Well, I'm just going to do the best that I can.
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
J. Armstrong build.
- Thread starter pooch156
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
That’s all we can do! I’d not give it a full on Bedford rat tail look if I was doing it.
I'd have to modify the rat tail for sure!
Talked to a man at L&R this AM. Nice guy. Was told that if I wanted the pan to be more in line with the J. Armstrong lock that I should consider their Dickert lock. On the other hand the Bedford lock is thinner and I could modify the rat tail while making allowances for the round bottom shape of that pan.
Ref: "If you want. a thin looking rifle, pay particular attention to your web thickness. Most inletters make them 3/16"-1/4" which can make the breech. area look "heavy" and the muzzle end fat. Try 1/16" at the breech and 1/8"-5/32" at the muzzle. If you think you can live with a 5/16" (rather than a 3/8") RR that will help too."
I'm struggling with the issue of web thickness right now with my first rifle build from scratch. With 1/16" of web at the breech, where does the front lock bolt go) I don't want to file a groove in the barrel to accommodate it unless I mess up the drilling? 1/8" to 5/32" does not leave much room for the barrel lugs, or for fixing the ramrod pipes. There would not be much wood in the web to prevent the two halves splitting apart, especially with half a dozen slots cut right through the web for lugs and pipes. While I do like the look of these skinny rifles and am trying to build one, I find it hard to believe that the early gunsmiths would put aesthetics before functionality in rifles which were expected to have hard use in the field. By the way, the TOTW plans for the Isaac Haines rifle show a web thickness of 7/32" at the breech and 5/16 near the front pipe. However this plan set has many inaccuracies, which, as an engineer, I find extremely frustrating. OK, rant is over ...
I'm struggling with the issue of web thickness right now with my first rifle build from scratch. With 1/16" of web at the breech, where does the front lock bolt go) I don't want to file a groove in the barrel to accommodate it unless I mess up the drilling? 1/8" to 5/32" does not leave much room for the barrel lugs, or for fixing the ramrod pipes. There would not be much wood in the web to prevent the two halves splitting apart, especially with half a dozen slots cut right through the web for lugs and pipes. While I do like the look of these skinny rifles and am trying to build one, I find it hard to believe that the early gunsmiths would put aesthetics before functionality in rifles which were expected to have hard use in the field. By the way, the TOTW plans for the Isaac Haines rifle show a web thickness of 7/32" at the breech and 5/16 near the front pipe. However this plan set has many inaccuracies, which, as an engineer, I find extremely frustrating. OK, rant is over ...
With a straight barrel, most will want closer to 5/32” or even 3/16” web at breech and muzzle. I routinely file a groove in the barrel for the front lock bolt. On a swamped barrel you gain room to pin the thimbles and barrel everywhere except at the muzzle.
Just saw a John Armstrong rife online at Cowans' auction. This is, of course an original. The listing said that this rifle has a buckhorn rear sight. Hmmmmmmmm. . .
Yes, sandcast brass is as rough as a corncob! When I received and looked at my trigger guard I said to myself; "OMG"! What am I going to do with this mess??!! So, I let out a big puff of air and went to work. Here is the finished product. Best I can do. I think that it will be fine.
Attachments
When I ordered my barrel from Pecatonica I also ordered my barrel lugs. These are really nice in that they are machined
Looks a whole lot like a L&R Bedford lock right down to the rat tail. I'm going to go with the L&R Bedford.
Having built many Bucks County LRs which are very petite and slim, having 1/16" or slightly less web at the breech and 5/32" web at the muzzle are paramount in achieving that look. The webs used enable a slight angling of the upper and lower forestocks towards the muzzle which also yields a slender look. I also use "B" weight .50 cal. X 46" swamped Rice bbls which render a fairly light LR w/ a slender look. Pinning the stock w/ such a thin web at the breech poses some problems, but can be done.
Good luck w/ your Armstrong.....Fred
Good luck w/ your Armstrong.....Fred
My stock from Pecatonica has been shipped as of last monday. A four week wait as I wanted a barrel channel width of 15/16". It will be CM3. Have always been happy with that grade. Now to wait on USPS.
Recieved my J. Armstrong stock from Pecatonica today. I'm a happy camper! I ordered CM3 as I have twice before. Lots of figure here. Normally they cut the barrel channel at 7/8" for a .50 caliber. But, I wanted to go .54 caliber and that required a 15/16" barrel. So there was a one month wait to have the 15/16" barrel channel stock done. Worth the wait! I didn't have them inlet for the lock as I'm using a L&R Bedford lock and am modifying the rat tail. The reason that I went with the Bedford lock is due to the low profile. The height of the lock plate is only a little over 13/16".
Been busy with my John Armstrong rifle. This build has tested my patience for sure. Had to have L&R send a new fly & sear due to the lock stopping at half ****. The lock is working correctly now. Got the buttplate inletted installed yesterday. The inletting for that looks really good! Don't think that I could do any better. See pic..
Attachments
.
Last edited:
.
Last edited:
.
Last edited:
