Author Topic: Building, width at lock panels?? (Read 8778 times)

Bigmon · « **on:** March 03, 2015, 12:46:54 AM »

Am working on a 36 cal with a 13/16" barrel. Inletting the lock, I find that it seems that it would be allot better if the part of the Siler lock where it contacts the barrel, were thicker? And of course the same area of the frizzen above would have to be widened?
I had a great local buil;der that used to widen his locks by soldering a pc of brass or steel to those areas to widen his guns at the lock panel areas.
This gun sure looks like that would help.
Is that due to the slimmer barrel?
I just finished up a rifle that had a 1" or so outside breach dimension. I remember it looked like it need to be widend also, but I did nothing and it turned out ok.
But this is a skinny barrel.
Does anyone have any experience in this and how do you deal with it?
Why are not the locks made thicker in that area?
Seems that if it were a real issue it would be dealt with by the lock makers?
Am I imagining this problem or is it something you guys are dealing with but I never see it mentioned. Not in any books I have or on line that I have seen??
Thanks. I am curious to hear your answers??
Brad

JDK · « **Reply #1 on:** March 03, 2015, 01:15:18 AM »

I just had this conversation with another builder recently.

So, you are not the only one that wishes that the Siler lock had a thicker bolster.

Enjoy, J.D.

flehto · « **Reply #2 on:** March 03, 2015, 01:18:53 AM »

My first LR had a 7/8" straight bbl and I soldered a .040 thick piece of steel shim stock onto the bolster and then filed an angle.....ended up w/ a shim thickness of .010 at the front and .o 040 at the rear. This "kicked" the lock tail out and was matched on the sideplate side. A wider wrist was the result.

The frizzen lip was welded and to prevent annealing of the frizzen, stuck the striking surface of the frizzen in a potato which acted like a heat sink. Still have the rifle and have had no problems.....Fred

Bigmon · « **Reply #3 on:** March 03, 2015, 01:30:32 AM »

Thanks guys, yer right you are not the only one.
Thanks guys for the advice.
Thats what I was thinking, just build the frizzen up with weld, but I was worried about the heat problems.
My friend that I mention has passed away with most of his secrets. What a loss. Mostly of a wonderful guy, but also a talented builder.
Now, you mention "SILER" Locks, but really dont they all have the same problem??
If it is a problem??
Thanks

D. Taylor Sapergia · « **Reply #4 on:** March 03, 2015, 01:52:35 AM »

You're building with a lock that emulates the original longrifle we love so well. But you're not using a traditional barrel. My experience is small, but I have seen and handled originals from several collections, and I've never experienced a 13/16" breech on an original rifle! As a guess, I'd say 15/16" > is more the norm. That's why you've finding the width of the lock and the wrist too narrow. Another issue might be how much of a step you're putting in the wrist behind the lock panel. That transition is subtle - not a huge jump down in size.

little joe · « **Reply #5 on:** March 03, 2015, 01:56:52 AM »

Have widened several Silers and no problems.

sqrldog · « **Reply #6 on:** March 03, 2015, 02:13:45 AM »

This discussion needs someone that has access to original locks of the siler type and period to let us know how thick the bolsters on original locks were back in the day.

D. Taylor Sapergia · « **Reply #7 on:** March 03, 2015, 02:48:38 AM »

Bigmon: check out Eric's rifle in the thread just ahead of this one. That's a 3/4" bbl - 1/16" less than yours and it looks just fine. Superlative, is a better word than 'fine'.

JTR · « **Reply #8 on:** March 03, 2015, 03:02:40 AM »

Quote from: sqrldog on March 03, 2015, 02:13:45 AM

This discussion needs someone that has access to original locks of the siler type and period to let us know how thick the bolsters on original locks were back in the day.

My Bucks County rifle has what could pass for a Siler type. It's an 1800ish gun attributed to George Weiker, original flint from what I can tell.
The lock pictured with it is most of a new large Siler.
The new Siler is about 5 1/4" long, and just behind the pan measures .295". It also measures .295" ahead of the pan, by the frizzen screw.

