old vs new

[hanshi]

I do know many of the original rifles of the 18th and early 19th century were often long and/or heavy (9 to 11 lbs). But what about the other dimensions? Has anyone ever measured a good selection of rifles for lop, drop at heel, etc and compared them with the same measurements taken from typical "built" rifles from various makers who build nowadays? Just curious and interested.

 

[jdkerstetter]

Thoughts of the Kentucky Rifle in it's Golden Age by Kindig, Rifles of Colonial America, Vols. I & II, and the various other books in the Longrifle Series available through Shumway Publishing contain hundreds of original guns with the measurements you seek.
http://www.shumwaypublisher.com/store/shop/category.asp?catid=2

I don't know that anybody has sat down and done a sampling of contemporary copies to see how close most builders are keeping to the originals. I do know several who practice in making "copies" that do their best to keep to the originals.

Hope that helps some. Enjoy, J.D.

 

[shootrj2003]

I have only really noticed. One curiosity and that is from what I have looked at a lot of old guns tend to have more drop at the heel and comb than modern guns (excepting replicas of course.)even cartridge guns ,especially shotguns exhibit this thing,kind of makes them kick a bit more.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Living out east I would think you would have many museums where this could be researched. I have seen several museums over the years and a number of original rifles at various events. I'll opin that most of us would not want to shoot a truly 'original' design rifle. Those heavy barrels, 1" to 1 1/8", in 46" long and only about .32 cal are real heavy buggers to hold. And those short pulls, tiny-tiny, almost non-existant sights, etc. make them near impossible to hold, much less shoot. I have to wonder how they did it.

 

[Col. Batguano]

Gunsmiths of Grenville County has some very very detailed measurements of about a dozen original guns in it.

If you make an appointment with a museum curator, often they will let you handle and take measurements off of originals too, particularly if you agree to an honorarium contribution.

 

[jdkerstetter]

I don't think the issue is the lack of measurements on originals. As I pointed out there are literally hundreds of original guns for which the measurements have been documented.

The problem for Hanshi would be finding a list of specifics on contemporary guns to compare them to.

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[George T.]

I have never seen measurements but both KY. and Pen. style rifles have more drop at the heel. Several current makers told me that they were built for off hand shooting. In fact they were influenced by German target rifles. In fact My Penn. Rifle has a roman nose stock that is uncomfortable to shoot from a bench. My guess is that most were made for a person so these deminisions will vary. As today Military rifles are pretty well standard. Geo. T.

 

[hanshi]

Thanks for all the good replies. My impression has been that the originals tend to have more drop, some styles more so than others. It is sort of understood that folks are generally taller and may influence modern interpretations (I'm short for 200 years ago). Not all the old guns were particularly heavy but many, many of them are, based upon the ones available for study. The ultra deeply curved butt plates still puzzle me; this appears to have evolved much later in the flintlock period. Personally, I'd like to know what they were thinking back then.

 

[Col. Batguano]

Deeply hooked buttplates (like Ohio rifles and Vincents) were designed to be shot off your bicep rather than your shoulder.

 

[Flash Pan Dan]

I don’t know the actual reasoning for the use of deeply crescent buttplates, but I know now, after using a rifle with one, that if used correctly they do help you get a very consistent position on your upper arm and shoulder and they do not slip around very much when in position while being used from an offhand position. Pretty much the same benefits that the hooked buttplates have on rimfire target rifles. So, those deeply crescent buttplates have their benefits.

 

[Number19]

I have never seen measurements but both KY. and Pen. style rifles have more drop at the heel. Several current makers told me that they were built for off hand shooting. In fact they were influenced by German target rifles. In fact My Penn. Rifle has a roman nose stock that is uncomfortable to shoot from a bench. My guess is that most were made for a person so these deminisions will vary. As today Military rifles are pretty well standard. Geo. T.

The drop in the heel was much less for the early guns - pre-revolutionary - but was indeed intended for off-hand shooting. When I had a custom stock made for my .22 hornet, used for off hand shooting with iron sights, I more or less copied from the Pennsylvania rifle and put 3" of drop into the heel. It's a sweet holding little gun, with the sights coming into natural alignment with my eye.

 

[Captjoel]

I have noticed that most of the original rifles from the early to mid 19th century have a shorter length of pull than the rifles made today. I have heard that people in general were smaller in stature back then. The average LOP I see today is 14". Originals I have examined had LOP's from 12" to 13" and 12 1\2" most common. Of coarse there are always exceptions. I have shot a lot of short LOP original rifles and have adjusted my stance by sliding the butt plate down the arm and off of the shoulder.

 

[swathdiver]

Could it be that stock makers today build stocks for guns where they will be shot with a scope?

Conversely, did stock makers in times past design stocks that aided point shooting and open sights? Seems so especially with shotguns.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I think that the younger rifles, with the small, crecent butt plates were fired by being shouldered on the upper most portion of the arm, or so I am told. At least on me, if I shoulder some of them as I do my personal rifles, the top and bottom points of the butt plate poke into my chest, and if I fired would undoubtedly give me two nice bruised spots, but fit flush with my arm at the uppermost point.

As far as measuring is concerned, that could be done on the originals, and then simply posted or published, for folks buying repros to use (or not) when buying their rifles, no?

LD

 

[hanshi]

I use to own a decent .50 with a very pronounced butt plate and the heel even had a sharp point to dig into the shoulder. I hunted with that rifle a lot and shot it off the bench a lot. I fired it from the shoulder like always. It was okay fired that way but, I confess, it left major bruises on a sore shoulder off the bench.