Standing proud or inlet

[moleeyes36]

Looking at the very nice work in progress guns by Acer and flehto shown in the current thread "What's on your workbench" reminds me of something that's always puzzled me.  I notice that on both of the guns the side plate appears to be either standing proud from the wood or is just slightly inlet.  I can't tell which by looking at the pictures.  Both these side plates have beveled or sloping edges so deep inletting wouldn't work, but I've seen other guns having side plates with straight edges where the side plate is inlet quite deeply.  Deeply enough in fact that the face of the plate is level with the wood.  To some extent the same thing applies to trigger guards. 

I've always inlet these things at least to some degree.  In looking at pictures of original rifles in books, it's hard to tell in many cases if these items are standing proud or slightly inlet.  Am I wrong in inletting these items?

[E.vonAschwege]

Good question to ask!   

Sideplates vary between schools, but in general they have a bevel filed half to 2/3 the way down the edge, and are inlet part depth to the line of that bevel.  Exceptions are in certain styles where the sideplate has no bevel and is inlet full depth to be flush with the surrounding wood.  In studying original guns, my observations have been that sideplates were traditionally somewhat thin material.  Today's cast brass sideplates today are sometimes over 1/8" thick, so there's some leeway for how much of a bevel to file on the piece - there's certainly no need to inlet something that thick to full depth. 

Triggerguards are similar, again depending on the school of rifle - some have thick bevels and stand quite proud, while others are almost just slightly convex and are inlet nearly flush with the forestock.  Keep looking at original rifles and well-made contemporary pieces and you'll start to see a pattern develop between those schools of rifle. 
-Eric

[moleeyes36]

Eric, thanks for the information.  I'm most partial to Bucks County and Lehigh rifles and have been doing some research on them.  I've spent a lot of time studying the pictures of the Lehigh rifles on your website and the Bucks County guns on Ron Luckenbill's website.  Ron has also sent me a lot of detailed pictures of original Bucks County rifles and some very helpful "how to" emails.  He's been trying to help me stay out of trouble as I'm building the Bucks County rifle.  I sure hope he succeeds     

After that I want to tackle a Lehigh Pistol.  I really appreciate the emails you've sent me on them and I'll be at the head of the line to buy one of your plans for a Lehigh Pistol as soon as they're available.  Thanks again.

[Mark Elliott]

As Eric indicated,  there can be a good bit of variation, and you should always use your original reference firearm to answer these sorts of questions.   That said,  there is a general trend in the amount of sideplate, or trigger guard for that matter, that stands proud of the wood in that early rifles tended to have the most side plate showing and the late flint and percussion guns the least.   It is sometimes hard to tell given wood shrinkage over time, particularly,  if the side plate is sitting up just a bit.    In that case, you might compare with the patchbox or nose piece.    I should also note that the angle of the bevel can change over time and between schools.   Generally, this is more of an issue with the side plates with the most metal showing. 

[necchi]

Shouldn't a person keep in mind the overall size of the rifle at the lock panels and the purpose of the side plate.
Back to the basics of plate size and thickness itself,
The object of the side plate is to add strength to the area that's had the most wood removed as well as support for the lock screws,, and decretive.
Kind of a multi function important piece of a rifle.

Now if it's a small slender rifle it wouldn't make a lot of sense to remove a lot more wood for the side plate, where as larger rifles could afford the wood loss to set a plate deeper,
 
Point is ya gotta consider function as well as form,,

[Mark Elliott]

Shouldn't a person keep in mind the overall size of the rifle at the lock panels and the purpose of the side plate.
Back to the basics of plate size and thickness itself,
The object of the side plate is to add strength to the area that's had the most wood removed as well as support for the lock screws,, and decretive.
Kind of a multi function important piece of a rifle.

Now if it's a small slender rifle it wouldn't make a lot of sense to remove a lot more wood for the side plate, where as larger rifles could afford the wood loss to set a plate deeper,
 
Point is ya gotta consider function as well as form,,

Maybe someone else has seen them inlet deep, but I have never seem one inlet very deep at all.  I inlet all mine about 1/16" deep.   Only the total thickness changes from 1/16" to 1/8" for ones that I make.   For the kinds of guns I make,  the thinnest, lightest guns also have the thinnest sideplates or just washers in some cases.   I guess the combination of a two screw sideplate and lock would add strength around the critical breach area;  but the guns with the heaviest barrels I know, southern mountain rifles,  often only had one washer for one screw into the lock plate.   That doesn't strengthen anything.    I am anxious to see what others say.

[moleeyes36]

http://jamesdjulia.com/item/lot-1496-pair-of-philadelphia-jacob-kunz-1780-1876-signed-flintlock-pistols-48258/

While not rifles, these Jacob Kunz pistols have deeply inlet side plates.  I don't know if his rifles had them also.

[E.vonAschwege]

Those Kuntz pistols have flush inlet plates, probably no thicker than 1/16" thick.  Some of his rifles did in fact have flush inlet sideplates, while others have bevels.  Kuntz's work straddles a couple "styles" over his lifetime, learning his trade in the Lehigh area, then moving his shop to Philadelphia in 1810.

It's not a firm rule, but later Flint guns tended towards flush inlet sideplates as well.