Sanded through along forestock

[JLayne]

So I’ve heard it repeated as to removal of excess wood from a longrifle that you should keep taking wood off until you think you’ve gone too far, then take off a little more. Well I took that advice a little too literally on my current project, a Chambers York County kit, and broke through the wood about 1/8” below the upper edge of the forestock about midway up the barrel channel. I had some Acraglas on hand, so I have added some to the area, inside the barrel channel and on the outside of the stock. Probably won’t look great, but will hopefully salvage the project. In any event, I wanted to post about the mistake and see if anyone else has made a similar one in the past, and how they went about fixing it.

Thanks,
Jay

[smallpatch]

I’m confused. An eighth inch below the top edge of the forestock, is about the thickest portion of the stock.
How about a photo?

[JLayne]

Photos below.

[JLayne]

[brushyspoons]

I'm a little confused as well, was there a void in the barrel channel 1/8" below the top edge of the forestock? Or did you patch in a sliver of wood to reestablish the top edge of the forestock above your repair?

[JLayne]

No void. Trying to make the forend as slim as possible, I simply rasped and sanded the sides to the point that I broke through the wood where the bottom of the side flat of the barrel makes contact with the barrel channel. The wood all along the side flat is so paper thin in places that I brushed a thin coat of acraglas along the entire channel to give it some added strength.

Thanks,
Jay

[ettoreR]

Great looking repair imo!

[Pete G.]

Why not a long barrel half stock with a wooden rib?

[JH Ehlers]

I saw this and thought I would say something about it, hope I don't offend anyone. I think you went a bit crazy on that stock. If this would happen to me I would just quietly toss the stock into the fire and not tell anybody about it and start a new one. I think that advice to keep removing wood until you get scared is bad advice, and probably only meant as a joke. If you don't have originals to study get pictures(of high quality rifles of the school you are making), not just one picture, get lots from many different angles from many different areas of a rifle and study, study, study,(notice the finer details) until you know exacty what you want it to look like and only then start removing wood and keep on looking what you are doing. I am no expert, but thats what I do.

[Jim Kibler]

That barrel channel wall must have been badly undercut.  Only explanation for what you show...

[JLayne]

Oh well, what’s done is done. I will use the opportunity to see how well I can hide the repair, and maybe experiment with some other things I have been wanting to try for the first time, like adding a brass patch box.

[bluenoser]

I think Jim has made an excellent point.
I could not live with that repair and would not immediately jump to the 1/2 or 3/4 stock option.  Look at it as a challenge and an opportunity to practice your woodworking skills.  Cut out the affected area back to solid wood and fit a patch.  Angle the ends.  Fit and glue in the patch with the waxed barrel in place for a backing.  In most cases, I favor PVA glue (good old yellow wood glue),but Acraglas might be a better choice here.  Shape the patch and away you go. Unless you are REALLY good at matching grain and blending finish, it will show - but not nearly to the extent of what you have now.  It might be an invitation to do an aged and slightly distressed finish and make it look like an old repair.  Don't throw in the towel.
I once had a business partner whose motto was " no problems - only solutions"  That has always stuck with me.

[JH Ehlers]

Get a new stock from mr. Chambers, cut the forestock off that one and use for kindling the buttstock can be used for practice carving etc. If you did the whole forestock like that you are risking the barrel channel sides falling off over time even if theres epoxy in the channel. And its going to be an eyesore with all the patching. You will be a lot happier with a new stock, go slow and study what it should look like, you want it looking like that picture on mr. Chambers website, right. You can do it!

[Mike Lyons]

I've went through on a ramrod channel before.  I must be slow because I still can't understand how you have wood above where you went through if you're repair is on the side flat.  Your repair looks great.   

[JLayne]

Just out of curiosity I wiped the repaired area with a bit of LMF American Walnut stain to get a sense of his visible the Acraglas repair will be. Below is the result. I think if I use Kibler’s iron nitrate and tannic acid in combination, and maybe some bone black, it may darken the surrounding wood enough to hide the repair a bit better. 

Jay

[oldtravler61]

   I think what your trying to do is the right way. Bluenoser advice is spot on.. Making mistakes is a given. But learning how to correct them is priceless. Good that you took on the challenge of fixing your mistake.
 Nice job....

[JLayne]

I’ve assembled a few kits and a precarve now. I’m not completely green, but I am by no means a pro at this. I post my mistakes to learn from others on the forum who know more, and possibly to help others who may have made a similar mistake or might do so in the future but are too embarrassed to post it. Maybe they can learn from my mistakes as well as their own. Thanks for the advice and encouragement.

