Need some counsel on .54 Cal Lancaster under construction.

[Jerry V Lape]

Peter Alexander advocated that the side plate panel should be parallel to the bore and suggest the side plate wood be thinner than the lock panel.  He shows thicknesses measured from originals from .140" to .225" for that wood.  The gun I am working on requires .235 to deal with the lock bolster thickness and the side plate panel is .280" at the moment.  Before I proceed on the side plate panel I would appreciate hearing from others on this area.  The barrel is 1 1/16th at the breech if that matters.  It will help the transition from the tang to the panel to be thinner. 

[Blacksmoke]

Both , the lock panel and the side plate panel are wider across tail of the panel the nose of the panel.  Parallel to the bore is miss guided advice - even if it is a straight barrel.  1/16" breech on a swamped or tapered barrel should give you a good taper on both panels.     Hugh Toenjes

[Jerry V Lape]

What about the thickness of the side plate panel.  Is Alexander correct about less than the lock side panel ?

[Stophel]

As a general rule, they should be the same on both sides.  And flared out at the rear (with 19th century exceptions, where they are backwards... frankly, not an attractive feature, but that's how they did it).

On some guns, with thick/flared breeches, the lock side of the breech end of the barrel would be filed down, reducing the flare, and getting the flash pan closer to the main charge.  The opposite side of the barrel was left alone.  Now, the sideplate panel would be the same as the lock panel in relation to the centerline of the barrel, but it would appear wider at the front, narrower at the rear, because the barrel was not filed down on that side.

 

[kaintuck]

Jerry, IMHO, it's eye appeal, each rifle has dimensions that are "bent" to make the build look slimmer, or fatter, or round in places......unless your copy IS a copy, those panels will flow with the barrel....

And the beaver tails will flow back down the wrist cylinder.....so to me, the tails are the break point.....but I am a individualist around here, and I build for fun......and I listen to my workshop kat, I might get it right in another 20 yrs........

Marc n tomtom

[Bob Roller]

Both , the lock panel and the side plate panel are wider across tail of the panel the nose of the panel.  Parallel to the bore is miss guided advice - even if it is a straight barrel.  1/16" breech on a swamped or tapered barrel should give you a good taper on both panels.     Hugh Toenjes

The Bailes/Manton locks I made for Helmut Mohr's pistol project used cast plates,cocks and frizzens and the
plate had a pronounced taper to the bolster that I milled off for the use on pistols.

Bob Roller

[smart dog]

Hi Jerry,
Let your taste and feel with respect to the wrist dimensions be your guide.  I would initially say that >1/4" thickness from the barrel is a lot, although my latest gun using the big bulky Davis Colonial American lock was just under that.  I filed a bit off the bolster and frizzen of that lock to make it thinner.  With respect to being parallel with the bore, that really varies.  I've seen some American rifles with a distinct and attractive flair in the panels and others that were roughly parallel.  Thinner, parallel sides do make it easier to merge the top of the stock by the breech with the barrel flats. Until late in the century, lock and side panels were almost always parallel on 18th century British guns.  The side plate panel wall thickness actually gets thinner as the breech flares.

dave

[P.W.Berkuta]

Jerry - I think it depends on the thickness of your side plate. After your lock is inlet take a measurement - transfer that measurement to the side plate side - measure your side plate and reduce your wood on the side plate side (depending how much you want the side plate to stand proud of the wood) to correspond to the lock plate measurement for a symmetrical look - if that's the look you want.  My two cents .

[rich pierce]

There is a lot of variation on originals. To me wrist dimensions are important. Cast off can also affect shaping on both sides. You just have to decide where the cast off will start.

[davebozell]

I really enjoy these "architecture" threads.  Too bad we can't put all these threads together somewhere for easy reference.  Thanks to everyone who contributes to them.

[Dave B]

With a heavy breach the flattening of the area where the lock bolster goes was common. Here are two examples for this. The first is a germanic pistol. The second is a Germanic style fowler with a monster breach being 1 5/16" Note that the barrel at the bolster has a bit of a Wow in it where they flatened the area for the lock. The side panel is also slightly different in thickness as well. The third is an english fowler and you can see the side of the lock is reduced vs the side plate side of the barrel breach.

[jerrywh]

 Believe me when I tell you that a lot of originals are not built very well. It is my opinion that one should pattern his ideas after the very best and strive for beauty.  My personal opinion is that both lock panels should be of equal thickness to achieve that.  I believe like Blacksmoke and Bob Roller that the panels should be wider at the rear than the front.  The builders of the past were not that much different than those of today in that there were some very good a lot average and some very poor at what they did. It is easy to find some poor example of the past to justify poor  work today.  The very best guns have the taper to the lock panels and equal lock panels.  
   PS. Writing a book doesn't make you infallible either. It makes you an author.  

