Current Build Presented for Critique and Suggestions

[bluenoser]

Looking for critiques and suggestions and all will be appreciated. 

This is a plank build,  The plank is a non-descript piece of rock maple that has probably sat in the barn for 40 + years.  The barrel is a .54 cal. 42" Rice Virginia.  The trigger guard and butt plate are Reaves Goering's Early VA (Shenendoah Valley), the lock is a Chambers Colonial Virginia and the trigger is also Chambers.  All other parts, including screws, are hand made.  Well, to be honest, the wood screws are machine made with reshaped heads.  Rough shaping is complete but it is not too late to tweak here and there. There will be the usual mouldings and some carving and I have sketched in possibilities for the wood patch box.  The side plate is TBD.  The layout lines have been left on to help better visualize the profile.

My objective is to create the style of rifle that might have come out of Augusta County, Virginia between 1760 and 1780 and the architecture is roughly based on RCA 109 on page 470 of RCA 2.  If I am not mistaken, a strongly defining feature is the long oval wrist, wider than it is tall, that extends back well into the butt - AKA English fowler.  RCA 109 also appears to have an unusually long cheek rest.
Additional photos can be provided upon request.

There is one element on this build I am decidedly unhappy with and have been struggling to find a solution for.  For the time being, I will wait to see who picks up on it first .
Thanks to all who take the time to offer some guidance.

[rich pierce]

I’m looking at the cherry-stocked rifle 109. My comments are based on comparing your build with what I see in the book.

It has a wide, tall buttplate formed from flat brass plate.
The cheekpiece is long - check.
The comb slopes close to the wrist - your comb looks higher, with more drop to the wrist.
It appears that the drop of top line of the wrist begins early on the original and on yours appears to be more flat for the first bit then drops off strongly, like seen on club butt or Hudson Valley fowlers. Maybe this is your design and would explain the taller comb. The sideplate side also supports the differences in the shaping of the top line of the wrist. Please keep in mind that photo angles can give impressions that are misleading. But the taller comb is noticeable.

The nose of the comb on yours may be 1/4-3/8” forward compared to the original.

I think that the underside of the lock area transitions downward right at the trigger on the original and before the trigger on your build.

[alacran]

I don't really like to critique based on photos. However, since you asked I will give you my 2 cents worth.
The thing that would bother me is that the comb of the buttplate appears to not be on the same plane as the rest of the comb.
That can be fixed but require re doing the buttplate, or lowering the nose of the comb.
 One other thing that I would change and it would be easy , is the bottom of the lock panel at the tail of the lock.
Other than that, your inlets are good, and your work is clean.

[StevenV]

I would not hang my head with this build from a plank! The two things that stick out for me are what alacran  said. The top of the plate plan is not in line with the top of the comb line. Butt plate is headed down a bit. The lock molding , the lock and the center of the wrist are not in sink. I know you cannot tilt the tail of the lock down any more cause pan would not be right. So is the wrist angled down a bit, should've been a bit higher. Looks to be quite a drop from tang to comb? Still nothing to hang your head about, thanks for posting.       Steve

[bluenoser]

Replying to Rich first:
My buttplate is indeed different, as is the lock and several other elements.  I could not abide that plate with the knob at the heel and my objective was not to create a copy of 109 but, rather, roughly follow the architecture.  I scaled for measurements and did a full scale drawing, which I thought was pretty accurate - but perhaps not as accurate as I had thought.  Then again, perhaps I inadvertently deviated from the plan.  There are significant intended differences, such as in the lock and side plate panels.  I would need to go back to my drawing to confirm, but believe I adjusted the comb line to one I know fits me well.  The fit is important to me.  I will look into the location of the nose of the comb and perhaps shorten it and/or make it less abrupt.  Thanks for bringing it to my attention.  I do see what you are saying about the top line of the wrist and have to agree.  I had not noticed that.  I might be able to remove a little more of that hump.  I have to disagree on the transition point.  Although mine might be a tad further forward, I believe they both transition downward a little ahead of the trigger.  Take a look at f. 108i on page 473 and lay a straightedge along the bottom of the stock.
Thanks for your help

alacran:
I feel certain the comb of the butt plate is on the same plane as the rest of the comb, but will confirm when I am in the shop tomorrow.  Your comment regarding the bottom of the lock panel at the tail of the lock is not unexpected.  I tried to pull that area down to be closer to the CL of the wrist, but there might be a better approach.  What do you recommend?
Your comments are much appreciated.

