Southern Mtn build, in the white.

[mikemeteor]

Except for the sights, I'm just about done with the cussin, cuttin, and grinding.
before I get busy with stain and finish, thought i'd put up a pic or two to get some critique from everyone/anyone on what more might could/should be done to the stock.

one thing I know, I need work on my lock panel raising technique. I'm struggling with those rascals.

 

[bowkill]

looks good to me but i am still learning. where do i get a vice like that?

 

[mikemeteor]

made the vise out of about $12 worth of parts from Home Depot. this link shows it a little better.
vise pic

If you'd like more details, PM me and I'll send them along.

 

[Mike Brooks]

one thing I know, I need work on my lock panel raising technique. I'm struggling with those rascals.

Read my tutorial. :thumbsup:

 

[mtcurman]

Looks good! :thumbsup:

 

[longcruise]

one thing I know, I need work on my lock panel raising technique

Not sure what you mean by "raising"? This is probably about how we think about something. I think about this as lowering the wood around the panels.

 

[bigbuckdn]

very nice looks great to me

 

[mikemeteor]

thanks all.

Mike B - I swear I have your tutorial dang near memorized.
Maybe it's like reading a book about playing guitar - reading about it doesn't make one a guitar player :hmm: .
With the pre-carved lock panels, and downsizing them as they come from Pecatonica, I'm almost treating it like high relief carving - whatever it is, it doesn't end up looking like I want .

Like most beginners, I did get some advice to slim down the forestock - kinda figured maybe that was coming, so spent today nestling down my entry thimble, and maybe getting it more parallel to the line of the barrel. This gave me some leeway to take more wood off the bottom and sides of the upper forestock, forward of the TG.

Then proceeded to sand off more of the shoulders of the lower forestock.

Been ageing my metal parts this weekend too.
Started with cleaning and applying Perma-Blue, then sprayed with bleach and let set for 15 minutes:

Then rinsed, steel-wooled, and re-sprayed with bleach, let set for another 10 minutes or so.
Parts came out of that step nice and rusty:

Scotch-Brited and steel-wooled again:

Then dried and sprayed down with oil, and hit the parts with the MAPP torch until the oil smoked, let air-cool.
Finished with 600-grit sanding with oil.

I'm fairly happy with the aged-gray look that resulted.
For each batch , the whole process from start to finish was less than 2 hours.
Some parts showed a little more etching than others - I suppose that's due to different steel, or my timing was off on some batches.

(trigger assembly not done yet...)

 

[buford87]

You are in Penn. building a Tenn I'm in Tenn thinking of building a Penn.......watch yer top knot.............

 

[mikemeteor]

I'm in Tenn thinking of building a Penn

heck, Buford, that thinkin stuff just gets me in trouble.
If I think too much about it, I'll realize I oughta take up a different hobby.

 

[Steve Boyleston]

Metal parts look real nice, my 2 cents, don't ever be afraid to thin a rifle down- you can only take wood off to a point then nothing is left. Every Antique rifle I have taken a part is thin and fragile. that is the look. Many rifles are to bulky. Just looking at the stock looks like your there. Post some stained oil pictures - should look real nice- TGP

 

[mikemeteor]

10-4 - thank you, Pinyone. :hatsoff:
That seems to be the central theme of the feedback I'm getting - and I agree with every word of it - so I'm whacking away at it more around the lock, wrist and forestock.
Had to kinda hold my breath at first, but once you dig in, it seems to look better with every curl that comes off.

For the longer term, I have a question:
It's easy to remove width in the lock and wrist area, but sometime 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 ?

 

[dodgecummins01]

The web (area between the barrel channel and the ram rod channel) determins some of the overall thickness.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Don't forget that every one walked everywhere, and carried their gun in their arms, or slung over their shoulders. Weigh mattered, much more so than to day with our autos to take us close to a general area to hunt, or explore. That is the reason that stocks were so thin, and fragile, and light weight.

The stocks DO NOT HOLD UP the barrel, as they do on modern rifles: Instead, the stocks on MLers are held ONTO by the barrels.

