Author Topic: Another Question Regarding Web Thickness (Read 3213 times)

bluenoser · « **on:** June 28, 2021, 11:58:44 PM »

I have started laying out the full-scale drawing for my next build and have a question - undoubtedly, the first of many. The rifle is intended to be representative of one that might have come out of Augusta County, Virginia circa 1760-1780. The barrel is a 42" 54 cal. Rice swamped Virginia profile measuring 1.1" at the breech and 0.893" at the muzzle. The lock is a Chambers colonial Virginia flintlock and the TG and BP are Reaves Goehring's early Virginia profile. The remainder will be shop-built. The butt profile is still somewhat up in the air, but will reflect influence by the Brown Bess and English fowlers. More on that later. This is not my first scratch build and it is not my first build with a swamped barrel, but it is my first scratch build with a swamped barrel.

The question of the day relates to recommended web thickness. Mark Elliott, in his excellent full scale plan recommends 1/8" at the breech and 5/32" at the muzzle. The recommendation in The Art of Building the Pennsylvania Longrifle is 3/16" to 1/4" with 3/16" as a minimum. Both Wm. Buchelle in Recreating the American Longrifle and P. Alexander in The Gunsmith of Grenville County recommend 3/16". Alexander's recommendation, (and presumably Buchelle's) applies to both breech and muzzle.

I know web thicknesses are kept to a minimum for architectural reasons but, man, 1/8" at the breech looks tight - even with a # 6 forward lock nail. My gut tells me 3/16" at the muzzle and, perhaps, 5/32" at the breech might be the way to go. Keeping in mind this is an early rifle ( if that makes any difference), what would the experienced builders recommend?

Post corrected - my apology to Mark for the blunder

rich pierce · « **Reply #1 on:** June 29, 2021, 12:30:23 AM »

If the barrel is strongly swamped and tapers rapidly from the breech, that 1/8” at the breech will be more than that at the front lock bolt. In reality we are talking 1/16” here; 3/16” is 1/16” more than 1/8”, I think. Most plank builds are not done off milking machines but some are! Shoot for 0.150” at the front lock bolt. I often have to file a half round cross trough in the barrel where the front lock bolt goes. And I’ve seen this on originals.

bluenoser · « **Reply #2 on:** June 29, 2021, 12:49:13 AM »

Thanks Rich for your reply.
I am afraid the comment regarding milking machines was a clean miss at this end. Your suggestion regarding setting the thickness at 0.150" at the front lock nail is a approach I had not considered. I will take some measurements and see where it puts us. Am I correct in thinking the web should be a little thicker at the muzzle to partially compensate for end-to-end barrel taper?

RedRiverII · « **Reply #3 on:** June 29, 2021, 04:43:53 AM »

Auto spell at it's meanest.

rich pierce · « **Reply #4 on:** June 29, 2021, 05:05:17 AM »

Milling machines. I’m using my phone and fat fingered it or auto spell bit me.

Regarding milking machines, we used DeLaval but neighbors used Surge milkers.

bluenoser · « **Reply #5 on:** June 29, 2021, 03:07:41 PM »

Ha! milling machines - now THAT makes more sense. I do have a milling machine and have given some thought to using it to cut the RR channel. Need to keep in mind that power tools can be an excellent way to get into trouble more quickly.

blienemann · « **Reply #6 on:** June 29, 2021, 07:16:01 PM »

You like the influence of the Bess and English fowlers and are talking a Virginia rifle. Here is a close copy of an original rifle that to me looks like influence from the Bess and English work - and it carries a Bess thumbpiece and nosecap. I think I see a thicker web near the breech on these guns, and more or less a taper to slimmer at the muzzle. I encourage you to look at more English work and southern rifles that may follow that style, and reach your own conclusions.