[bluenoser]

Steve
As I said in my reply to alacran, I am quite certain everything along the top line of the comb is on the same plane, but will confirm that.  I agree the lock molding, the lock and the center of the wrist do not flow well, but am not sure what I should have done differently - short of a major change in architecture, or what I could do to improve things.  What would you recommend?
Thanks for your input.

[smallpatch]

I agree with alacran….. buttplate is tipped forward , based on the comb of the stock. It’s going downhill into the comb.
Easy fix, re inlet the buttplate, concentrating on rotating the toe of the buttplate forward.

[smylee grouch]

I'm wondering if the but plate is tilted just a bit down in the front and the comb is too high, could you leave the but alone and work the comb line down to the drop off and still keep the comb line straight.

[bluenoser]

  Well, four comments about the comb line prompted me to go out to the shop to confirm what I thought I already knew.  The comb line from the heel of the plate to the nose of the comb is dead flat.  If necessary, I can post a photo.  I think the layout lines along the edges of the comb might be misleading folks.  The heel extension of the plate is quite deep and the lines from the corners of the heel extension to the nose do run uphill. However, everything is dead straight along the centerline. Also, please keep in mind the butt plate has not been cleaned up yet.

[alacran]

this is the reason I do not like to critique based on photos.
The buttplate looked funky to me so I enlarged the photo and placed a straightedge on the screen on the comb line and the rear of the BP sticks above the comb line. That is on my screen. Again doing this on a computer screen could give a misleading impression.
But if you placed a straight edge on the comb center line and there is not a gap below the straightedge, then this is an optical illusion.
However, it doesn't look right.
As far as the lock panel goes. I got out my RCA#2 and looked at RCA 109. I seems that whoever built this rifle mucked the area in question. The lock panels aren't crisp and the edge of the panel appears to devolve into the bottom of the panel. Totally different from what he did on the obverse.
I would thin the lock panel at the top of the lock where it makes the downward curve. Then I would bring the point of the lock panel up to where it is in line with the tip of the lock. I would do this with a pencil first. That area on the original does not look good. Of course I am judging from a photo. It may look different in 3d.
I made my comments yesterday without looking at 109. Rich's observations on the comb line architecture are spot on.

[Jim Kibler]

The biggest area for improvement is the initial stock profile.  This has an enormous importance in how the gun will turn out.  If this isn't quite right, nothing else can fix it.  I would compare your profile to original examples and try to understand what the differences are.

To establish an initial profile you can use a grid pattern to blow up photos or you can do it on a computer as well.  This works fairly well, though not perfect due to camera lens distortion. Pick a photo of just the buttstock region (lock back) rather than a full length image.

Jim

[bluenoser]

Pictures can be deceiving as evidenced by the comments WRT the line of the butt plate extension relative to that of the comb.  That is not a reason to avoid commenting, but it is the reason the recipient should consider the accuracy of comments and provide appropriate feedback.  Analysis, discussion and the sharing of impressions and ideas should be the objective.

I scaled measurements and angles as best I could off the photos in RCA and made a full-scale drawing.  I believe the drawing is reasonably accurate.  After making adjustments for my chosen components, I rechecked the drawing against the original.
Here are a couple of pics that should be helpful in comparing the two.


The reference line is the top of the forestock.  In my opinion, the angles and transition points are very close and the comb heights at the wrist are somewhat similar with mine perhaps a tad lower.  The wrist on my project appears to be noticeably smaller in vertical cross section than the original, which might explain the apparent increase in comb height.  As Rich had pointed out, there is a hump at the tang, which, I believe exacerbates the problem.
At this point, some things cannot be changed while others can.  The wrist height at the comb cannot be increased, but the nose of the comb can be softened.  I should be able to substantially reduce the hump at the tang, which, I believe, will significantly improve the appearance of the top line of the wrist.  I have to look at how much I can do without substantially changing the angle of the tang bolt.
Some have commented on the tails of the lock and side panels and I agree those could be improved.  Sketches of suggested changes would be warmly received.
There might well be other areas in need of improvement.  I now see that the bottom line of the lower forestock is parallel to the top line on the original and slightly tapered on mine.  At this point, that is a done deal and not something that I see as particularly bothersome.
Guys, I have already benefitted greatly from your feedback.  Please keep it coming.

[rich pierce]

This thread is the sort of topic that serves not only the builder who is requesting critique, but also everyone who takes on the challenge of building a longrifle based on an original. Great back and forth exchanges.

[bluenoser]

Rich - how right you are!

