Author Topic: Stock recommendations  (Read 1060 times)

Offline stan57

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Stock recommendations
« on: August 13, 2023, 05:10:27 PM »
For my next build I would prefer a percussion full-stock rifle  with more diameter than usual in the belly and forestock, i.e. the across-the-saddle area. Think fatter-in-hand percussion Woodrunner. Historically, which full-stock longrifles had more generous belly?  Not looking to start a flame war, please, just an honest question.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2023, 05:20:48 PM by stan57 »

Offline rich pierce

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19521
Re: Stock recommendations
« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2023, 05:16:40 PM »
Those dimensions seem driven by barrel and ramrod diameter more than style. A big fur trade rifle might do it for you. Many during that era were flint but higher end ones were percussion.
Andover, Vermont

Offline stan57

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: Stock recommendations
« Reply #2 on: August 13, 2023, 05:26:23 PM »
Agree; an amalgamation of a full-stock plains fur trade type with a shorter swamped barrel, maybe? I generally can't physically tolerate a heavy 1"+ barreled Hawken, Lehman, Gemmer, etc at my age.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2023, 01:08:28 AM by stan57 »

Offline Mike Brooks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13415
    • Mike Brooks Gunmaker
Re: Stock recommendations
« Reply #3 on: August 13, 2023, 05:27:34 PM »
Puta wear plate on it. problem solved,
NEW WEBSITE! www.mikebrooksflintlocks.com
Say, any of you boys smithies? Or, if not smithies per se, were you otherwise trained in the metallurgic arts before straitened circumstances forced you into a life of aimless wanderin'?

Offline rich pierce

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19521
Re: Stock recommendations
« Reply #4 on: August 14, 2023, 01:06:06 AM »
Agree; an amalgamation of a full-stock plains fur trade type with a shorter swamped barrel, maybe? I generally can't physically tolerate a heavy 1"+ barreled Hawken, Lehman, Gemmer, etc at my age.

Seems no way to build what you want in a traditional way. A jaeger, for example, typically has as slim a forestock as can be made. I cannot think of a type of light gun with a short barrel and a fat forestock.  Narrow is the norm. 
Andover, Vermont

Offline stan57

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: Stock recommendations
« Reply #5 on: August 14, 2023, 01:14:32 AM »
Understand. I'll just stick with established rifle configurations.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2023, 01:24:18 AM by stan57 »

Offline axelp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1547
    • TomBob Outdoors, LLC.
Re: Stock recommendations
« Reply #6 on: August 14, 2023, 01:14:51 AM »
What about a Leman style? We're they a little beefier?
Galations 2:20

Offline axelp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1547
    • TomBob Outdoors, LLC.
Re: Stock recommendations
« Reply #7 on: August 14, 2023, 01:16:49 AM »
I seem to recall an original longrifle carried by Seth Kinman that was pretty beefy. Seemed so in photograghs.
Galations 2:20

Offline axelp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1547
    • TomBob Outdoors, LLC.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2023, 01:24:00 AM by Ken Prather »
Galations 2:20

Offline rich pierce

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19521
Re: Stock recommendations
« Reply #9 on: August 14, 2023, 06:55:51 AM »
What about a Leman style? We're they a little beefier?

A gun stock  of a side lock rifle has a certain thickness at the center of the lock. This equals barrel diameter + (2x bolster thickness).  I cannot see how this can be otherwise. The forestock thickness immediately in front of the lock molding is going to be something less than this.  There is a step down from the lock molding to the forestock unless one is using a back action lock. It’s just arithmetic. It’s not a style decision. There is no way to shape the forestock so it is thicker that would not be beyond the pale.
Andover, Vermont