Lehigh/Rupp type stock shootability

[mbatten]

Hello:

For my next build, I'm considering a rifle built along the lines of a Herman Rupp longrifle in the Lehigh Valley school. The slim graceful curves of the stock appeal to me, but with that extreme drop at the heel, how 'shootable' is such a gun? Anyone have any experience or comments to share?

Thanks!

MB on Vancouver Island

[M. E. Pering]

Mbatten… All rifles I make usually have at least 3.5" drop.  I have not yet made a Rupp or Lehigh Valley, instead, most of mine are York county style.  The only reason for this is I find heavier drop is more comfortable for off-hand shooting, which is what I do when hunting.  Also, the heavier drop brings the sights to my eyes almost instantaneously.  Much easier than bending and contorting to line up the sites.  There is a good reason to incorporate drop and cast-off in your rifle... Because it feel good.  One of the beauties of a custom muzzleloader is that it can be made to fit the person, instead of the mass manufactured $#@* that you can buy at the local hardware store. 

That being said, I am usually also building a 50 caliber or less, and thus there is not much recoil.  If I were to build a bigger bore, say a .62, I might reduce my drop and cast-off a bit, depending on the grain of the wood.  But if you are building a little .36 or .40, I would incorporate as much drop and cast as you want.  Just my opinion.

Matt

[Stophel]

Actually, it shouldn't have an "extreme drop" at the heel.  The combs have relatively little curvature to them, and most of that is curving down behind where the face goes.  Most "reproductions" have grossly exaggerated curved combs and WAY too much drop (granted, some original, mostly later, guns are kinda like this, but the best ones aren't).  Really look at the 1793 Rupp gun.  There really ain't that much drop in the butt or curve in the comb.  If it's done right, it's quite nice.

Probably the most difficult part is the wrist.  The wrists are nearly straight back, with very little downturn.  FAR less than most "reproductions" have.  Again, really look at the 1793 Rupp gun.  These can be hand twisters, and may take some getting used to.  Your thumb can come close to obscuring the sights.  It shouldn't, but it can be distracting until you get used to it.

They are unusual, and honestly, I would not recommend anyone attempt to make one unless you have studied them... A LOT.   

[alacran]

There is no problem with having a lot of drop at the heel as long as you have suitable amount of drop at the comb. I like 3 to 31/2 inches of drop at the heel and is what I put on my .54 Hawken. I am no Lehigh expert but it seems to me that you are going to get a thumb up your nose if you shoot one with a heavy caliber.
The less parallel to the barrel that the comb of the butt is. The more felt recoil you are going to have.
The reverse of that, is why English guns and some Jeagers are so pleasant to shoot.

[Mike Lyons]

It really depends on what you want to use it for.  I followed a lot of expert advice, held some of the finest Lehigh’s and had a lot of original pictures.  In my opinion,  they are not the best bench rifles but are fine hunting rifles.  I can pull my Lehigh up and it’s dead on every time.  On a bench,  it’s not as comfortable as my Lancaster.  I can get a nice mold on the Lancaster.  The Lehigh is a little more difficult to get a great mold and if you lean over on it too much,  it will jolt your cheek.  I’m still considering another smaller caliber Lehigh just because they are so beautiful and they do make a good hunting gun.  Mine is a 50 and if I were to do another,  it would be a 36 or 40. Take the advice about the comb. I nearly finished mine with more of a Roman nose before holding a couple rifles at the CLA show. I came home and took a bunch off.  I still should have taken more off. 

[RichG]

I made a Lehigh barn gun in 54. Wanted to be able to hunt elk with it. wouldn't build another in anything larger than 50. The straight wrist puts your nose and thumb in close proximaty and can be a problem with recoil; also if wearing gloves I have to adjust my hold or the glove obscure the sight. All that being said, they're beautiful guns.

[Mike Brooks]

I built one recently. has close to 4" drop at the heel and about 1 3/8" at the comb. It has 1 1/2" drop where my cheek hits the comb. I have a 44" B weight .50 barrel in it. Also a shortish pull at 13 1/8". weighs 7 1/2 lbs. also cast off helps a lot, I put in 1/8", could have went more. It holds dead steady and is comfortable to shoot. Architecture on these is extremely difficult unless you have handled a lot of originals or built a lot of them.

