Pending Build Question?

Triggerguard finial, or lack thereof, 1725-1750 brass barelled "coaching carbine" made by Pickfatt of London.

Ramrod diameter?

Should have clarified-

Not the exact triggerguard etc. on the Pickfatt version, but the Pickfatt example at the Tower is considered by many to be the most representative and stereotypical of this type of arm.

24" brass barrel, 17 bore with 15 at the muzzle.

"Dog lock" with catch on bottom of cock (optional feature for coaching carbines).

2 thimbles- 4 ring moderately bulbous.

Quite small triggerguard bow.

And what is the question?

What book is the picture in, or can you post a picture of the gun?
English giuns in that time period had the first pattern of acorn finail. or what I would call the "husk" shape.
The Rod was probably 5/16" and flared alot on the muzzle end. It could quite possiblly have started at 1/4" on the small end.. Most all original english guns had ram rods far smaller that we tend to use today.
>>>>POKE HERE

"English Shotguns and Rifles" (? not here, at home) by George (for sure) Plate VI gun no.3.

A super sweet looking carbine, not too radical of a muzzle flare, really clean and trim.

Can make the barrel easy. Alloy 464 (brass).

Would also need a basic figure for length of internal taper at muzzle 15 to 17.

Now that you are on it Mike, I'll get the scoop for sure.

The potential build is the "Coaching carbine" (no. 3).

The barrel is of brass, 24" long, with a 17 bore (.650) that is .672 (internal dimension)at the muzzle.

The barrel appears to be completely cylindrical without octagonal flats, at the breech location. There does appear to be a decorative ring turned at the muzzzle.

There appears to be no forend cap (this example is damaged), and the ramrod has a pretty radical flare.

I previously noted that the triggerguard bow seemed quite small, but this conclusion only stems from the observation of the other arms.

I do not detect a front sight, but subsequent research has noted that this would be A-ok.

I can easily figure out the graceful "swamp" differential from the image, after the breech dimension (ballpark) is determined.

The lock is a "doglock" in the image, but this is also optional. The TRS doglocks are flat faced, but I prefer the stereotypical "round face".

Anyway, I have 30 feet or so of 1.5" Alloy 464 (certified) that needs to be used. I am not really a "Blunderbuss" fan (yet, but my mind will change)but this coaching carbine lets me use my brass and not look blunderbussy (?).

I am pretty sure this is the next build after the Trans rifle.

Any input on dimensions or nuances of this arm would be appreciated. :thumbsup:

Probably an 1 1/4 breech. Lock 6" long, I'd use a chambers or Davis english export lock. Husk finial trigger guard as I pointed out before. Get one of Chambers english fowler buttplates. pull length is probably 13 1/2" to 14". You might as well order your sideplate from chambers too, He has several nice ones to choose from for this gun.
typically, english guns don't use nose caps....useless things anyway... :winking:
Are you sure that's a dog lock? I don't know If I recall ever seeing a round faced dog lock before. I can't see the dog in the picture either....

On the doglock, the author says that it has one with the "dog" at the bottom (?).

But true, I cannot see a catch, only the bridle screws. Maybe he was mistaken.

But true, I cannot see a catch, only the bridle screws. Maybe he was mistaken

Click to expand...

Makes you wonder doesn't it?

Quotes from the description-

"The specimen shown upon Plate VI which appears to be of the period between 1725 and 1750, is by Pickfatt, of London, a good though not first-class maker of that time. It is so nearly identical with other "coaching carbines" of the same period which the writer has, from time to time, encountered that it might be taken as a pattern for all arms of that type, were it not that it's lock is distinguished from the general run by the unusual feature (for an eighteenth century piece) of a small dog-catch, which engages in a notch upon the lower part of the cock when the latter is at half-bent.

The barrel of the carbine is precisely twenty-four inches long, and, despite the appearance of being bell-mouthed, which is given to it by the excessice thickening of the metal of it's muzzle, is only slightly flared, tapering from No. 17 guage at it's breech to No. 15 at it's muzzle end. It is capable of tolerably close shooting with small shot at ranges of from twenty to thirty yards, which were the usual limits for these short-barrelled pieces."

Has "Rabbit Gun" written all over it!

If I could find an image of such a "catch", do you think that a Chambers lock could be modified to implement this?

Perhaps it is some kind of linear sliding "safety", as I have seen these.

I have a book from the Netherlands that shows in perfect detail a whole ton of "dog catches" from all over. I will check it tonight!

:hmm:

Dog catches were used quite late on specialty guns meant to be used from moving platforms. Guns used on whalers, for example, will have dog-catches well into the late 1700's. I think they were a "for sure" safety feature that can be seen and trusted by the user even if he is being tossed around by sea or rough road.

That would definitely jibe with the "coaching carbine" aspect.

The arm was probably stashed under a seat, and had to be ready to go at all times.

If I could implement a "catch", that would be the icing on the cake.

I had better finish the Trans rifle, I was just checking my super long reamers in the tool room. I have a .6525 diameter, 17 bore is .650, this is as close as I can go without shelling out about $280.00. What do you think?

Oh no. :shake:

No luck on finding a depiction or a description of a "dog catch" that would resemble the above.

Images spanned snaphaunces to 1820's, all "dogs" were the "rear of the cock, lower pivot variety", with later (some) with a halfcock notch on the tumbler also.

No images depicted a round faced lock (round cock) with this provision. The later flintlocks had flat faces and hammers, tumbler screw and not, in all the doglock images.

I have determined that I can modify a Chambers lock to a "doglock" (there is room) if only I could see the configuration that would be correct for a "round faced" variety. Would the "dog" be rounded, or flat? I do not know!

It could very well be an entirely different set up than the stereotypical "dog" too.

I'd skip the dog all together. I can't see it in the picture, and the author quite possibly had the picture mixed up with another gun he was thinking of....

Very true.

I can plainly see a screw protruding right behind the cock, centered on the lockplate, so no "dog" exists there.

Unless something else comes to light, I will not try to incorporate a catch.

While I am thinking about it, what kind of window do I have dimensionally, that I can say "It's a 17 bore" , as 16 bore is basically only about .012 larger than 17.

Given that the barrel is "precisely" 24 inches in length, I based the following dimensions on muzzle to breech (external) not to include the tang.

Triggerguard bow = 1.00"

Lock dimensions = 5.9" x 1.00"

Muzzle diameter = 1.00"

Length of pull = 12.5"

Height of buttplate = 4.3"

Everything seems to check out, LOP is pretty short, but the height of the buttplate coming out to 4.3" seems very small.

I ran 3 seperate calculations in regards to the breech location (potential) and the figure would always appear, 4.3"! Everything else seems totally plausible but this. But the numbers do not lie. You could run the dimensions from muzzle to pan (!) and still not exceed 5" in butt height.

The build will probably incorporate the available 5.25" to 5.5" buttplates, but this is odd to me!

:hmm:

A 5" buttplate would be just about right. I'd stretch the pull out at least anothe 1"