Author Topic: Stock quality, from a purely practical view?  (Read 2629 times)

tennjed

  • Guest
Stock quality, from a purely practical view?
« on: December 31, 2020, 04:07:19 PM »
It is easy to see the blessing of the higher rated stocks/blanks from a visual point of view. Is the money spent for the higher quality/rated wood going toward purely aesthetic purpose?, or, does it also bring greater strength and workablity? I am not real concerned with beauty as I figure I am going to mess up, alot, on my first build; but I do want to make sure I am not giving up important physical attributes when I make a choice to go with base or #2 quality stock.

Thanks,

Wayne

Offline Pukka Bundook

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3469
Re: Stock quality, from a purely practical view?
« Reply #1 on: December 31, 2020, 05:15:46 PM »
Wayne,

You want decent quality wood. Does not have to be fancy, but some cheap wood is pretty dead stuff.  ...brittle and such.
My Bro -in -Law bought two cheap blanks, one fell over half finished and broke in two. that wood was as dead as mutton.  No give at all.

Offline RMann

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
Re: Stock quality, from a purely practical view?
« Reply #2 on: December 31, 2020, 06:33:36 PM »
I'm new to gun building, but an experienced woodworker, so I will share my perspective.  Others here may steer both of us better, though....  In general, the figure we all love, doesn't add strength.  And workability wise, only adds difficulty.  But in skillful, practiced hands, ascetically it is well worth the challenge, and that is why the masters used it, and still do today.  Highly figured wood is used in spite of the difficulties.  In my first rifle, I was seduced by the beautiful figure, but not qualified, skill wise, to do the wood justice. So I think you are wise to go with a #2.  A little figure will come through to surprise you, but the consistent, even grain is more fitting for the beginner or even intermediate. Plus it is less intimidating to lay tool to wood.  Just buy from one of the reputable suppliers recommended here, that assure reasonable grain flow through the wrist, and you will be fine.  If possible, it sure is good to see and handle the blank you choose.  My first two rifles are red maple, but adequately dense.  Walnut varies so much, from area to area, and I would select that carefully as well. 
         I have a question here also, that I think is still on topic.  There are some Amish mills in my area of Ohio, that I have used over the years.  They have nice but plain sugar maple in adequate thickness, readily available at a good price.  It is all kiln dryed though, and I understand that that is not as favorable as a long, air dried process.  But I think it would still be fine, as long as I select and lay out the wood with a view to wrist strength.  Any insight here?

Offline rich pierce

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19523
Re: Stock quality, from a purely practical view?
« Reply #3 on: December 31, 2020, 06:41:01 PM »
Probably 95% of blanks used today are kiln dried. Unless something went drastically wrong there should be little to no difference in strength between sit dried and kiln dried wood.

Most wrist failures that occur from falling with gun in hand are due to bad grain flow in the wrist. This comes from trying to get 2 overlapping gunstocks (head to toe) from a narrow plank.
Andover, Vermont

Offline David Rase

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4320
  • If we need it here, make it here. Charlie Daniels
Re: Stock quality, from a purely practical view?
« Reply #4 on: December 31, 2020, 07:19:13 PM »
A slab sawn stock will give you much more strength, especially through the wrist, than a quarter sawn stock.  Plain hard wood is much more user friendly than highly figured wood.  Work on getting your architecture right and the true beauty will show through.   No amount of figure or embellishments can hide poorly executed stock architecture.
David

Offline WadePatton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
  • Tennessee
Re: Stock quality, from a purely practical view?
« Reply #5 on: December 31, 2020, 08:51:38 PM »
Each species of suitable woods for gunstocks (yes everything has been used, but that doesn't make it "suitable" to me) will vary somewhat in hardness. Hardness is just another one of the multiple factors to be considered for our application.

If you purchase from a regular vendor/maker of stock blanks, then you'll usually be well covered.  They understand different skill levels and also they watch to make sure they're not selling junky grain-structures.  (Sometimes they can also cut to profile and let in your bbl-for an upcharge of course.)

