Forestock on a swamped barreled rifle

[F.G. Ford]

Way back in the 60's when I had a little more hair and it was somewhat darker, I got hooked on Muzzleloaders & Black Powder,
Up here in Ottawa Canada the availability of muzzleloaders was few and far between, so we shot what we could find...one lad used a Lee Enfield bolt action, with a primed case, then loading from the muzzle, some used Snyders.
We tried making our own, but the information and photos were rare.
THEN along came this guy "Turner Kirkland" and a new age was born.
Most of the stuff was not PC or HC, nobody cared, it was close enough.
We are very fortunate today ,to have the information to educate ourselves on what is right and what could be better, to better replicate the period and time of our desired piece.
So never let somebody insist that your piece is not historically correct, enjoy what you have, and learn as you go.
Thanks to Track of the Wolf, Shumway, Alexander,Dixion's and the many fine black powder gun makers of today, we, the students are much better equipped to venture forth, and make a heirloom and leave it for our sucessors for the future to wonder why we did it.
To the unknowing,why would anybody want one of those smokepoles...when they could have a Remchester, or AK47.
Best Regards
Old Ford

 

[tg]

"So never let somebody insist that your piece is not historically correct"
I guess I missed the point, when someone asks if their gun or a particular makers gun is PC it either is or isn't.

 

I guess I missed the point, when someone asks if their gun or a particular makers gun is PC it either is or isn't.

I don't think it's quite that "black & white". What's PC to one may not be PC to another. It all depends on your definition of PC or how "correct" you want to be. There are lots of concessions made, even within the PC community, and it comes down to what concessions are acceptable to whom. If someone asks if a particular PART is PC for a particular gun, it either is or isn't. Tougher to do with the whole gun.IMO

 

[tg]

In many cases it camn be quite black and white, like the kind of lock ie a large siler on a French fusil, and many types of guns have certain traits that are what make them that type of gun, and yes there is some flexability but those who hace done a great deal of research are usually able to say with a pretty good degree of accuracy yes or no to a gun being historicaly correct if said gun claims to be of a particular type, period, school and such as always the never say never rule is there but many very obvious shortcommings or errors can be pointed out on mant of todays attempts to recreate the originals.Some are interested in having a gun that closely follows the originals as much as possible, some don't care, some balk at trying to define PC in any maner, often to justify previous uninformed choices in purchases or selection of parts, with the internet one has a wealth of info available if their goal is to build or purchase a gun authentic to the originals, non-PC/HC guns are fine and so is making folks aware of the difference between the two when it can be done, which is quite often as long as we stay away from the "prove it wasn't done" mindset.

 

[TANSTAAFL]

PC & HC is nice and can be great for those who strive for such with like minded people. BOTOH, stressing it too much to others not receptive to such, can prove to be a PITA and takes much of the fun out of the hobby for some. There are the purists, the close enough's, and the casual ones, who just enjoy the play acting occasionally.

 

[Mike Brooks]

Good ol' tg, fightin' the good fight. :thumbsup: More power to ya man, I don't have the energy anymore. :shake:

 

[tallbear]

I don't believe the answer to the question has anything to do with PC or HC it has to do with right or wrong.The question was should the forestock follow the taper and flair of a swamped barrel.The answer is YES!!!!!If you don't follow the swamp not only is it wrong it looks terrible!!

Mitch

 

[tg]

""So never let somebody insist that your piece is not historically correct"


I'll try again, if some one asks what not tell them? that was my point, and as for this thread the detail of the forestock was asked about in reference to how the originals were done so HC is the issue as well as being a right or wrong situation, nearly every time the HC/PC issue arises it is due to a question being asked by someone who wants to know yet those who are not interested in gun history find the need to jump in and try to minimize the importance of this aspect even though it was the original posters primary concern, Where are you Really Old Bob?

 

[Zonie]

tg: I think Really Old Bob has made his comment, and others have given their's. Further discussion on the merits or demerits of PC will serve no useful purpose on this post.

Initially, the post concerned the PC/HC question concerning the shaping of the forestock on a gun with a swamped barrel, and I feel the question has been answered.

