IIRC the lock screw goes thru the breech plug and may give some resistance to rearward movement as does the tang screws. reducing the forestock to just shy of the muzzle and glassing the breech gap (and seat if necessary) seem reasonable if your going to keep it. With some care these can approximate a custom rifle at an affordable price. I do agree reducing barrel length may help balance and handling but i think unaltered, early ones will always bring a premium.
Dixie Gun Works Tennessee Mountain Rifle
- Thread starter LSB
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
excess650
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2009
- Messages
- 1,671
- Reaction score
- 639
I've owned two of the .50 flintlocks. Foolishly, I sold or traded the first back in the early '80s. I bought another some 20 years ago, and still have it. The worst part about mine is that the frizzen was a sloppy fit and would dribble powder. I put a bead of JB Weld on it and filed it flush so that it made a seal, but it does erode over time. I've purchased one of the L&R replacement locks, but it remains spare as this one sparks and fires every time.
Muzzle heavy? It sure is, but I've done my best offhand work with it.
Muzzle heavy? It sure is, but I've done my best offhand work with it.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2021
- Messages
- 209
- Reaction score
- 256
Here are some shots of a lefty project. It’s L6207 and has some stock challenges similar to the one described in the muzzle area although not at the breech. The stock on this rifle is extremely dry. The later 6969 we have does not have these issues.
Attachments
Thanks for the input. Bedding that breech gap with accraglas is what I think I will do. I doubt I will shorten the barrel since I do all of my deer hunting from a blind or stand and use a rest so the barrel length and weight really shouldn't be a problem.
That photo of the muzzle looks just like mine. I can't figure out the theory behind making the stock extend past the muzzle. At least on mine, the trigger guard fits the inlet perfectly and other furniture fits the inlets very well, just the gap at the breech end of the barrel needs attention. Quality control probably got somewhat lax at times. Thanks for the photos.
Thanks for the thoughts. Mine has a good tight fit for the frizzen and I hope I don't have to resort to the replacement lock but time will tell. The weight shouldn't be a real problem as I do all of my muzzleloader hunting from a blind or stand and I cheat and use shooting sticks.
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2020
- Messages
- 106
- Reaction score
- 93
I’ll chime in on this discussion as these rifles get talked about every so often…
The probable reason for the longer stock over the barrel is because the original owner probably purchased it as a kit. It was probably assembled quickly because it’s only purpose was to serve as a wall hanger.
I have a .32 cal and although it’s not a $2000 beauty or a Kibler, it’s been reworked by a master craftsman who took it upon himself to make it what it is today.
He crowned the muzzle for me, extended the tang (that originally broke off), and really REALLY did a number on the stock. I refined it by putting the finishing touches on it and now it looks like a different rifle that’s comfortable for me.
Besides chopping off some of the barrel, you can cut down on the weight by thinning out the stock like originals.
Others mileage may vary
James
The probable reason for the longer stock over the barrel is because the original owner probably purchased it as a kit. It was probably assembled quickly because it’s only purpose was to serve as a wall hanger.
I have a .32 cal and although it’s not a $2000 beauty or a Kibler, it’s been reworked by a master craftsman who took it upon himself to make it what it is today.
He crowned the muzzle for me, extended the tang (that originally broke off), and really REALLY did a number on the stock. I refined it by putting the finishing touches on it and now it looks like a different rifle that’s comfortable for me.
Besides chopping off some of the barrel, you can cut down on the weight by thinning out the stock like originals.
Others mileage may vary
James
Beaver3365
32 Cal.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2017
- Messages
- 53
- Reaction score
- 8
Got my first Dixie in 1984. Flint. .50 cal. and have taken many whitetail with her.
Bought a second one used in 2015. A factory .50 caplock. Converted her to flint with the L&R lock. Both heavy as all get out, but deadly.
Both are great rifles.
Bought a second one used in 2015. A factory .50 caplock. Converted her to flint with the L&R lock. Both heavy as all get out, but deadly.
Both are great rifles.
Wow ! I have # 134 in 50 cal. I love mine too !!
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2021
- Messages
- 209
- Reaction score
- 256
Does yours have a walnut stock and narrow barrel?
Under that ugly walnut finish is cherry!
I hated the factory finish when I traded a vaquero saddle for mine years ago ( maybe 1986 ). I sanded the stock down after removal of all hardware ( polished all that too) and found a gorgeous piece of cherry !
Did a hand rub of four coats of almond oil and I think it came out beautiful . Barrel mics out at 29/32’s
flat to flat so it’s a slightly proud 7/8ths ?? Or a skinny 15/16ths ! LOL
Took my DGW mountain to the scale this morning. She’s a fatty : ( Despite the lower serial number ( L 134 ) she is at 9 pounds . No way could I fudge the scale to 7.5 . So I guess she has to be a later model . Thanks to everyone posting so much info on these particular rifles. Some day I’d love to get one in .32 flint but till then “Truth” will be seeing lots of outdoor time despite her “hefty” nature ; )
SlidePicker
40 Cal
Mine's about 9 pounds, as well.
me anything over 8 is kind of hard for me to lug very far. I seem to judge everything against my 12 double Ped at 6.4#. Wonder what the weight difference is between the 50 and .
Must be a few ounces but I wonder if the difference wouldn’t be all that noticeable unless a person had one in each hand doing a “ comparison test”.
Similar threads
- Locked