Tell your source what I did for my first one: I don't want plain wood but also I don't want something that will challenge my commitment to making a decent first gun.  He sold me a middlin' grade of hard maple with maybe 50-60% curl and it was perfect.  It doesn't look like much to those of us who are used to seeing exquisite stocks now and then, but the non-longrifle crowd can't get over the beauty of the wood when they see it.  It has plenty of attractive spots and wasn't terribly difficult to work--you get your grain-lessons FAST.   

I have hardly the experience of many here, but also I've been working on a piece of curly ash for a few years--and I will NOT BE stocking in curly ash again any time soon.  I'd rather use black locust!  I find hard maple to be a joy next to ash. and I also quite like walnut and cherry--but either of those can be rather chippy around complicated grain areas.   And you'll pay more to get figure in walnut or cherry.  The two blanks I have of those woods are methinks 'just complicated enough' to provide some visual interest, and they have great color.

Because as a mentor in rifles said to me--It's going to take just about the same amount of work to make a gut with a pretty stock as it will a plain stock--so go ahead and get some decent wood.

Unless I was trying to replicate an ugly plain military or other specific historic piece, I'm going with -some- complications of grain over plain wood.   Once you've hacked out one or two, you'll likely be able to better judge what that means to you.

I think "alternative sourcing" stock blanks (as some are want to do) can be risky business for a number of reasons and do recommend, at this stage, going with folks who know just what they're selling as they should be helpful in your decision by steering you away from wood that should be left to experts.  Maple is the bargain for figure, and it works nicely. Ash is rather challenging.   HTH and HNY.
Hold to the Wind

Offline Bill Raby

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1545
Re: Stock quality, from a purely practical view?
« Reply #6 on: December 31, 2020, 10:26:23 PM »
When you pay big money for a stock you are paying for looks alone. The highly figured wood will be less strong and harder to work with. Strongest and easiest to work blank will be one with straight, close grain that follows the lines of the gun.

Offline utseabee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
Re: Stock quality, from a purely practical view?
« Reply #7 on: December 31, 2020, 10:58:41 PM »
I tend to prefer the plainer wood myself, but I always want a good hard piece with proper grain structure. Maybe if my skills improve, I will get a fancy piece. I usually get my wood from Dunlap Woodcrafts. I just tell them what  want to accomplish and have them pick it. They have forgotten more about wood than I will ever know. They've never steered me wrong. Also, if you buy at least three blanks, they take 25% off. I am sure there are others out there that are just as honest, but I know and trust them.
The difficult we do at once, the impossible takes a little longer.

Offline jerrywh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8885
    • Jerrywh-gunmaker- Master  Engraver FEGA.
Re: Stock quality, from a purely practical view?
« Reply #8 on: December 31, 2020, 11:07:04 PM »
My advice is to get a good hard piece of sugar maple with little or no figure.   Later on some carving and maybe a little wire work can enhance it.
Nobody is always correct, Not even me.

Offline Pukka Bundook

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3469
Re: Stock quality, from a purely practical view?
« Reply #9 on: December 31, 2020, 11:47:29 PM »
What David Rase and Jerry say above. V good advice!

Offline flinchrocket

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1750
Re: Stock quality, from a purely practical view?
« Reply #10 on: January 01, 2021, 01:41:35 AM »
When you pay big money for a stock you are paying for looks alone.
I totally disagree with this statement. There are other factors that contribute to the value of a blank besides the amount of figure in the wood.

tennjed

  • Guest
Re: Stock quality, from a purely practical view?
« Reply #11 on: January 01, 2021, 02:44:45 AM »
Wow! thanks for all the great responses.

It looks like I am going to have to put one together for myself. Have spent the last two days watching Youtube videos on gun building/assembly. The videos of the class put on with the Kibler kits (done by NMLRA) were very interesting, but it also looks like the class for 2021 is already booked up. I am also impressed with the videos put up by Kibler. It looks like the inletting for the Kibler kits is pretty close; I think I can handle a Kibler kit if it is as well sorted as the one they use in their videos. Going with the base wood looks like the way to go.

It has been a long time since I pulled the trigger on a flintlock, so my memory of it is not so good......but that lock Kibler shows shure does seem fast. Much faster that I remember.

Again, thanks.

