Southern Mtn build, in the white.

[J.D.]

I'd appreciate some 'splaining on how to remove (or minimize)depth, from tang to trigger plate.

Going from top to bottom:
Seems like once the barrel is in, that largely dictates the top plane of the lock/forewrist area, and also of course dictates lock placement, which dictates trigger placement, which largely dictates trigger plate placement, which determines the bottom, ventral plane of the lock area.
Where in that chain of hardware can I keep things shorter, smaller, tighter together - to get the slim look ?

I usually measure and draw out all of the lines on the stock. For example, the line of the bottom of the barrel channel, a line representing the top and bottom of the RR hole, and mark the web, between the bottom of the barrel channel and top of the RR hole with cross hatching, to keep all of those lines straight.

If the web is too thick, inlet the barrel deeper...provided the lock mortise is not inlet. I prefer to inlet my own locks, so's I can move things around to make 'em fit the way I want.

If the lock is pre-inlet, ya gotta remove material from the bottom to get all of those parts where they should go.

Personally, I would go with what you have, on this one, and keep all of the good advice you have received for your next build....and there will be a next build. :wink:

IMHO, all in all, I like it.

BTW, Packdog knows his stuff, and birddog ain't no slouch either, so listen to their advice.

God bless

 

[bioprof]

Out of curiosity Paul, older guns tended to have shorter lop's. Would this be to move the COG back to help balance those long barrels? Moving the weight of the lock, trigger guard and some of the barrel back an inch or two. Just wondering.

I would think that they had shorter lop's because they had shorter arms.

 

[F.G. Ford]

Most Dutch have short arms & deep pockets, hence short "LOP". What else can I say? :rotf: :blah:

Old Ford

 

[paulvallandigham]

200 years ago, men were 6-10 inches shorter than the average adult male today. Washington was consider a giant, at over 6 ft. I think LOP was shorter to fit the average sized man of the day, but I can't say what the motive was for a particular gun, including that DB flintlock shotgun I was able to examine. The Thick, Brass butt plate was, I believe made especially to improve the balance and swing of this DB shotgun. I have never seen another brass butt plate like it since.

 

[mikemeteor]

You may have to adjust your trigger if you get it thinned down.. I normally have to take some off the rear trigger bar and bend the sear up to get it all stuffed in that little of a space. This will also make it easier the have thin lock panels.
I hope all that make a little sense.

Hot dang I love this forum! :grin:
where else can you learn about rifle building and human growth patterns all in one place !? :haha:

Bless you all for the feedback and tips.

For this build, the light bulb went off in my melon last night.... just as PackDog says, I "threw away" about 1/4" of slimness in the form of my trigger blades - left 'em both too tall, instead makin 'em shallower and inletting the trigger that much deeper - which of course woulda let me make the bottom lock panel width that much narrower.

and bending the sear - genius ! :thumbsup: that probably woulda bought me another 1/16" at least.
altho that sounds like something that should be prefaced with "don't try this at home". :shocked2:

anyway, thank you all - been carvin off wood every night - will post pics when done.

 

[TARL01]

I don't know for sure, but it seems to me the gunsmith might take the LOP measurement for a (wealthly) person before making a custom gun at least or for any gun he was making with a particular person in mind.
Is there any historical basis to back this idea up?
Thanks, Woody

 

[Packdog]

MeteorMan,
Taking some wood off the belly goes a long way to helping make a slim rifle. A couple of other things is making sure the ram rod groove is less than 1/2 the ram rod diameter and that the sides of your stock do not go up the side of the barrel more than 1/2 the side barrel flat. I have seen them more like 1/3 of the barrel flat.

[/img]

 

[J.D.]

Packdog,
I sure like the way that RR lays close to the nosecap. IMHO, there is just enough room to grasp the RR so's it can be retrieved, but not so much that the upper forestock looks thick and klunky.

I have seen a few originals where the RR channel was little more than a slight recess in the stock, with probably 80% of that RR exposed. IMHO, that is a little extreme, but having about 2/3 of the RR exposed looks about right.

God bless

 

[paulvallandigham]

Let's see: 2/3 exposed RR is okay( That's 66.6%) but 80% exposure is NOT. 66% vs.80%, a difference of 13.3%. Okay. :shocked2: :idunno: :surrender: :hatsoff:

 

[J.D.]

IMHO, to my eye, any more than about 2/3 of the rod exposed interrupts the line of the forestock and RR, making the RR look like an appendage added as an afterthought, instead of being a part of the rifle. It's merely aesthetics, nothing more.

God bless

 

[mikemeteor]

MeteorMan,
Taking some wood off the belly goes a long way to helping make a slim rifle. A couple of other things is making sure the ram rod groove is less than 1/2 the ram rod diameter and that the sides of your stock do not go up the side of the barrel more than 1/2 the side barrel flat. I have seen them more like 1/3 of the barrel flat.

[/img]

thanks PackDog.
i sure like that poured nosecap.
I'm gonna try that on the gun after next.
BTW, I notice that front site's got 2 feet on it. :shocked2:
I'm no veteran gun examiner for sure ! - but I don't recall seeing that set-up before - did you make that - is it traditional ,or does it solve a structural deficiency, or both ?

 

[Packdog]

MeteorMan,
Double based front sights were pretty common on guns from some areas of North Carolina. I have even seen one with 3 bases. They are most common on Guilford County, NC - Jamestown school guns. I recon it was a fade that caught on. I have seen them rarely on gun from other areas but occasionally you do run into them.
There's no reason for doing it that I know of other than other it looks cool and different. They are a pain in the butt to do. The only reason I can see for having one with 3 bases is.... "If 2 is cool. then 3 must be better". :rotf:
Here's one on a Gilespie Rifle from Henderson Co., NC.... I think?

 

[Birddog6]

thanks PackDog.
i sure like that poured nosecap.
I'm gonna try that on the gun after next.
BTW, I notice that front site's got 2 feet on it. :shocked2:
I'm no veteran gun examiner for sure ! - but I don't recall seeing that set-up before - did you make that - is it traditional ,or does it solve a structural deficiency, or both ?

Ah............... Don't let his shuck ya Meteorman !! He cut the slot in the wrong place & had to cut another one...... He is just a coverin up his screwups !! :rotf: Wouldn't surprise me a bit to se e 4-5 of them slots cut on the end of one of his rifles !! :shocked2: :rotf:

He even screwed up one time so bad, & he got so cornfused & had the patchbox hole goin the wrong way !! :haha: so what's he do, he just cuts one a going the other way too & hinges them both on there, & now I don't know if the danged patchbox is a comin or a going ?? :idunno: !! He is a crafty one fer sure ......... :hmm:

 

[Birddog6]

:idunno: dang....... :stir: didn't even get a rise out of him...

I was just a messin with him. :wink: Ken builds a great rifle & all of them are quite unique, including the one with the double ended patchbox.. :thumbsup:

:wink:

 

[mikemeteor]

Heck, Ken ain't so bad... .. that Gillespie feller had to cut two slots, and then he put the sight on backwards anyway. :shocked2:

I know you were goofin.
Shoot, I look at the rifles that Ken builds (as well as yours), and then I look at mine, and I get tears in my eyes.
And they ain't tears of joy.

 

[Packdog]

No, I was waiting for you to say the reason I poured the pewter nose cap was because I cut the stock off too short. hehehe
Ken

 

[Birddog6]

:grin: :rotf: Well now ya shouldn't have said that :shocked2: cause you slipped another one by me & I hadn't even noticed it !! :idunno:

Meteorman, just keep a pluggin at it... You are doing fine & it will all get a lil easier with the next one. Won't be long & you will be at the testing stage.