By the way, Jim Kibler was correct. The barrel channel along the side of the repair had been undercut. That, combined with my attempt to get the slimmest forend possible lead to the break through. To each his own, but I find the rifles with the slimmest forestocks the most attractive.

Jay

[Cody Tetachuk]

There is nothing "wrong" with the repair you did. How one deals with such a situation depends on what ones goals are. Personally, I would have either made a half stock out of it or, preferably, done as Bluenoser suggested. Couple thoughts on my choice to go with the wood patch idea. 1- as Bluenoser said, it makes for good practice, 2- would be no more noticeable than the current repair but would be more "acceptable" (to me) and 3-, this is how such an issue would have been handled "back in the day". MANY years ago I was slabbing off the excess wood from the off side of a spectacular curly maple blank and the el-cheapo band saw that I had had wandered taking off too much wood leaving next to nothing for the off side side panel. I was devastated. No matter how I tried I could NOT get a side panel established so I cut the blank up and used it for knife handles and other "accoutrements". A few years later, I was at rendezvous talking guns with Taylor and mentioned this unfortunate "disaster". Taylor said "All you had to do was glue a piece of the slabbed off wood back on and finish as usual using the carved boarder around the panel into the tear drop to hide the joint". My jaw hit the ground and my head was ringing with a loud "DUH!!!". "I NEVER THOUGHT OF THAT!!!!. Similar patch repairs are not uncommon in original guns. Whether they were made to hide a defect or mistake by the maker or to fix damage done later on. I saw a lovely Manton SXS (one of a pair) with a square patch behind the tang. Otherwise the guns were pristine and the patch, while was not a perfect match was not and eyesore either. Here is a SXS of mine (circa 1790 that I acquired after having my mishap)with a patch on the right side lock panel. Again, whether it was from new (buggered up lock inlet??) or to repair later damage I do not know. What I AM certain of (but have no proof, just a firm belief) is that "back in the day" a gun maker would NEVER throw out a stock for such a small issue.

[Stophel]

... I think that advice to keep removing wood until you get scared is bad advice, and probably only meant as a joke. If you don't have originals to study get pictures(of high quality rifles of the school you are making), not just one picture, get lots from many different angles from many different areas of a rifle and study, study, study,(notice the finer details) until you know exacty what you want it to look like and only then start removing wood and keep on looking what you are doing. I am no expert, but thats what I do.

I agree.  The "make it thin, and then make it thinner!" advice is not always super helpful... but then a lot of people would probably be making their fore ends 1/4" thick on either side of the barrel, and for them, that's good advice!    I have found that the fore ends on a lot of original guns are not nearly as thin as people want to make them out to be.

Unlike 20 or more years ago, there is no excuse today for not having tons of high quality photos of original flintlock rifles.  The internet is jam packed with them, with auction houses finally taking lots of really good photos for their catalogs the past several years.  I have probably every book ever published on the subject (acquired at GREAT expense, which is probably why I don't have anything else, and have never been able to get ahead....), and while they were absolutely necessary years ago, honestly you can find so much better for free just searching the internet today.

[Dennis Glazener]

Chris great to see you back with us, sorry for the slowness of the site, hope it's fixed today!
Dennis

[flehto]

I had the same problem and just filed the forend for a 2-1/2" long groove X 5/32" deep . stained the wood and made a piece that had a close fit lengthwise but the width and height  were oversize  and grain direction was perfect. Applied super glue which disolved the stain  and the repair was nearly invisible when the LR was completed. If the separation were to be  a whole lot  longer, this might not work. ,,,,,Fred

[rich pierce]

The "make it thin, and then make it thinner!" advice is not always super helpful... but then a lot of people would probably be making their fore ends 1/4" thick on either side of the barrel, and for them, that's good advice!    I have found that the fore ends on a lot of original guns are not nearly as thin as people want to make them out to be.
.

There are 2 approaches to architecture in my view. One is to make them like they made them. The other is to make to an ideal and ignore aspects common to many originals. Example: we all know that vertically narrow lock panels are considered “right”. But on 1840s SMRs they would be “wrong” in many cases. I could fit a meal on offside lock panels on some originals.

The Musicians rifle has less than half the barrel exposed. Quite a bit less. Oh the horrors is I tried to reproduce it like that!

But many build to the ideal, and the risk is that all their guns look the same. And not like specific originals.