Early/Late NW Tenn. Mtn Rifles hardware finishes

[bgf]

Whetrock,
That is my favorite iron mounted rifle of all time: I've made 2 based somewhat on it (one with some influences from the brass mounted one in the Aug. 2012 MB article), and I still like it better than any other iron mount, despite my involvement with it !

Interesting note on on the buttplate construction -- that is a distinct possibility, although WG has always given whatever he says quite a bit of thought, and I'd like to hear his take on it; I'm certain he would be interested, and I think he may be revisiting that rifle in the current MB series someday.  The buttplate is pretty thin iron, and the method you describe would be quite easy to implement.  On the buttplate I did based on the iron-mounted GB exclusively, it was really easy to do 2 pieces and get a very smooth joint (even for me) as you said.

GB was somebody who really knew what he was doing.  In addition to the two (or possibly 3) rifles already mentioned, there is a another one, brass-mounted, that is quite spectacular (or so I'm told -- I've only seen the cheek side in a picture and gotten a full description of the rest from an expert).


PS.  Dennis, I go back and forth on that one.  I really don't think it is the same one based on big cosmetic differences, but the more details I look at (as you say it could be an early restock), the harder it is to say with any certainty.  It has a lot of the same "feeling" to it, anyway, in the iron work.  

[whetrock]

Yeah, I hope Mr. Gusler does revisit this rifle in his MB articles. His work is always very thoughtful and detailed, and I always appreciate it greatly. (I hope my comments above didn't come across as arrogant in any way.)

This is one of my favorites, too. I think it is one of the architectural masterpieces among southern iron rifles.

[Vomitus]

  Great stuff gents. Taylor fixed my browning issue.In a year or so you won't be able to tell. Now it looks almost brand new but with my luck,patina happens!  Keep this thread going. I love learning from you guys.

[whetrock]

Hi guys,
I was able to get in touch with my friend. So here is another photo of the butt piece. (I’ve repeated some of my description to go along with the images. Sorry for the redundancy.)

As the pictures show, the extension and crescent pieces are thickest at the center where they meet, and are forged out so that they are come to a fine but vulnerable edge. The toe is also forged out to the same thin dimension.

Note in particular the contrast in surface textures in the joint area. The crescent at point “A” shows a coarse texture (perhaps the result of a break?). [I hope that is visible in the photo. Photobucket cut the resolution way down, so it may not be as clear as I had hoped.]  The extension at “B” shows a smooth upper surface (filed smooth and rounded) but a sharp, irregular lower edge (the result of a break?). In contrast, both the crescent and extension show smooth texture at the corners “C” (filed so as to leave no sharp edges, not broken, never welded). (If you have access to the old Sept 2004 MB article, you may want to revisit the p 37 photo as well, so as to get a different camera angle. The image quality in the MB article obscured a lot of the detail, but the irregular edge at “B” is visible.)





From the angle in this photo you can see the two flat head screws fairly well, and can compare them to the smaller, domed-head screw in the extension. The hole for the screw on the extension has been countersunk. I have not had a chance to examine the rifle again since I made these photos, but it looks like the head of the lower screw sits deeper than does the one at the top. That may be because that lower hole was countersunk (being a mate to the one on the extension), while the other hole is not countersunk (perhaps being a new hole made as part of a repair?). But I’m just guessing here. Without pulling the screws, it would be hard to know. It may just be because the lower screw is pulled down tightly in the thin metal at the toe, causing a dimple in the metal. A dimple is visible in one of the MB photos, and another of my photos, as well.

GB’s work on the trigger guard demonstrates his skill at the forge and anvil (including welding). His work on the box (with a perfectly fitted 9 knuckle hinge) demonstrates his attention to fit and detail in his work. There is nothing “out of place” on this rifle other than the “two-piece joint” in the butt piece and the two ill-fitted flat head screws.

While studying the images, also be sure to have a look at how the butt piece extension is set into the comb, rather than sitting on it or wrapping around it. That detail was also visible in the Muzzle Blast photos, but may have been harder to see because of the camera angle in those photos. Finally, note that, to the extent that the butt piece extension has “flats”, they are very mild with rounded edges. The only part that is truly flat is the area just before and behind the countersunk screw in the extension. (The rod pipes have similar, very mild flats with rounded edges, similar to those on the Bogle rifle.)

I hope you will have a look and comment on the stock, as well. The butt shows some water damage, but you can see the color well enough further up the butt stock.  The iron work shows the “black oily residue” (as Mark Elliot described above), but there is no build up of varnish on the wood (such as I described seeing on some later TN rifles).