I believe the question originally posted dealt with the shaping of the stock, as viewed from the top of the gun. At least that's how I pictured it, and the answers in my mind.
The question remains though when speaking of the underside of the forestock.
Do you folks think it should follow the swamp? That is, should it have a very mild "wasp waist", or should it follow the straight lines of the ramrod?

zonie

 

[Okwaho]

tg: I think Really Old Bob has made his comment, and others have given their's. Further discussion on the merits or demerits of PC will serve no useful purpose on this post.

Initially, the post concerned the PC/HC question concerning the shaping of the forestock on a gun with a swamped barrel, and I feel the question has been answered.

I believe the question originally posted dealt with the shaping of the stock, as viewed from the top of the gun. At least that's how I pictured it, and the answers in my mind.
The question remains though when speaking of the underside of the forestock.
Do you folks think it should follow the swamp? That is, should it have a very mild "wasp waist", or should it follow the straight lines of the ramrod?

zonie

Zonie,You have raised an interesting question here.The original question to which I responded was whether French fusil stocks followed the outline of the barrels.These guns {and I am primarily talking about old ones} have tapered barrels wherein the barrels are octagon at the breech then become round and taper to a point approximately 3-4" from the muzzle{generally about the front sight}then flare out to the muzzle. The flare varies as to the degree of flare depending on the maker.This tapered/flared profile should not be confused with swamped barrels on rifles where the taper also begins foward of the breech but at a point assumes a straight horizontal line for some distance before flaring back out.
I examined several old French guns with the tapered/flared barrel profile and the forestock follows the barrel. Many of these guns have a stock termination point 2 or more inches from the muzzle to allow easier access to the rammer and many old guns have had the stocks cut back during their period of use for the same purpose.
As to Zonie's question I looked at my Marshall rifle {1986} which has the classic swamped barrel and was built from a prototype taken from the original and then cloned. The forestock lines are straight leaving me to think that the inside of the barrel channel is built to accomodate the swamped barrel.I am not a builder but that's the way it appears to me.Some of you builders may want to correct me as to the swamps on rifle stocks and if so have at it.
Tom Patton

 

[Mike Brooks]

The stock follows the contour of the barrel.

 

[tg]

That is a a good point about the stock termination point on the French guns with the barrel going past the stock and with the step for the rammer there is not much stock left to be impacted by the flare at the muzzle, patrticulatrly from the side view

 

[Zonie]

The stock follows the contour of the barrel.

I take this to mean the underside of the stock will reveal more of the ramrod 10 inches from the muzzle than it does, say 3 inches from the muzzle.

zonie

 

[Packdog]

I think he tapers his ramrods in the middle.

 

[TANSTAAFL]

Pic of muzzle on my swamped 46 inch .62 fusil bbl. The muzzle extends 2 inches past stock, C/L of front sight is 4 inches from muzzle.

 

[grsvbs]

I don't believe BIOPROF and I expected this much input to what we asked. I find it great because those of us without access to several originals or a mentor need somewhere to go with our questions whether mundane or complex.
Obviously books and pictures can't cover it all.
Thanks.
:hatsoff:

 

[Mike Brooks]

The stock follows the contour of the barrel.

I take this to mean the underside of the stock will reveal more of the ramrod 10 inches from the muzzle than it does, say 3 inches from the muzzle.

zonie

No. the sides of the stock follow the contour of the swamped barrel. The top and bottom of the stock taper from the breech to the muzzle, but ram rod exposure stays consistant from end to end.
....did that amke any sense? :youcrazy: :haha: Hard to explain with a key board. Check out my Tutorial, maybe I covered it there. :hmm:

 

[Vaino]

I'm confused....will just procede the way I've been doing it, right or wrong. This isn't really that complicated in practice, the posts just make it seem so......Fred

 

Top and bottom line are straight (viewed from the side). The sides of the stock are NOT straight, (viewed from the top OR bottom), wood follows contour of the barrel. That's how i do it anyway.

 

[Geoff Jones]

I'm with Cody on this one....kinda'

Let me give it a shot. The sides of the fore stock and fore arm when viewed from the top or bottom are a gentle ark following the swamp of the barrel...that's the easy part.

The fore stock and forearm when viewed from either side follow a straight line roughly half way up the center flat of the barrel. The bottom of the fore stock and fore arm are a straight line parallel with this line and parallel with the ramrod.

The top of the barrel when viewed from the sides forms a slight taper toward the waist of the barrel and then a flare at the end of the muzzle....so the top of the gun when viewed from the side is not a straight line...

Are we all making this way too complicated?

geoff