Wayne

Offline utseabee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
Re: Stock quality, from a purely practical view?
« Reply #12 on: January 01, 2021, 03:27:02 AM »
Wow! thanks for all the great responses.

It looks like I am going to have to put one together for myself. Have spent the last two days watching Youtube videos on gun building/assembly. The videos of the class put on with the Kibler kits (done by NMLRA) were very interesting, but it also looks like the class for 2021 is already booked up. I am also impressed with the videos put up by Kibler. It looks like the inletting for the Kibler kits is pretty close; I think I can handle a Kibler kit if it is as well sorted as the one they use in their videos. Going with the base wood looks like the way to go.

It has been a long time since I pulled the trigger on a flintlock, so my memory of it is not so good......but that lock Kibler shows shure does seem fast. Much faster that I remember.

Again, thanks.

Wayne
Wayne,

     Jim Parker (Bama on here) has a great class for assembling kits. It is 5 days. I put together a Kibler Southern Mountain rifle kit when I was there and shot the rifle before we left. That kit was pretty easy to start off with. I am not sure where you live, his class is in Alabama. I live in PA and it was well worth the drive. In fact, I am going back this spring. In short, that is a great kit and Jim's class was awesome. You will have a fine rifle out of the Kibler kit.
Welcome to the Forum
John Strong
The difficult we do at once, the impossible takes a little longer.

Offline J. Talbert

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2309
Re: Stock quality, from a purely practical view?
« Reply #13 on: January 01, 2021, 05:58:42 AM »
What David Rase and Jerry say above. V good advice!

Ditto this... Unless you go with a Kibler kit.  His kits are so close to final fit that some extra figure in the wood is not likely to have much impact on the assembly process, (assuming you’re not planning to attempt any carving)

Sounds like I’m not too far from you.  I’d be happy to help if you need it.

Jeff
There are no solutions.  There are only trade-offs.”
Thomas Sowell

Offline bama

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2173
    • Calvary Longrifles
Re: Stock quality, from a purely practical view?
« Reply #14 on: January 02, 2021, 04:18:04 AM »
Use only good wood to build a rifle. Learning what is good and what is not is the challenge. Good wood is worth what you pay for it. Why would anyone spend 100 to 400 hours building a rifle out of a piece of not good wood? What makes good wood, proper grain flow and density. All else is secondary. It took me about 6 rifles to figure out what a good piece of wood was but now that I know I am very picky about the blanks I buy. I will not buy one without looking at it.

The last thing I am going to say is, life is to short to build a rifle out of bad or ugly wood.
Jim Parker

"An Honest Man is worth his weight in Gold"

Offline John Shaw

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 75
Re: Stock quality, from a purely practical view?
« Reply #15 on: January 02, 2021, 05:02:44 AM »
I haven't seen enough originals to have an intelligent opinion. About all I have looked at is photographs. I've always had the idea though that for every beautiful rifle that has survived there have probably been ten plain but perfectly functional rifles that were used to the point of being worn out and then discarded. Does this make sense?

JS

Offline rich pierce

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19523
Re: Stock quality, from a purely practical view?
« Reply #16 on: January 02, 2021, 05:40:29 AM »
I haven't seen enough originals to have an intelligent opinion. About all I have looked at is photographs. I've always had the idea though that for every beautiful rifle that has survived there have probably been ten plain but perfectly functional rifles that were used to the point of being worn out and then discarded. Does this make sense?

JS

This depends on where and when. A ton of plain late percussion rifles have survived. Huge numbers. Same with double barreled late percussion shotguns. In general the older guns survive in lower percentages. There were times and places where plain guns were favored and others where decorated guns seem to have been very common. Can’t say I recall a bare bones JP Beck or John Bonewitz rifle.
Andover, Vermont

Offline Bill Raby

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1545
Re: Stock quality, from a purely practical view?
« Reply #17 on: January 02, 2021, 06:13:52 AM »
When you pay big money for a stock you are paying for looks alone.
I totally disagree with this statement. There are other factors that contribute to the value of a blank besides the amount of figure in the wood.

   That is true. But I think that once you get over $500 or so it is about the figure.