[Mark Elliott]

Pete,

Thanks for the additional photos.    I think you have a good theory, but I just don't see the supporting evidence.   If there was a connecting tab,  you should have two nearly connecting and matching breaks.   I don't see that.   Also,  except for the very point of the heel,  the outer surfaces of the butt plate and heel extension are hammered and filed to a fine edge including most of the area where there fit together pretty well.    I just can't figure out how I would make the two pieces connected.   I am not a very experienced blacksmith,  so, that is not conclusive in any way, but I sure have to consider it.    I think what we are looking at is a butt plate and extension that was made the way it is today.   It is just as effective as joined pieces,  it looks good, and it was A LOT easier to make.   I believe the roughness on the very point of the heel was normal where and tear resting the heel on the ground.   I have to make sure I always set my rifles down on a mat to avoid chewing up the heel.   One trip to the range and its concrete slab with an unprotected butt would yield a similarly chewed up heel.   As to the screws,  they probably just got loose over the years and had to be replaced with what was on hand.   

Mark

[bgf]

I tend to agree with Mark Elliot's observations, although you make a very good point about the big flathead screws (esp. the non-sunk one) in the buttplate, and I have wondered about that myslef.  I'm leaning toward it just being wear at that sensitive spot, however. 

Mark makes a good point on the ease of construction -- let the extension in first, file it flush with the butt and then then buttplate fits it pretty perfectly.  Actually the only drawback (if there is one) is having to use two screws in the buttplate.

[whetrock]

Hey Mark and bgf,
Yeah, you guys may be right. I think one big difficulty with my idea is how the thing could have broken in the first place. What kind of stress might have broken it? Would that stress explain the slight offset at the tab? I imagine something like this:



I imagine that reverse bend like this would have deformed the “tab” (the “isthmus” connecting the two pieces), without necessarily messing up the corners.

But it’s just a theory. I don’t have any personal investment in it, so if we need to pitch it I’m okay with it. Photos provide some leisure to the examination, but they don’t allow the option of tilting a thing for better light, etc. I’m quite happy to shelve it, and hope we get to look at it in person before long. Maybe at a future show…

What do you guys think about the stain? The stain on this and the Bogle rifle are a bit lighter than many of the Southern rifles I’ve seen. Is this just AF on a particularly hard piece of maple? Any thoughts on that?

[bgf]

Stain -- I've been wondering if they didn't use butternut hulls to dye stock wood sometimes.  I know they used it for fabrics, and it can have a nice, nearly indelible orange/yellow tint to it (at least that is the effect on my son and his clothes...).  Of course, AF is the academic answer, but I don't see why it is the only answer.  I need to try some butternut hull dye on maple.  

[Mark Elliott]

The Bogle rifle is stocked in a beautiful piece of cherry, naturally aged.    As to "Pete's Rifle" ,  it looks like AF to me.   

[whetrock]

Dennis,
I took a close look at the ironwork on the rifle in your link and compared it to the photos I have of the iron GB rifle we’ve been discussing. There isn’t a lot that looks similar to me.

It would be really good to compare the stamped letters, though. Unfortunately, I don’t have a good image of the stamped letters on the barrel of the iron one I mentioned. The letters are badly worn. From reading W. Gusler’s article on the brass rifle (that’s the Aug 2012 article), it sounds like the letters on that rifle are in much better shape. It would sure be nice if you could compare those two. Perhaps WG has a photo of the letters on that rifle? Maybe even measurements of their size?

I did think that the “roman nose” on the butt piece of your rifle reminded me a lot of the butt piece on the black rifle that someone has attributed to Phillip Sheets of Shepherdstown, VA. I’m talking about the one that was on p 44-45 of the January 2012 CLA American Tradition magazine. (I had a good long look at that rifle at the August show in Lexington. Really fascinating rifle.) At least as viewed from the side, the butt pieces seem to me to have a similar proportion and profile. I don’t mean to suggest that they were made by the same hand, but I wonder if the similarities may reflect a regional relationship.

The pipes on the iron rifle I mentioned and the one in your link are also very different. But the pipes in the one you showed and the ones on the “Sheets” rifle are more similar. Not identical, and no reason to assume they were made by the same hand. But more similar.

The trigger guards on all three are different.

The rifle I mentioned has a pointed tang, as does the one in your photos.
The “Sheets” rifle has a short, square-end tang.

Hope this is of some help.
Whet

[Dennis Glazener]

I did think that the “roman nose” on the butt piece of your rifle reminded me a lot of the butt piece on the black rifle that someone has attributed to Phillip Sheets of Shepherdstown, VA. I’m talking about the one that was on p 44-45 of the January 2012 CLA American Tradition magazine. (I had a good long look at that rifle at the August show in Lexington. Really fascinating rifle.) At least as viewed from the side, the butt pieces seem to me to have a similar proportion and profile. I don’t mean to suggest that they were made by the same hand, but I wonder if the similarities may reflect a regional relationship.

The pipes on the iron rifle I mentioned and the one in your link are also very different. But the pipes in the one you showed and the ones on the “Sheets” rifle are more similar. Not identical, and no reason to assume they were made by the same hand. But more similar.

Some similarities, who knows could have come from the same area, or by someone that worked with Sheets.

I think the buttplate on the iron rifle I mentioned looks very close to the buttplate on the "stepped toe" rifle shown at the top of page 43 of the same book.

Dennis