 Although this gun handles well for me my ideal hunting gun is English style, 2 1/2" at the heal, 1 1/2" at the comb and 13 3/4" pull with 1/8" cast off.

[smallpatch]

I don't know of any precarves that are right.  Not enough drop at the comb, too much curve from comb to butt.  One in particular that I've seen, will challenge you to even see the sights.
Like Mr Brooks said..... look at the 1793 Herman Rupp.  I'm shooting a 54 in my Martin, and could easily shoot a 58 or 62.
A bit more drop in the wrist, and a little less curve to the butt.
AND there just isn't a prettier shape anywhere in the gun world.
Strictly my opinion of course.

[Daryl]

What about a Jacob Kuntz rifle? The one Taylor built from 2 in the NewYork Musium of zNatural History is a great shooting rifle. The gun won several ribbons at Dixon's. I don't have access to the pictures right now.

[moleeyes36]

Eric Von Aschwege has a nice set of plans available for a Herman Rupp rifle:  http://www.vonaschwegeflintlocks.com/plans.html  For what it's worth, that rifle has a 4" drop at the heel.

Mole Eyes

[Eric Kettenburg]

As Afghanvet noted above, they kind of suck to bench shoot, but I don't think that's how they were being used nor how anyone now would really want to use them.  I've never had a problem offhand, although I have shouldered some pieces over the years - both original and new made - that had less drop and high combs, and I was unable to get down on low sights.  High sights could address such an issue but they look hideous on such a piece.  Also, I have to say that trying to view all Lehigh/Northampton pieces as being essentially similar is a real mistake.  Most people tend to look at the two signed Rupp rifles, and a couple unsigned, which are great but are their own thing.  There are earlier Moll rifles which are more along the lines of the architecture of Mike's rifle (above) which I personally find more appealing and more substantial.  More step, straighter comb, larger stock.  Also more pleasant to shoot.  Neihart's rifles are again different, being as he favored a much longer and lower cheek on the majority of his work, and again this architecture affects offhand hold, cheek weld etc.  I do find my thumb very close to my nose on many but conversely I've not found it to be a problem, just different.  I've never thumbed my nostrils!

[Greg Pennell]

Wow, I ain’t seen a shiner like that since the last time my buddy crawled up the stock on his scope sighted Model 70 .300 Mag!  That’s a beaut!

Greg

[Eric Kettenburg]

Well I want to see the other guy!!!   

[sz]

Hi Guys.
I don't post often here because #1 I am quite busy and #2 I am very ignorant of most "computer things" and the "cyber world"  So I often can't figure out what's going on.

But making stocks from scratch ( often metal parts too) is what I do for a living and what I have done for most of my time since I was a teen-ager, not counting military time. I have about 1/2 a century doing this.  So I thought I'd jump in here with one vital comment.

Stock style and stock fit have nothing at all to do with each other. They relate to each other the way car color and engine power do.  That is...........not at all.

If you make a stock to fit your length of pull, your drop at comb, your drop at heel and drop at toe as well as your cast-off and pitch (if needed) your stock will fit and be easy to shoot no matter what style you follow.

The only thing I know of that is a problem with some styles is butt-plate styles.

As an example, if you were making a Hawken style in 84 caliber (8 bore)  it's going to kick hard, and nothing you can do within the styling of a Hawken is going to help.  Same thing is true with any of the super-curved Tennessee or Ohio style rifle butt-plates.  They should not be made in calibers that powerful if you want to stay within the style.  That's just simple physics.

But stock fit is not an issue on any of them if you just make the stock to fit your body.

[Randall Steffy]

If you make a stock to fit your length of pull, your drop at comb, your drop at heel and drop at toe as well as your cast-off and pitch (if needed) your stock will fit and be easy to shoot no matter what style you follow.

