks County rifle that someone brought in for him to salvage.  I can visualize him restocking and reusing that furniture from that battered Berks County rifle to create his own Bucks County Rifle.  So would the resulting rifle still be considered a Berks County gun or would it now be considered a Bucks County gun?  In any event, coming from someone who has handled more Bucks county guns than I will probably ever see, I did not take your comments as adversarial or condemning.  I sincerely want to thank you for sharing your knowledge. 
     I only build rifles for myself, (although on occasion I have been talked into selling one), so I'm the only person I really have to please.  Personally, I find no joy in copying the work of others, even originals.  I would never build a copy or recreation of an original longrifle.  A copy of an original, in my eyes anyway, will forever be a copy.  But that's just my own personal thoughts on the subject.  I know others who take great pride in recreating the work of the old Master Gunsmiths and I respect them for that.  I do try and make an effort to adhere to the architectural details of a certain school, and by that I mean stock shape, but other than that I try and build my rifles so that they are every bit as original as the ones that the Great master gunsmiths of the time built.  Thanks again for your thoughts Ron.

Capt. David

[Dphariss]

     I am more than a little surprised that you would choose to mate a swivel breech action to a classic Bucks Co. stock.  I am aware that William Antes built at least one swivel breech, but although Antes is one of the progenitors of the Bucks Co. school, he was well before the classic Bucks Co. architecture fully evolved.  Classic Bucks Co. school guns which many admire are by their very nature long and slender---swivel breech guns, not so much.     John Shuler Sr. one of the classic Bucks Co builders moved with his family to Liverpool, Perry Co. and there they built a boat load of swivel breech and o/u double rifles---that bore little resemblance to the slender graceful classic Bucks Co. gun and were mainly of the percussion period.   With all the time you are taking not to make any mechanical mistakes, I would suggest you go back and reevaluate your architecture, possibly consider the Antes swivel breech as an alternative...

Why?  Would it be OK if the patchbox holds a Snickers bar?

He is not trying to do a bench copy. He is building a rifle to PLEASE HIMSELF. It will not have an original makers name on it so who cares?  So long as he stays with the basic theme I see no problem at all.
Just about everything made to day is a modern interpretation unless doing a bench copy. If he wanted to make a Swivel Breech version of the A Verner rifle what would it hurt?

Making a swivel breech from scratch is a LOT of work 3-4 times perhaps that of a Kentucky from a blank. I applaud his initiative.

Dan

[JTR]

Capt David,
I wonder if Peter Alexander considers his rifle to be a Bucks Co gun, since he put not one, but two, Lehigh indians on it...
The stock outline drawn could just as easily be a Lehigh profile, and one of the definitive ways in determining whether a rifle is a Bucks Co or Lehigh, is in the decorative details.  
Generally, another trait of Bucks Co is a very slender gun, with a wrist that is a bit wider than it is high. I have a fine George Weiker Bucks Co rifle leaning in the corner, and as I look at it, stacking another barrel on top of the other would pretty well destroy the architecture of the rifle and make it look more like some of the Berks Co rifles.

And just my opinion, but your comment that "simply because there is not a present example to examine does not necessarily mean that one did not exist or was not made" seems to be a slippery slope at best when pertaining to these rifles. Hmmm, personally, I'm searching for Jacob Dickerts very early model M16, because I heard he might have had one!

Also, there's a wealth of info and knowledge on this forum, if you care to take advantage of it.

John

[rich pierce]

Some of the unsigned guns in Rifles of Colonial America were grouped with Lehigh or Bucks County sort of arbitrarily, and it seems if they had some "Bucks County" features (side opening patchbox) they went one way; if they had an arrowhead sideplate, another.  None of these are definitive obviously.  Even if we confine ourselves to Weiker, Schuler and Verner, there's still quite a bit of variety.

[pushboater]

John (JTR),
     I've been partaking of the wealth of information and knowledge on this forum for many years.  When they updated the website several years ago, for some reason all my posts were deleted.  When I was building a little Lehigh Squirrel rifle a few years back Eric Kettenburg and Allen Martin allowed me to partake of their vast amount of knowledge and answered all my questions pertaining to the small nuances particular to the Lehigh rifles.  It was only because of their vast storehouse of knowledge that I was able to complete my rifle and have it look halfway presentable as a representation of that particular school of gunsmithing. 
     In this particular situation I seem to be venturing into an area that no one has ventured before.  I'm attempting to build an extreme Bucks County Style Swivel Breech!  Of the thousands upon thousands of rifles from this time period that never survived to the present day, I do not feel that it is so far fetched to believe that one of those rifles could have been built in the 1790-1810 period in Bucks County.  I'm not talking about something as absurd as a Dickert M-16, I'm talking about a Swivel Breech rifle, that while quite expensive and uncommon, even for that time period, were build with regularity throughout the colonies.  I guess I should call it a fantasy rifle instead of a Bucks County Style Rifle simply because no surviving examples exist.   And I have no problem with that.  More importantly I'd like to say that If I've unintentionally insulted someone or appeared disrespectful in any way I sincerely apologize and I assure you that was not my intention.  I've rather enjoyed the lively banter in regards to the differences of opinion.  If we all thought the same then it would indeed be a dull world! 