For this rifle and for what you are considering, I would try for 1/8" at muzzle to 3/16" near breech. I also like to use heavy lock bolts like the old guys did = at least 10x24 or closer to 1/4" diameter, and this provides a little more room. Enjoy the journey, Bob

D. Taylor Sapergia · « **Reply #7 on:** June 29, 2021, 08:28:24 PM »

Bob: I love the architecture of this rifle. There is nearly two inches of drop at the comb...a wonderful offhand design. thanks for posting this one.

bluenoser · « **Reply #8 on:** June 29, 2021, 09:30:19 PM »

blienemann
Thanks for posting the pics. That is a very attractive rifle and I am willing to bet it shoulders nicely. Although subject to change, I envision this build having slightly different architecture in the butt. I am thinking a slightly longer wrist extending well into the butt and a longer cheek rest. I do anticipate it having a straight comb and lower butt profile quite like yours. Although the overall architecture of the butt, and the comb in particular, is not to my liking, the wrist and cheek rest on RCA 117 on pgs. 510-513 of RCA II are a fair representation of what I have in mind.

I am particularly interested in finding clear pictures and additional information on the rifle in photo 7 on page 74/11 of Wallace Gusler's presentation entitled "Early Rifles of the Shenandoah Valley" that appeared in the American Society of Arms Collectors Bulletin No. 74 (spring 1996) . The rifle in photo 8 is RCA 125 in RCA II, but I have, as yet, not been able to find additional information on the rifle in photo 7.

brokenhand · « **Reply #9 on:** June 30, 2021, 05:51:05 AM »

I recently built my first plank rifle with a swamped barrel. I saw Josh Wrightsman's video on Youtube and wondered if you have seen it. He drills the ramrod hole in the stock first. It lets you fine tune the web. Thought you might like to see it before you start. It worked pretty good for me. Brad

bluenoser · « **Reply #10 on:** June 30, 2021, 03:41:05 PM »

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. I was not aware of his videos. For those who are interested, the part regarding doing the ramrod first is in "How to Inlet a Swamped Flintlock Barrel Part 1". I had been thinking about the potential benefits of doing the ramrod first, and this helped. Perhaps some of our more experienced builders will jump in with their opinion.

rich pierce · « **Reply #11 on:** June 30, 2021, 05:22:38 PM »

I’ve inletted a barrel deeper after checking web thickness. Not sure that counts.

David Rase · « **Reply #12 on:** June 30, 2021, 11:03:50 PM »

You also need to keep in mind barrel diameter, bore size and wall thickness as well as lock size when determining web thickness and how much you will be notching the barrel for the front lock bolt. After performing hundreds of barrel inlets / ramod drillings I have come up with a rule of thumb. My normal process is to make the web 1/2 the thickness of the ramrod diameter, i.e. 3/8" ramrod gets a 3/16" web, 5/16" ramrod gets a 5/32" web and 1/4" ramrod gets an 1/8" web. I have also done numerous custom width webs per request. As for ramrod diameter, my go to size for .50 caliber and below is 5/16". Now I know a lot of you are cringing with that statement, but it works for me. I tend to try and shoot my muzzleloaders with traditional low sights as well as snug, but not overly tight patch and ball combination. If my sole purpose was to shoot one ragged hole, then I woould go back to using a dead blow hammer to start the patch/ball and a stainless range rod. Since I shoot for enjoyment and a chance to live a simpler was for a few short hours I don't use these tight patch/ball combinations and a traditional looking thin ramrod is my choice to get the architecture correct and obtain that slim look.
David

flehto · « **Reply #13 on:** July 01, 2021, 01:51:10 AM »

Hi Dave.....no longer build MLers because of the bad eyes, but w/ the previous blanks for the Bucks County LRs, you produced a web at the breech of 1/16" or slightly less and at the muzzle, 5/32". The final BC LR was very petite as a BC should be. The 1/16" web at the breech posed some problems....the bbl lug for a 1/16 dia pin had to be very different and very accurate drilling for the #6-32 front lock bolt eliminated interference w/ the RR hole and a too deep groove in the bbl. Your work was amazing. .....Fred

bluenoser · « **Reply #14 on:** July 01, 2021, 02:24:25 AM »

David, That is some very good advice and well presented. Thanks. The bbl. is 1.1" at the breech and 54 cal. and I don't anticipate any problem if I have to cut a shallow notch. BTW, I too am solidly in the easy loading and shooting for the fun of it camp.

