Question on Barrel Channel

[gibster]

I have a pre-carved stock that I took on trade a while back that is inlet for a 15/16 straight barrel.  Not sure of the style, possible that it's a early Lancaster.  It has an iron butt plate already inletted that is a very early style, almost 2-inches across.  From what I have seen on originals, almost all of the early ones had swamped barrels.  So here are my questions:

1 - Would a straight barrel be correct in an early style rifle?  I read on another thread that John Armstrong used mostly straight barrels.  But I haven't had the opportunity to see any of his rifles to know for sure.

2 - Is is feasable to use thin strips of wood to "fill in" the sides and bottom of the channel and recut for a swamped or OTR barrel?  If so, what problems would/could I run into?

3 - Am I making to much out of this and should I just use a straight barrel and be done with it .

Any and all words of wisdom would be appreciated.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Who are you trying to please?  I'd just make the rifle with the 15/16" barrel and enjoy the ride.  You will make others, and can use parts that satisfy a particular school or time period. 
We're doing this for fun, so fly at it and have some.

[Acer Saccharum]

I'm with Taylor. Put it together as is. We (I) often agonize forever over stuff that really doesn't matter to anyone else.

Next gun go for swamp and anything else that tickles your fancy.

Tom

[volatpluvia]

Gibster,
If you make it a .54 it will be nice and light weight. 
volatpluvia

[smshea]

Id build it the way it is and just have fun... they should all be fun!

Id also likely build it in 54cal.

[Daryl]

I have a 42" longrifle with a straight 7/8" bl. in .45 cal and it's a wonderful offhand rifle. a 15/16" in .50 or .54 would be about identical in weight in weight at around 10 pounds.  Mine is 9 pounds 15 ounces and holds beautifully.

[Scott Semmel]

15/16 .54 straight barrels were Dixons' top seller for years. I have two rifles with that barrel and am very happy with the weight and balance.  If you do use a 15/16 .54 with a 5/8 plug you will find in breaching it there isn't much if any shoulder to fit to, which is a whole nother kettle of fish.

[flintriflesmith]

I have a pre-carved stock ...  So here are my questions:

1 - Would a straight barrel be correct in an early style rifle?  I read on another thread that John Armstrong used mostly straight barrels.  But I haven't had the opportunity to see any of his rifles to know for sure.

The answer to question #1 is simple. No. John Armstrong may have used some staright barrels but he is not an "early" maker.

If you want to put your time and energy into a finishing rifle that will always have a historically incorrect barrel that is, as everyone else has said, up to you. Since historical accuracy was your very first question, it may matter to you. If so, sell these parts and buy what is right. Parts are cheap and life is short!
Gary

[Acer Saccharum]

Parts are cheap and life is short!

Ain't that the truth.

[Stophel]

A 15/16" straight barrel will BARELY make an "early" rifle, and have things work out close to OK.  A 15/16" .54 cal. barrel is also just tolerable as to weight (in my opinion).  Virtually any other straight barrel is way too heavy for my taste.

Besides, that iron buttplate is more of a historical problem than the straight barrel!   

[Long John]

Gibster,

Even though you have different takes on the question, they are all the right answer.

You have to have an honest conversation with the fellow looking back at you in the mirror.  What are YOUR objectives?  If your objective is an historically accurate rifle for some historical trekking with Mark Baker and the like then the swamped barrel is pretty much a necessity and brass hardware equally so.  Consequently, it might be a better use of your time to get the parts that will make what you really want!  If your objective is to get your feet wet with this craziness (something I earnestly recommend) and hope to have a shooter that you can use at the local ML shoots then go ahead and build the rifle, knowing that it is NOT historically correct for 1760 Pennsylvania but maybe for 1800 east of the Mississippi depending on how you finish the gun out.

Who is talking back to you from the mirror?  What do you really want to achieve?  For example.  I am a hobby gun-maker.  It will take me over a year to build a rifle, in a good year.  I am currently working on #14.  I want it to be a rifle that William Antes might have built before he built RCA 53.  I am using the best piece of wood I could find; not because I am a wood snob (I am a woodophile, though) but because I cannot justify spending over a year working on something that does not have drop-dead gorgeous wood.  I am making almost all of my own parts; not because I can't afford to buy them but because I want the experience gained from having made them myself.  It will not be a copy of any existing gun but I hope a good student of the American Rifle will be tempted to ask - is that an Antes?  It's my gun - it will be what I want!

What do you want to achieve?

Best Regards,

JMC

[Dphariss]

People got to remember that in the 60s there were few rifles being made with swamped barrels because it was a pain to get them.
There are LOTS of really nice "contemporary"  Kentuckys with straight barrels.
The Don King rifle that sold recently on TOWs sight had a straight barrel as almost all of Don's guns did. The guy that bought it told me he would not take double what he paid for it.
I would build a straight barrel rifle and not worry about it.

If you just have to have a swamped barrel use a different stock.
If you make the straight barreled rifle and some thread counter type don't like it since its not "HC" tell him to quit looking so close, if you want to be kind.
There are people here who make really nice swamped barreled guns stained with modern dyes and finished with plastic varnish or maybe beeswax for which there is no documentation that I know of.
But somehow its "right" because its got a swamped barrel.
Can't have it both ways. Its either right or its not if one wants to be really picky.
If some rifle gets scoffed at for a straight barrel how can the gun with the plastic finish not be treated the same way? Both are equally "unHC".
I like swamped barrels and will likely make an Armstrong or 2 in the next year with swamped barrels.
But as pointed out Armstrong is a later Golden Age maker.
Bottom line.
A fine rifle with a straight barrel is still is fine rifle. A crappy one with a swamped barrel is still a crappy rifle.

Dan

[gibster]

Thanks for all the comments/opinions on this one.  I was leaning towards a .54 cal to start with, but from reading various topics in the past, I don't see many using a straight barrel.  The stock has good figure in it and would be a shame not to use.  I just didn't know if anyone has ever tried to add thin slivers of wood to the sides/bottom of a channel and use a different barrel once one has already been cut.  I'm not to worried about having a totally "correct" rifle as my skills aren't to the level to make one, even if I had all the "correct" parts.  I have built a few rifles in the past and enjoy working on them and shooting them.  As far as the iron butt plate not being correct, it's not a Tennessee style BP, but a copy of an early one, wide and flat, similar to what I have seen on quite a few brass-mounted rifles.  This one is just iron/steel.  Again, thanks for the input.  All of the comments have pretty much re-affirmed what I was thinking of doing in the first place.