[Bob Roller]

Has there EVER been a perfect one? Don't worry about it,finish it,load it,prime the pan,close the frizzen and cock it and fire it at a target.Fire 5 more shots at 50 yards and if a quarter will cover all 5 holes then it's a keeper .
Bob Roller

[flehto]

Your blank build generally  looks good to me........won't go into details. shown below is my one and only attempt of   an Early Virginia LR. ....Fred

[bluenoser]

flehto,
That is one fine looking longrifle.  I see the same longish cheek piece, what appears to be a similar comb height at the toe and a long shallow wrist.  Is your wrist a wide oval?  I also see how much better it looks when the wrist is more consistent in height and more gradual in slope.  And finally, I see how nicely the tail of your lock lines up with the CL of the wrist.
Thank you for posting.

[bluenoser]

Is this where folks think I should be going?

I would really appreciate seeing some sketches of recommended changes - particularly in the lock area.
Are there other areas of concern that have not been brought up yet?

[Gaeckle]

Is this where folks think I should be going?

I would really appreciate seeing some sketches of recommended changes - particularly in the lock area.
Are there other areas of concern that have not been brought up yet?

This, to me, looks better, looks more refined

[A.Merrill]

 The toe of the butt plate needs to go inward, that will align the top better.   Al

[godutch]

  This is a very nicely done exchange of queries, observations, suggestions, etc. by all involved. 

[smallpatch]

That buttplate looks like the one Dunlap used to supply with his Isaac Haines kit. It is distorted. The front corners of the return is lower than it is on the rear.  I think that is what is causing our consternation.

[yellowhousejake]

Okay, I have built two muzzleloaders and both have problems. But, in the spirit of Rich's thread about posting builds and using the forum as a place of learning, I would like to offer my thoughts for a critique on how "I" see the shape of the stock.

IF it were my rifle... I think it appears the barrel is 1/16" of so too high in the stock. Or, the lock too low. I could not put my finger on it until I saw Bluenoser's comparison in reply #11. Looking at his reply #17 it really shows up to me.

As most ML tangs are really thick, I would remove as much wood and metal as needed between the end of the lock panel and the breech to smooth out that transition. Then I would sleep on it and take off more. It would make the wrist more graceful.

It's far better than my last rifle and a lot better than some rifles in RCA.

Am I wrong? If so, what am I missing?

DAve

[Bsharp]

I found this again, from Smartdog. If this were an English Sporter, the line off the comb should travel thru the tumbler screw and just under the pan.

Down a bit on the front of the comb and blend radius's into the wrist.

With the area of the upper lowered, it would make a pleasant difference.

[bluenoser]

Alan,
Thank you for your observation.  You are the fifth person to identify that issue and I will take a closer look at it tomorrow.  At this point, I am not convinced the problem is as perceived, but it might be.  The exposed surfaces of the plate are still as cast and the issue might be more about filing it out than adjusting the fit, so I will start by dressing down the top flat and see where it goes from there.
smallpatch, Alan and others
This is one of Reaves Goehring's plates.  I fitted the plate more than a year ago and am quite certain I trued it up before fitting but, being an official member of the Old F**ts club, won't guarantee it.  I will double check tomorrow but, to be honest, I think at this point I am inclined to leave it as-is if not too severe.  There is one other thing about this plate that I had wrestled with.  There are two and about 1/3+ bands at the front and the front band (1/3) is slightly lower than the other two bands and the flats.  My initial options were to: 1- file off the front 1/3 band, which would have meant removing a significant amount of material or 2 - inlet the plate so the top flat and full bands were flush with the top of the comb, in which case the front area of the plate would be noticeably below the adjoining surface of the wood or 3 - inlet the plate such that the top of the 1/3 band matched up to the adjoining wood and let the other bands and flats stand perhaps 10 or 15 thou proud.  I hope all of that makes sense.  I chose option 3.  If I end up adjusting the inlet, option 1 is no longer viable but options 2 or 3 are.  I still think option 3 is the way to go as I suspect that is the way the original plate was installed.  What say ye?

yellowhousejake,
Thank you for your observations.  In actuality, 1/2 of the barrel stands above the sides of the inlet at the breech and, as I recall, a little more than 1/2 of the barrel is exposed at the muzzle.  The top of the pan is a controlling factor at the breech since, ideally, the touchhole should be centered on the top of the pan and centered vertically on the barrel.  That is the way it is set up.  The reason for exposing more barrel further toward the muzzle is to promote the impression of slimness.  I will go back to reply # 17 to look at what you might be seeing.
You are spot on WRT the thickness of the tang.  The tang has already been slimmed to some extent and I will likely opt to set it a tad deeper and file it thinner.  As they say "remove wood until you think you have gone too far - and then remove some more"