Capt. David

[JTR]

Full steam ahead Captain!

I enjoy swivel breech rifles and own a couple of them. It'll be interesting to see how your whatever it's going to be rifle turns out!

Sorry for not realizing that your an old hand here. I saw the low post count, unfamilar name, recent join date and figured you were a new guy.

John

[pushboater]

No problem John, that would be the logical assumption.  I'll be interested in seeing how it turns out myself, especially since I seem to be venturing into uncharted waters so to speak.  I'll try and remember to post updates occasionally as my Fantasy Swivel Breech progresses so that I can continue to rile everyone up with my blasphemous creation.     Take Care!

Capt. David

[Lucky R A]

Pushboater,
      Well, now that we all know where we stand, and you are knowingly going in the direction that you are, all is fine.
       I would like to respond to a couple of things.  You proposed a situation where a broken gun that was originally built in the Berks Co. school was restocked by a gunsmith working in the Bucks Co. style--what would it be?  To the original owner it would be a useful gun...to a collector of today it would be exactly what it is, a crossover i.e. a gun built with features of two different schools, and usually of lesser value than a gun that was true to one school.   As Rich indicated many guns were built between geographic areas of defined architecture and detail, and some makers went their merry way never confining themselves to the gunmaking norms of the area where they worked--I suspect they were the Pushboaters of their day.
       I happen to think that there is so much to be learned by studying every detail of a particular school, and trying to apply it to a gun that is met to represent that school.  Almost all classic Bucks Co. guns were incise carved, so seeing a gun represented as a Bucks Co. gun with a wild raised carved design that does not have one Bucks Co. element in it , ruins an otherwise great effort by the builder.  Likewise not using the correct patchbox opening mechanism or perhaps applying a fancy English Scroll engraving design to the metal removes the gun from the Bucks Co. style and places it somewhere in the crossover category.  It is kind of like saying you are a fly fisherman, but you tip each fly with a bit of garden worm...

[Dave Waters]

Say pushboater, I really admire your effort. It looks really good. Have you already given the specs I.E. calibre, length of bbl's, bbl' size at the breech, e c. It helps me to visualize as you go along. Keep up the good work.

Dave

[pushboater]

Lucky R A
     Thanks Ron, I kinda tend to agree with you on the restocking question as it relates to collectors of today.  A crossover rifle with characteristics of more than one school would indeed not be as valuable today as one that was true to a particular school.  I also believe that there is much to be learned by studying every detail of a particular school, especially if one plans on building a gun that is meant to represent that school.  Believe me Ron when I tell you that If I ever decide to build a Traditional Bucks County style Rifle, you will be the first person I'll look to in order to answer my technical questions.  You'll probably get tired of listening to me.  I've always wanted to build a Classic Andrew Verner style rifle and I can't think of anyone more knowledgeable than someone who has held, examined, and studied what is without a doubt Andrew Verner's finest surviving piece.  And by the way, thank you for the compliment.  At least I took it as a compliment I always have been one to, "Think outside the box".  I guess that's why I became a Mississippi river Pilot.  I never could stand to punch a time clock.  It's so much simpler to wake up, walk upstairs to the pilothouse, sit down with a cup of coffee, and watch the sun come up over the river.  Can't even imagine ever doing anything else.  Thanks again Ron for all your comments.


Dave Waters,
     Good to hear from you Dave!  To answer your questions, I picked up a couple of 36" X 13/16" X .45 cal Green Mountain barrels as called for in your excellent book.  I haven't decided yet whether or not I'm going to swamp them or simply straight taper them to take some of the weight off.  I've heard arguments both ways.  Also, I'm considering having one of the barrels reamed smooth to take a little more weight off and in the process make the gun a little more versatile.  But, I haven't really made that decision yet either.  I any event, I have a ways to go before I'm ready to start working on the barrels.  I'll try and keep you posted as the project progresses.  Being away from home a month at a time tends to slow things down quite a bit, and once I get home I then have to catch up on all of the honey do's first before I can even think about working on MY projects!  I'll continue to try and post photo's here as the project progresses as I am sure that there are people out there who, like me, tend to think outside the box occasionally.  Thanks for your interest.

Capt. David   

[tpr-tru]

Lucky,    I see you adhere to the sign over your office door "engage brain before running fingers on keyboard".