Would it be true that given this desirable fit, you would have ruled out certain styles as they could not be achieved within these desirable parameters? Just asking. You do make it sound simple but somehow I think the stock would tend to look primarily like one certain style.

[sz]

Randall, the limiting factor here is what butt plate is available. If you are able or willing to modify or make a plate to fit the correct measurements you can make about any style of rifle fit anyone you want to. 

 If a stock gets longer and the shape of it must be followed to stay within a style, but the butt plate would then get taller and wider because all butt-stocks are effectively some sort of elongated triangle in shape.

 So to answer your question directly, No, I have never been asked to make any style of gun in 35 years that I could not make fit the customer.

 One thing to remember is that any old rifle can be copied but it may not fit you.  Some are going to have longer or shorter LOPs and also differing drops and cast off.  A parallelism would be if we were to make an exact  copy of George Washington's coat it would fit a man of the same size and measurements as George Washington, but if you wanted to make one in the same style as his, you could make one fit a 5 year old girl or anyone you like.  Same with rifle stocks.

Style must not be confused with measurements. But any style can be made to fit any shooter.

If you were to gather up 12 different JB Beck originals, 12 Peter Barry originals and 12  Rupp originals you may very well come up with 36 different sets of stock measurements.  All of their rifles were hand made so it's likely no 2 were exactly the same.  Yet you could pick out which rifles were made by each old master without any problem at all by his style.   They all has a style they worked within.  It's the same today.

A rifle, when done correctly is a synthesis of all it's parts, which is why it is not desirable to make extreme changes in caliber for the sake of recoil, but that is really not the issue here. Originals with curved narrow butts were not made in "elephant calibers" for the same reason we would not make one that way today.

 I made a 62 cal rifle for a giveaway at the Western National Rendezvous in 98 (I think)  in the Rupp style and it was not made for a specific man because it was to be raffled off, yet for all it's bore size the rifle was quite  nice to shoot.  I zeroed it for 75 yards with 125 grains of powder if I recall correctly, and it was spot on.  The wide butt took the recoil well and it was not at all unpleasant to fire. 
Here are some (lousy) pictures of it.  I am not a good photographer.
Rupp 99 2 by Steve Zihn, on Flickr
Rupp 99 3 by Steve Zihn, on Flickr
Rupp 99 bottom by Steve Zihn, on Flickr
Rupp 99 wrist by Steve Zihn, on Flickr
Rupp 99 by Steve Zihn, on Flickr

So I believe caliber is a factor to be considered with some rifles with very dished and narrow butt plates, but the Lehigh County style is not hard to make easy to shoot comfortably.
Stock FIT cannot overcome recoil but can help to manage it quite a lot.  But the narrower and more dished the butt plate--- the more of a challenge this becomes.

[Craig Wilcox]

Great work on that Rupp-style rifle, Steve.  You and Mike Brooks have given me a bit of inspiration.  Being my first flintlock, after many cartridge rifles, I have already determined that a "duplicate" of Rupp's masterpiece is beyond my capabilities at present - but I will make it a "Wilcox" rifle for sure!
Believe you are right about making it to fit the shooter.  Mine does put my eye right behind the sights when mounting it, and the pull length of 13 1/8" fits me also.
Many thanks to both of you.

[J.E. Moore]

I know I worked the buttplate on mine to fit  my shoulder, the butt and cheek piece to fit my face and the wrist for my hand along with the distance to the trigger for just the tip to touch it without any strain. I can hold my rifle pick out a.spot, close my eyes and shoulder it to draw a bead on the spot, open my eyes and it's dead on most of the time. I do believe that the extra time and effort was worth the end product.           

I should have mentioned that the one I'm talking about isn't a Lehigh/Rupp style stock. It's more like along a Dickert style buttstock. Just referring to the custom fitting making a world of difference.

[Stophel]

I disagree that any style can be made to fit any shooter.  If that were so, I could shoot Bedford rifles.  Actually, most post-Revolutionary guns are no good for me at all!

You don't have to have a buttplate, make a barn gun.    I've been working on this one for only about 8 or 9 years now....