[BOB HILL]

Believe me when I tell you that a lot of originals are not built very well. It is my opinion that one should pattern his ideas after the very best and strive for beauty.  My personal opinion is that both lock panels should be of equal thickness to achieve that.  I believe like Blacksmoke and Bob Roller that the panels should be wider at the rear than the front.  The builders of the past were not that much different than those of today in that there were some very good a lot average and some very poor at what they did. It is easy to find some poor example of the past to justify poor  work today.  The very best guns have the taper to the lock panels and equal lock panels. 
   PS. Writing a book doesn't make you infallible either. It makes you an author. 

.           AMEN.       Bob

[smart dog]

Hi Jerry V,
On long rifles, I prefer to let the side panels flair in concert with the flair of the barrel at the breech.  I don't accentuate it, just let it flow naturally from the barrel and I keep the two sides about equal.  With big barrels, that tends to make it difficult to conform the top of the stock at the breech with the barrel flats but that is OK in my book for long rifles.  On English guns I keep the panels parallel even if that means the side plate panel thins as the barrel flares.  I do that because it is very difficult to reproduce the styling of early to mid 18th century British sporting guns without doing so.  I've seen a number of contemporary "English" sporting guns that kind of look like Lancaster long rifles at the breech with heavy flaired lock panels melded to a pared down Brown Bess butt stock.   They don't quite capture the style.

dave     

[Bob Roller]

Believe me when I tell you that a lot of originals are not built very well. It is my opinion that one should pattern his ideas after the very best and strive for beauty.  My personal opinion is that both lock panels should be of equal thickness to achieve that.  I believe like Blacksmoke and Bob Roller that the panels should be wider at the rear than the front.  The builders of the past were not that much different than those of today in that there were some very good a lot average and some very poor at what they did. It is easy to find some poor example of the past to justify poor  work today.  The very best guns have the taper to the lock panels and equal lock panels. 
   PS. Writing a book doesn't make you infallible either. It makes you an author. 

.           AMEN.       Bob

I have no personal preference about lock panels.I have seen fine English long range muzzle loaders with a slight taper to the rear and earlier guns with a pronounced outward rear flare.The Bailes lock I mentioned
as cast will produce a pronounced rear outward flare if the bolster is not milled or filed to parallel. I removed all of it on the locks I sent to  Germany for target pistols.Les Barber has the moulds I used for this project and they produced the plate,cock and frizzen. I used a proprietary frizzen spring and top jaw bought fro Jerry Devaudreuil in Wooster Ohio.Les Barber works with Larry Zornes at the M&G shop and does assembly work for R.E.Davis and maybe others.The moulds as far as I know are not for sale but Les may be able to furnish parts from them.

Bob Roller

[Long John]

Jerry,

Along with all of the other advice you have received consider this, please.  When studying original guns keep in mind that the wood in those guns is  OLD.  Wood compresses when placed under a compression force over time.  So the relative position of lock-plates and side-plates will slowly change over time due to the compressive force supplied by the lock bolts (nails).  Consequently, lock/side-plate flats that were tapered when built might now be far less so due to the asymmetric compression forces applied by the lock bolts, especially when you have a non-compressible barrel in there.

So I have to agree with some of the more skilled makers who have responded to your post.  I build my guns with a slight flare toward the butt for the lock flats.  Both are generally the same width although I have been guilty of making the side-plate flat a tad thicker just to get a little more wood where the stock is so weak due to all the inletting.  I think guns look better with a gentle flare towards the butt.  I try to keep in mind that the gun I am building is more than a tool.  It is a piece of art - functional sculpture.  So I make the lock flats flare to the aft and the muzzle-cap flares just a bit to accentuate the swamp of the barrel.  I like them that way and so that's how I build them.  Cookbooks are great, but I NEVER follow the recipe exactly and rarely measure ingredients with much precision - just toss some in. 

Of course, I'm told you should never ask a skinny guy to do the cooking!

Best Regards,

John Cholin

[Jerry V Lape]

Great discussion - just what I needed.  The side lock panel is now the same thickness as the lock panel and both have a bit of flare about parallel to the swamp on the barrel.  Looks good to me and I like that the wood is a little thicker than discussed by Alexander as a little strength in that part of the rifle is a good thing.  Well along on forend and forestock shaping now.