The Bucks lock is about 5" long, and just behind the pan measures .290/.295". Ahead of the pan, by the frizzen screw it's about .260"
The Bucks barrel measures about 1.090" at the breech.

John

D. Taylor Sapergia · « **Reply #9 on:** March 03, 2015, 03:05:52 AM »

JDK · « **Reply #10 on:** March 03, 2015, 05:57:59 AM »

Current example extant, it would still be nice to have thicker bolsters on more locks.

It's much less troublesome and time consuming to take metal off than it is to add it, especially to the frizzen.

Fred, Thanks for explaining for the OP your method for adding metal to the frizzen. Too many times people post advising to simply add a brass shim to the bolster and leave that part out.

Enjoy, J.D.

blienemann · « **Reply #11 on:** March 03, 2015, 06:48:20 AM »

Old locks I've seen generally have a bolster close to 1/4", some less.
Before swamped barrels (became commonly available), some builders would add a tapered shim to side of barrel under or behind the lock, and did not have to modify the lock. I remember a few done that way, and no problems in shooting them.
Others built up and tapered the lock bolster as described above.
Last I knew, L&R and Larry Zorne, perhaps others were putting wider bolsters on their locks for flexibility with straight or skinny barrels.
Sure is nice to have so many fine barrelmakers - and other suppliers. And all these photos and notes from originals to learn from. Not too many of us get original rifles into the shop to study.

E.vonAschwege · « **Reply #12 on:** March 03, 2015, 11:05:41 PM »

I think your original questions have been answered, but I'll add a couple thoughts. If you grind a SLIGHT taper into the bolster, keep in mind that while it kicks the tail out, it also pulls the nose in. For a Siler style lock, the wood at the lock panels should be at the same level as the beveled edge on the lock - that means you have precious little material to work with as you form the forward end of the lock panel into the lower forestock.

On the 3/4" barreled mountain rifle I just posted, the stock was already inlet for a Chambers classic Ketland, which has roughly the same dimensions as the Siler bolster. I kept it parallel to the barrel, and then made the side panel slightly thicker, allowing for a more normal sized wrist. It can't really be seen except on close inspection, and otherwise tricks the hand and mind into thinking it's a larger gun than it is.
Best,
-Eric

All this said - one of the tools on the "to buy" dream list is a small TIG welder for taking care of these kind of issues and doing restoration work.

Bigmon · « **Reply #13 on:** March 04, 2015, 12:16:27 AM »

Firstly, thanks to all for the great answers. There was allot of brain power expended in this thread.
Thats why I was so happy when I found this forum. I just knew there were gonna be guys with answers.
Maybe it's just the "Look I Like", the guns being wide at the lock area.
But if it isnt correct then its up to me to change my opinion.
But I have seen enough originals to know that some of them "have that look". But not all.
I think the method of filing or grinding to a wedge type shape really makes a pleasing to the eye look. Buyt I would settle for just a little wider at the bolster and straight would be ok..
I also have an L&R Classic here and I compared them. The L&R is only approx 1'16" wider than the Siler.
That seems like not enough to make much differance. But if it were 1/8" that seems too much.I had a Ken Netting Fowler here for 10 years and loved that wide wrist look. But I never noticed any metal added anywhere to it? How on earth does he get that great look in his guns if not adding anything?
The lock was a standard Chambers round faced English lock. The gun was just great.
Again, thanks to all.
Brad

JDK · « **Reply #14 on:** March 04, 2015, 01:31:06 AM »

Likely that fowler had a barrel that was much wider in the breech than what you are working with now.

Being a fowler barrel it was more than likely tapered too. Those two things make a world of difference.

Enjoy, J.D.

Scota4570 · « **Reply #15 on:** March 04, 2015, 02:35:41 AM »

If the barrel is swamped then the back of the lock panels are wider than the front. That makes sense to me because of the taper in the barrel. If the barrel was straight side then the lock would also be parallel to the center line. On original rifles with non tapered barrels, ie. Armsrtongs, did he file the lock to make the rear wider than the front? If so I did not pick up on that in my research.

It is my understanding that wide at rear was an early feature that got less common later. Wouldn't that trend over time track the rise of straight barrels and decline of swamped barrels?