[mbatten]

Thank you to one and all for the comments and photos about Lehigh rifles.

For me, part of the appeal with the process of building a rifle is the study, research, and sharing of information about these beautiful objects. One needs to take time to for plenty of careful consideration of all the details and subtleties involved before taking the plunge into a new project.

All the best to all of you for 2019!

M Batten
BC, Canada 

[Mike Brooks]

Thank you to one and all for the comments and photos about Lehigh rifles.

For me, part of the appeal with the process of building a rifle is the study, research, and sharing of information about these beautiful objects. One needs to take time to for plenty of careful consideration of all the details and subtleties involved before taking the plunge into a new project.

All the best to all of you for 2019!

M Batten
BC, Canada

I experiment with styles till I'm satisfied with them. I just started another Lehigh this week, experimenting with less drop than last time plus more cast off. Also I'll be doing a complicated wrist carving I haven't done before. I never get anything right the first time....I've built 360+ now and ain't a one of them as right as i'd like yet. Need more practice.

[smallpatch]

Mbatten,
You possess a rare philosophy, that most beginning builders just don't have.  The I wanna build a gun right now attitude is responsible for a whole bunch of sad guns that don't resemble ANY originals, and a very frustrated owner as well.
Thanks for reminding us!

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

I believe the 'trick', if there is one, to a rifle that is comfortable to shoot, is in the dimensions of the butt stock architecture.  That's a bit of an obvious statement but let me suggest that the drop at the comb is critical.  Without sufficient drop at the comb, the stock is going to rise and come back on recoil and contact your cheek bone.  But in addition, the pitch of the butt plate has a lot to do with this as well.  The Tulle trade gun, at least some of the commercial offerings, is a good example of too much pitch and not enough comb drop.  As a result, the butt rides up your shoulder while the comb comes straight back, and your cheek wears it.  It doesn't help, as in the Tulle example, if the gun is a big bore like 20 gauge.
How much drop is right?  I'll throw out some numbers but of course it depends upon your body shape.  For me, anything less than 1 3/8" drop at the comb gives me grief.  I use that dimension on a lot of my rifles, no matter what school they represent.  At the same time, too much drop prevents a nice cheek 'weld'.  What a poor word for the condition!  That suggests you should have your face smashed hard into the wood BEFORE the shot.  I like my face to feel the stock but that's all.

I post these images of my favourite trail rifle, my Jacob Kuntz .40 cal B weight 44" at 8.5 pounds.  My load is 65 gr. FFFg GOEX.  It seems to fit everyone well.  A Lehigh/Rupp rifle doesn't have to be a bruiser.

[Mike Lyons]

I believe the 'trick', if there is one, to a rifle that is comfortable to shoot, is in the dimensions of the butt stock architecture.  That's a bit of an obvious statement but let me suggest that the drop at the comb is critical.  Without sufficient drop at the comb, the stock is going to rise and come back on recoil and contact your cheek bone.  But in addition, the pitch of the butt plate has a lot to do with this as well.  The Tulle trade gun, at least some of the commercial offerings, is a good example of too much pitch and not enough comb drop.  As a result, the butt rides up your shoulder while the comb comes straight back, and your cheek wears it.  It doesn't help, as in the Tulle example, if the gun is a big bore like 20 gauge.
How much drop is right?  I'll throw out some numbers but of course it depends upon your body shape.  For me, anything less than 1 3/8" drop at the comb gives me grief.  I use that dimension on a lot of my rifles, no matter what school they represent.  At the same time, too much drop prevents a nice cheek 'weld'.  What a poor word for the condition!  That suggests you should have your face smashed hard into the wood BEFORE the shot.  I like my face to feel the stock but that's all.

I post these images of my favourite trail rifle, my Jacob Kuntz .40 cal B weight 44" at 8.5 pounds.  My load is 65 gr. FFFg GOEX.  It seems to fit everyone well.  A Lehigh/Rupp rifle doesn't have to be a bruiser.

Man that is a beautiful rifle. 

[Mike Brooks]

Just a "trail" rifle, nothing to get excited about......