If anything the barrels were over-ENGINEERED, to make sure the barrel could handle the loads the shooters might put in them, without blowing up and hurting, or killing the owner, and bystanders. Shooters wanted the safety that comes with putting the weight in the barrel, and breech plug, rather than in the stock. :hmm:

 

[Birddog6]

IMHO, The forestock being thin had very little to do with the weight of the rifle, walking or not. A 11,12,13# rifle was the normal rifle in the originals, and not a concern for them to carry.... The men were tough strong hard working men, not the same normal guy you see in today's time...... The normal guy of 1700-1800's physical work load each day was tremendous & they had tremendous durability.

I think Most of the weight was in the barrels of the old rifles. Most of them were long & large in dia & small bores, and allot of the 44-46-48-50" long with 31, 32,36,38,40, 41 cal in barrels that were 1 to 1 1/4" in dia. HEAVY barrels....... Slimming the forestocks made the rifles appear sleek, but most were definitely not light.......

A good example is a original Tennessee rifle. Looks long & sleek, most have a barrel 1" or larger across the flats barrel with a .36 cal bore & 48" long, weight 13-14# or more.

A thicker forestock on one of those rifles would merely mean a couple of ounces more weight & not even be noticeable on a 13# rifle to carry. However, the LOOKS of the rifle would be much different, as it would not appear as slender & sleek as they wanted.

:wink:

However, it appears I am getting off the guys original post, so will stop here.

Keep at it Meteorman........ keep working it down & look at LOTS of photos that have been posted here. Look at the Lock Panels & study them, you will get it right.
:thumbsup:

 

[paulvallandigham]

Steve: You are correct. However, even a few ounces can change the BALANCE of a rifle, and these guys wanted guns that balanced well for quick shots. It may be that thinning the forestock had more to do with improving the balance of these long rifles, than with saving any real weight.

I once held a 12 ga. DB Flintlock shotgun, made in the Tower of London, with Brown Bess locks, and sling swivels, that had 36 inch barrels, and a huge, almost 3 inch wide buttplate on a 12 1/2" LOP buttstock. The gun, with those barrels weighed around 10 lbs( 2 lbs. heavier than my modern
Remington 870 with its 30 inch barrel), but it moved easily in the swing, and balanced perfectly between the hands. The gun was made in 1776.


Its the oldest, original gun I have held in my hands to date, and I was very impressed with not only the length of barrels, and weight, but more so with the BALANCE of the piece. It would have been a very easy gun to shoot with that wide butt plate distributing recoil over so much of the shoulder.

Even with that short LOP, the drop was sufficient that it came right up to my eye, staring down the center rib, when I mounted the gun to my shoulder. I am 6'1`" tall. I simply did not expect a gun with that short a LOP would fit me that well. :hatsoff:

 

[Birddog6]

Paul,

My name is Keith..... :wink: I don't agree with you but that is OK, we have disagreed before. :grin:

I think if you have a straight barrel 48" long & 1.25 across the flats in a 36 or 40 cal, taking 2-3 ounces off the forestock (and it would be taking it off the entire length of 48", not just the muzzle) a rifle of that weight 12-13# you won't even notice a dif. in the balance. IMHO. You see it differently, and that is OK. :grin:

Keith Lisle

 

[Packdog]

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 ?

Meteorman,
The barrel is a given, the web between the barrel and the ram rod hole is a given. The ram rod is a given so you have two place to work. The wood beneath the ram rod hole is one. Working from about 1/16" to 1/8" of wood at the entry pipe to around 1/8" and 3/16" at the breech. That will thin the belly and determine how much wood you have for the trigger and trigger plate. 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.
If you bring that line straight back where you tun down for the wrist will also help slim the wrist. What you son't want is a pinched wrist where the top of the srist is a steeper angle than the lower part of the wrist.

I hope all that make a little sense.

 

[Packdog]

Don't forget that every one walked everywhere, and carried their gun in their arms, or slung over their shoulders.

No horses?

Weigh mattered, much more so than to day with our autos to take us close to a general area to hunt, or explore. That is the reason that stocks were so thin, and fragile, and light weight.

If weight mattered more then than today: why does the average original weigh 2 to 3 lbs. more than the average contemporary TN rifle?

I have to agree with Keith and Steve, thinning the forstock has little affect on the balance of rifle with a 4 foot barrel. You'd have a better chance of signifigantly changing the balance by putting in a deep patchbox or NOT pouring a pewter nose cap.

 

[streetsniper]

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.