Fred, I am most impressed. I would not have thought it possible to build a LR with a 1/6” web at the breech. That rifle certainly has graceful lines.

bama · « **Reply #15 on:** July 01, 2021, 03:30:01 AM »

Everyone has their preference when building from a blank and here is mine. I try for 3/16" at the front lock bolt location and 1/8" at the muzzle. Sometimes I come up with a little less but never more. I inlet my barrel first and make my ram rod grove go where I want it to go. I do one thing that I am not sure to many others do but I may be wrong about that, I offset my ram rod 1/16" at the breech to the side plate side of the stock. The reason for doing this is to keep the main spring of the lock from breaking into the ram rod groove. In order to do this you really need the barrel in first to accurately measure where the barrel is to accurately locate where the ram rod needs to go. Like I said this is my preference, to each his own.

bluenoser · « **Reply #16 on:** July 01, 2021, 02:33:33 PM »

I can see the wisdom in placing the ramrod slightly toward the side plate side at the breech. With a 3/16" web at the breech and 1/8" at the muzzle, and assuming a swamped or tapered barrel, it would appear the forearm, and particularly the upper forearm tapers in height from breech to muzzle. I would think the taper could be quite noticeable with a heavily swamped barrel - not to say that is a bad thing. Am I correct? I cannot say I have ever noticed a taper.

bama · « **Reply #17 on:** July 02, 2021, 12:16:37 AM »

All of these rifles used an early barrel profile from an original barrel dated 1803. I used the measurements that I gave in my earlier post and all ram rods were drilled 1/16" off center at the breech toward the side plate side of the stock. To me these have the correct look to the forestock profile.

bluenoser · « **Reply #18 on:** July 03, 2021, 04:16:28 PM »

Thank you bama for posting the pics. They are obviously very nice and well executed rifles. Unfortunately, it is more than a little challenging to detect the nuances of longrifle architecture in a photo.

yip · « **Reply #19 on:** July 03, 2021, 04:29:44 PM »

i'm a little to thick but is 5/32" @ muzzle and 1/8" @ breach about right? with a swamped barrel.

smallpatch · « **Reply #20 on:** July 03, 2021, 09:11:23 PM »

Here’s one David Rase did for me, 1/16” at the breech, 3/32 at the muzzle, 5/16” ram rod hole. .50” cal barrel. 6/32 front lock bolt.
Very slender Southern classic custom Rice barrel. VERY slender, sweet little rifle. Sugar maple, less than 7 lbs, no problem with 5/16” rod.

bluenoser · « **Reply #21 on:** July 04, 2021, 02:51:37 PM »

That is one slender lady. Mine will have a little more meat on her bones.

dstock · « **Reply #22 on:** July 04, 2021, 04:21:20 PM »

I have been watching this post with a lot of interest. I Use a 3/16" web as a rule of thumb. Sometimes more often than not they will be more in area of 5/32" front to rear for a 3/8" ramrod. To me the slender rifles are what it is all about most of the time, but I also like to take in consideration the integrity of the wood . I know that the barrel supports the stock forearm not the other way around. It just makes me feel a little better with that minute more thickness in the web and gives me less headache with the front lock bolt. Don't get me wrong because I do love those slender Rifles. Just my unqualified opinion.

Thanks and God Bless
Doug B

rich pierce · « **Reply #23 on:** July 04, 2021, 05:06:13 PM »

Most original end up with splits in the wood between ramrod channel and barrel channel in the fore-end. I imagine the thinner the web is, the more likely to split after a hundred years or more.

flehto · « **Reply #24 on:** July 04, 2021, 08:30:31 PM »

Yes....thin webs are more liable to crack at the muzzle and one stock came to me { from the bbl bedder /RR person} w/ a crack at the muzzle that was 8" long, The web was 5/32" and I first stained the crack and then applied super glue which absorbed the stain {the excess was wiped off} and then clamped the waxed bbl in the stock using surgical tubing. Result was that on the finished LR the repair was not evident at all. That was the only time that this happened and have never had a cracked web while building.....Fred

News:

Author Topic: Another Question Regarding Web Thickness (Read 3213 times)