Lock panels again

[hortonstn]

I think I've got the top and bottom of the lock panels but what do you use to shape the rear top of the lock panel to get the concave apperiance,  a round small file?
Thanks

[Mike Brooks]

They aren't concave in that area, unless it is a late gun in some particular school.

[Bob McBride]

No concave.

[Curtis]

Stan, I use a #49 rasp for most of the shaping.  On the rear panels I also use a spokeshave.  Clean up with a half round file.  For the front after shaping with the rasp I use half round files, or sometimes a SHARP gouge for tough areas.  Another tool that cuts smooth is a round float, which  can be made from drill rod.







Curtis

[Dave B]

That is the problem with the photographs they give you the impression that there is  what appears to be gouged out area around the lock. It is an optical illusion dont do it. The area is gently swept up to the final edge of the lock panel. I love that cutting tool that is shown and its helpfulness in getting the shape started but I like to use a scraper for the final shaping of the lock panels to keep the crisp lines. Here is an original that shows what I am talking about. Note the side on photo leave the impression a rat tail file is the tool to use to get the look but now look at the top view and the area leading up to the panel is at about a 45 degree angle blending in into the wrist and forend of the stock, not the tight radius we were thinking our Rat file gives. They may help a bit in the beginning but fail to deliver in the end goal. I like a half round Nicholson #49 cabinet rasp for shaping my lock panels and finish shaping with a scraper.





that last picture makes you want to grab that rat tail file and go to town but as you can see in the top view its not whats happening there.  I know you hear us saying it here over and over but you need to hold originals and get the feel of how they did things. I know i was guilty of this on my early rifles but have changed my ways having seen what they are supposed to look like.

[smart dog]

Hi,
You also have to consider what style and era of guns you are building.  When most locks had tapered, sharp tails the rear of the panel usually had a much more gradual cove or radius than when had rounded ends.  One size does not fit all. 

dave

[hortonstn]

Thanks really appreciate your help

[Eric Krewson]

I didn't understand lock panel shape on my first build and made a mess of them. On all the rest of my builds they are correct. I made a butt ugly gun but it has killed a pile of deer for me.

First gun, gag, gag,gag;

[smart dog]

Hi,
The photos below show forming lock panels for a 1770-80s long rifle  and the tools used.  The radius at the tail is very shallow and is formed mostly with a large half round rasp and half round file




















Now here is my version of a 1780-90s Isaac Haines rifle with much more prominently radiused tail formed using a round-bottomed riffler.





Finally, here is 1810-1820 English rifle with clipped lock.  The more rounded and tightly radiused tail of the panel is cut with a small gouge. 













Much depends on your lock and style objectives.  There is no "one way" to do it.

dave

[Stophel]

I do pretty much all of it with a flat chisel.  Even the concave areas, if any.

Other than Berks county rifles, which often have some degree of concavity around the lock panels, and some of the Bethlehem/Christian's Spring rifles, which sometimes have a little concavity on either side of the breech tang, it's generally pretty flat most of the way around on most flintlock rifle styles, I think.  I see so many people want to take a round file and hog out this horrible little trough all the way around the lock panels...it's so wrong.

[flintlock hunter]

Love that peep sight Dave. I know what I'm going to be doing tomorrow.

[jerrywh]

What ever works but I use gouges and sand paper on a dowel.

[Mike Brooks]

I do pretty much all of it with a flat chisel.  Even the concave areas, if any.

Other than Berks county rifles, which often have some degree of concavity around the lock panels, and some of the Bethlehem/Christian's Spring rifles, which sometimes have a little concavity on either side of the breech tang, it's generally pretty flat most of the way around on most flintlock rifle styles, I think.  I see so many people want to take a round file and hog out this horrible little trough all the way around the lock panels...it's so wrong.

What he said. IMO, most of what I see pictured here isn't quite "historically correct", not that I care one way or the other.

[hortonstn]

The rear section looks pointed how is this done with just a file?

[Mike Brooks]

The rear section looks pointed how is this done with just a file?

Have you read my tutorial lately? You're going to find yourself outside pulling weeds pretty quick....

[jerrywh]

Jacob Dickert wouldn't have thought Malchoir Fordney was historically correct either. That's because he wasn't.   Melchoir didn't care either.  And it goes on till this day. 
 John Brush would not have approved of Jacob Dickert either.   Question. When did the "historically correct" period begin and end??

[rich pierce]

Jacob Dickert wouldn't have thought Malchoir Fordney was historically correct either. That's because he wasn't.   Melchoir didn't care either.  And it goes on till this day. 
 John Brush would not have approved of Jacob Dickert either.   Question. When did the "historically correct" period begin and end??

When an attempt is made to build a rifle after Jacob Dickert 1770-1780 then the architecture, form, furniture, carving and engraving should reflect his work during that period.

If someone is building a rifle based on Melchoir Fordney 1820-1830 work, those sane features should reflect a M Fordney during that period.

And so on whenever someone attempts to make a historically correct anything.

If on the other hand someone wants to do their own thing their way, it’s historically correct for when they build it.

Many rifles are what I’d call “historically inspired.”

[hortonstn]

Thanks I like history inspired and dead accurate

[jerrywh]

About 1/2 of the builders today don't copy anybody else's work. 

[rich pierce]

About 1/2 of the builders today don't copy anybody else's work.

Everybody should build what they like or what sells to their market or both.  Same for buyers. That should not diminish the value of rifles based on originals or those which are artist-inspired. It just irks me when folks claim one area and it doesn’t fit in my mind.

A lot of folks buy guns that the catalogues tell them are historically correct but they often differ quite markedly from any originals. I guess that mass produced so called “Hawken” rifles like Thompson Center and CVA and many others are most egregious examples of that trend.

[Blacksmoke]

TO Rich Pierce:  Amen!

[Pete G.]

About 1/2 of the builders today don't copy anybody else's work.

Thank Goodness for that.

[Stoner creek]

About 1/2 of the builders today don't copy anybody else's work.

.....And the other half are trying to be Herschel.....

[rmnc3r]

As Shapespear asked: "To scoop or not to scoop?, that is the question".

Generic build, not really following any traditional school.

Lock and Side Plate Panels are mostly flat along the front top, as is the Tang/Barrel area, leaving the inevitable triangle of wood at the breech face.

When to go the extra effort (and scoop) and when to leave well enough alone...?

[rich pierce]

Looking goof.  Nice flow.