My rifle I am working on uses a 13/16 barrel and a large siler lock. I did not make a spacer. It is a bit thin in the wrist. The mainspring broke into the ramrod channel but not enough to block the ramrod. The spacer might be worth adding if the lock is sinking too deep as you inlet it.

Also the placement of the front lock bolt is problematical with the thin barrel. The bolt ends up too low, unless you want the lock panel with the rear too low and looking cock eyed on the side of the rifle.

I am new to building these rifles, I could be wrong on any thing I wrote above.

Ed Wenger · « **Reply #16 on:** March 04, 2015, 02:37:38 AM »

Brad,

I would second what Taylor said about the breech size and step behind the lock and side panel. If you didn't feel like building up the bolster to make it thicker, you might want to check out a Pete Allen and / or M&G lock. They have a more robust bolster that I think you're looking for.

Ed

Tom Currie · « **Reply #17 on:** March 04, 2015, 02:54:49 AM »

I'll just add that when I started this was an issue for me also and I shimmed a couple of bolsters. As I learned better architecture I tapered some as Eric mentioned and now just use the gentle flare of the barrel to kick the lock out a little bit. I don't think of adding width any more.

While I have used a few A weight barrels swamped barrels, I have never used a 13/16 straight barrel. I think thats the root of the issue.

David R. Pennington · « **Reply #18 on:** March 04, 2015, 03:32:37 AM »

Eric, let me make sure I understand, (by the way that is a very nice rifle). You made the side panel a little thicker than the lock panel? I have done that and also flared the nosecap some on a straight barrel and have had people handle the rifle and ask if it was a swamped barrel. I will face the same situation on the one I am working on, 13/16" x 48" straight barrel.

E.vonAschwege · « **Reply #19 on:** March 04, 2015, 05:30:10 AM »

David - looking from the top down, the wood on the sideplate side of the barrel is about 3/64" or so wider than the wood on the lock side. It's marginal, but it makes a big difference on a tiny 3/4" barrel. You could go as much as 1/16", or a VERY slight taper on the side panels, anything to give you an edge with a little more wood in the wrist.
-Eric

James Wilson Everett · « **Reply #20 on:** March 04, 2015, 09:24:23 AM »

Guys,

Here is an older discussion on this subject. Check it out at:

http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=26443.msg252345#msg252345

Jim,
Wakiso, Uganda

Bigmon · « **Reply #21 on:** March 04, 2015, 08:00:18 PM »

Just like to say thanks to you all for the interesting answers. For taking your time to answer a question fer a novice like me.
But especially a big thanks for those responsable for this great web site. What a pleasure to be able to discuss what is really a very limited item of interest for most of the folks.
Yet here we can all unit and share wisdom.
Thanks to all.
BTW, I did add a pc of brass to my lock plate. I think its gonna help.
Not sure yet if I'll sloder brass to the frizzen or wekd it thicker?
Am leaning toward the weld.
Anything more I should know before I stick it in an old tater??
How did you attach the ground??
Thanks

Bigmon · « **Reply #22 on:** March 05, 2015, 11:09:41 PM »

Hi guys,
Have successfully added a brass shim soldered to the lock bolster. It is between 3/32" and 1/8". By the time I clean it up and maybe taper it, or just remore a little it will be slightly less. My point is that it went pretty easy. Just straight forward hack saw and file, fit solder and file to match.
The frizzen is another matter. I used the big old tater suggestion and began to build it up with my wire feed welder. Just a little at a time. Never went real long. Between welding I ran it on a wire wheel to be sure it was clean for the next weld.
I built it up enough I think and started working it down with my dremel and files.
Couldnt wait to see if it would still spark. I git it close enough to put the lock together and BEHOLD!! It still sparks.
Now I'll just make it a nice neat matching fit.
I know I could have soldered a matching brass shim like my late friend used to do. But I alsways wondered about that small little pc of brass coming free from the frizzen. That wont happen here now.
Also, if it seems not to spark like it should, I should be able to re harden the frizzen.
I find this very interested, experimenting like this.
Thanks so much for all the advice, suggestions, etc.
Great web site

News:

Author Topic: Building, width at lock panels?? (Read 8778 times)