Author Topic: Thinning the bolster? (Read 8212 times)

Roger Fisher · « **on:** January 27, 2010, 06:15:52 PM »

I know of an ol guy that is in midst or a flint build that has the lock plate standing a bit too proud. Took off a middlin too much wood. Has everything nice and flat and square to the tang and barrel. He is considering filing the bolster and frizzen edge down by a sixteenth no more... This would give him the moulding thickness needed to pass muster at the gun judging (if it matters). He now has a frog hair less than 1/4 in to side flat of the barrel. Would he run into trouble with the lock innards that I'm not thinking about? Main spring? Barrel is a 7/8th...No innards have been set in at this point...

Have any of you gone down this road before? What was your fix?. A glue job with flat 'shim' of stock wood over the mortice has been considered; but he wants to hide any and all screwups.

Dennis Glazener · « **Reply #1 on:** January 27, 2010, 06:21:35 PM »

I had to do that with an Early Ketland in an early VA pattern that Fred Miller did for me (shaped lock panels back). The original lock had a much thinner bolster and Fred's pattern was a exact repo of the original. Lock was out of the mortice in a place or two. I milled about .060 thousandth off the bolster/pan/pan cover. Only problem I had was that the main spring hit the barrel. I thinned the main spring and also milled a slot in the barrel to clear the main spring. Barrel had plenty of meat so it was not a problem.
Dennis

Lucky R A · « **Reply #2 on:** January 27, 2010, 06:22:05 PM »

Roger,
I certainly am glad that "a friend of yours made this mistake and not you." Your friend could also consider filing the bevel on the lock face a bit deeper and then the frog hair of "standing proud" will go away. This way your friend will not have to inlet the innards any deeper. Just one quick and easy solution...

Ron

Roger Fisher · « **Reply #3 on:** January 27, 2010, 06:34:28 PM »

Quote from: Dennis Glazener on January 27, 2010, 06:21:35 PM

I had to do that with an Early Ketland in an early VA pattern that Fred Miller did for me (shaped lock panels back). The original lock had a much thinner bolster and Fred's pattern was a exact repo of the original. Lock was out of the mortice in a place or two. I milled about .060 thousandth off the bolster/pan/pan cover. Only problem I had was that the main spring hit the barrel. I thinned the main spring and also milled a slot in the barrel to clear the main spring. Barrel had plenty of meat so it was not a problem.
Dennis

Yes this lock is such an Early Ketland... Seems as though you gave me (I mean my 'friend'

the answer...

Roger Fisher · « **Reply #4 on:** January 27, 2010, 06:38:05 PM »

Quote from: Lucky R A on January 27, 2010, 06:22:05 PM

Roger,
I certainly am glad that "a friend of yours made this mistake and not you." Your friend could also consider filing the bevel on the lock face a bit deeper and then the frog hair of "standing proud" will go away. This way your friend will not have to inlet the innards any deeper. Just one quick and easy solution...

Ron

You mean the outside bevel?? Could be tricky if not careful 'he' could end up with inletting gap/gaps. Hmmmmm I'll tell 'him'!

Thanks!

Stophel · « **Reply #5 on:** January 27, 2010, 06:52:11 PM »

Lock inlet too deep? The simple solution is to glue slips of wood in place in the bottom of the inlet (primarily at the nose of the lockplate, and just behind the barrel where the rear screw goes), and re-inlet.

Roger Fisher · « **Reply #6 on:** January 27, 2010, 07:02:07 PM »

Quote from: Stophel on January 27, 2010, 06:52:11 PM

Lock inlet too deep? The simple solution is to glue slips of wood in place in the bottom of the inlet (primarily at the nose of the lockplate, and just behind the barrel where the rear screw goes), and re-inlet.

Stoph: No it's not deep enough - bolster is bottomed on the flat - plate sets nice and flat and square to the top barrel flat but stands too proud at least that's what "he" tells me

jimc2 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 27, 2010, 07:16:43 PM »

Roger I think at this point you should call in the pow wow this gun may be hexed machs gudt

smylee grouch · « **Reply #8 on:** January 27, 2010, 08:25:50 PM »

You might have to worry some off the frizzen where it gets close to the side flat

J. Talbert · « **Reply #9 on:** January 27, 2010, 09:05:29 PM »

At this point every fix has the potential to cause new problems. You have to consider the lesser of evils.
Another alternative sounds drastic but if done well can be hard to detect without close inspection. That is to level off the outer surface of the lock mortice, (possibley taking it down a little further first) then glue on a fresh slab of wood over top of it, matching the grain as best you can. Then, re-inlet the lock.

Jeff

Jim Kibler · « **Reply #10 on:** January 27, 2010, 10:11:00 PM »

If it's an early ketland, it doesn't have a cast on bevel. As mentioned by others, you could easily file on a bevel or might be able to increase the size of one you may already added. If this will work, it's a very simple fix. It's so hard to know exactly what your dealing with without seeing it. Maybe you could post a picture. I'm sure you will get better advice if you do.

ken · « **Reply #11 on:** January 27, 2010, 11:11:05 PM »

I am glad your old friend is willing to lesson to a young man of your caliber. Scribe along the lock plate and file to it the same as a side plate or trigger guard :

Nate McKenzie · « **Reply #12 on:** January 28, 2010, 12:54:56 AM »

Roger. It'll look better with a bevel anyway.

Roger Fisher · « **Reply #13 on:** January 28, 2010, 03:00:51 AM »

Now I notice that I threw everyone a curve the lock in question is a Late Ketland with the bevel. My fingers were typing b/4 my brain was in gear......

I have thinned that bolster just a bit and may do more. The innards are going in now slowly for certain..

Dr. Tim-Boone · « **Reply #14 on:** January 28, 2010, 07:33:22 PM »

Have a 1-1/8" highly tapered and flared barrel. The thick bolster kicked the tail of the EARLY Ketland lock out too far... so I shaved the bolster and flattened the side flat of the barrel where the bolster sits. No problem with the mainspring on the barrel.... the sharp taper was bad news ..and good, when I made the fix. I learned to leave a little more wood on the lock panels when using the bandsaw...it woulda been easier!! $:-\$

jimc2 · « **Reply #15 on:** January 29, 2010, 03:59:27 AM »

I still think you should use the pow wow

smshea · « **Reply #16 on:** January 29, 2010, 05:55:45 AM »

Roger

If its only a 16th I would think that anything internal that would cause a problem could be taken down by a 16th as well, especially if it is on the light side of a 16th. Personally I wouldn't get into gluing wood on unless I absolutely have to or the rifle is going to be carved around the lock panels or is going to be aged or better yet...both. I don't think you will have a problem you can't solve with a file.

jwh1947 · « **Reply #17 on:** January 29, 2010, 06:27:07 AM »

Ya don't say, Jimmy?, If Scotty's plan nicht arbeit, it be ferhexed fer sure. Ve neet und pow wow exorcist, nicht buchenschaffter.

California Kid · « **Reply #18 on:** January 29, 2010, 07:10:31 AM »

Ya, das gut.

Roger Fisher · « **Reply #19 on:** January 29, 2010, 05:55:38 PM »

Quote from: jimc2 on January 29, 2010, 03:59:27 AM

I still think you should use the pow wow

That gal is getting expensive and no more quanity discount

News:

Author Topic: Thinning the bolster? (Read 8212 times)

jimc2

ken

jimc2

jwh1947

California Kid