J. Armstrong build.

[pooch156]

I was initially going to build a Vincent in .36 caliber. and . . . I am still planning on it. I just think that I should do more research on the Ohio rifles first. So, I have a set of much admired plans for a J. Armstrong rifle lying before me. It looks like a fun & long term project. I live in Maryland. John Armstrong lived and worked in Emmitsburg, MD. I'm in the same county and a stones throw from Emmitsburg. So with that I think it fitting to build one of his rifles. The plans call for a 7/8" barrel. But with that I'm limited to a maximum of .50 Cal.. I already have a .50 cal. Isaac Haines and although a fine shooter, I don't need another. So, I'm going to go with 15/16" Colerain barrel in .54 caliber with a fantail breech plug. I'm going to get the stock blank from Dunlap as he is only about an hour away in Chantilly, VA.. Any comments or advice are welcome.

 

[Scota@4570]

Armstrong rifles have been describe to me as "dainty". My first attempt was a 45 cal 13/16 42" barrel. I consider it to be clunky as I made it. I may do another. I would use something like Kiblers SMR barrel profile but 42". The patchbox, carving and engraving on an Armstrong is challenging. No appropriate lock is available. You will have to make the patchbox. The next try wil use a lock with a plate made by me and and Siler parts. I really wish I could own one and copy it.

 

[rich pierce]

The John Armstrong rifle in the book Masterpieces of the American Longrifle from the Kindig collection has a barrel with a breech diameter of 1 and 1/8”. It is .59 caliber rifled. Does that blow your mind? Yet the buttstock is 1 and 1/2” in diameter.
I keep in mind that many blueprints are not drawn from original guns. They are adapted to use parts the supplier can sell you or parts readily available, and made in the general style of a maker. I’d give 5 to one odds there is no Armstrong rifle with a barrel with a 7/8” dimension across the flats.
Plans from outfits like Track are also modified to suit modern dudes who want a gun weighing 8 and a half pounds or less.
Similarly it would be mighty hard to find an original SMR as wispy as the Kibler. But it sure is a light and handy gun.
My original plain Southern rifles weigh 9 and a half and 12 pounds.

 

[rich pierce]

A few more data points from Kindig’s book Thoughts on the Kentucky Rifle in its Golden Age:

#205 J Armstrong weighs 11.5 pounds. 53 caliber.
#206 J Armstrong weighs 9 pounds. 55 caliber.
#207 J Armstrong weighs 9.75 pounds. 47 caliber.
#208 J Armstrong is the lightweight at 7 and 3/4 pounds. 43 caliber.

 

[Col. Batguano]

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.

 

[pooch156]

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.

Please excuse my naivete as I don't understand "web thickness" at the breach and muzzle. Info would be much appreciated.

 

[rich pierce]

Please excuse my naivete as I don't understand "web thickness" at the breach and muzzle. Info would be much appreciated.

The web is the wood underneath the barrel channel and above the ramrod groove or hole. If 1/4” thick the gun forestock will look deeper. If 1/8” thick at muzzle and breech the gun can look slimmer and the forearm can be more rounded in cross section versus egg shaped vertically.

 

[pooch156]

The web is the wood underneath the barrel channel and above the ramrod groove or hole. If 1/4” thick the gun forestock will look deeper. If 1/8” thick at muzzle and breech the gun can look slimmer and the forearm can be more rounded in cross section versus egg shaped vertically.

OK. I got you. Thank you so much.

 

[pooch156]

Does anyone have any pictures of an original Armstrong lock and side plate? I'm looking for a lock that is as close to the originals as possible. The plans that I have (from TOTW) show what looks to be a deluxe siler . . . A fine lock but is it anywhere close in configuration to the originals?

 

[rich pierce]

https://www.google.com/search?q=joh...hVSC6wKHYReBe4Q_AUoAXoECAMQAQ&biw=441&bih=645
google searches work. Results from auction offerings are plentiful and the best free resource. Books work also.

 

[GANGGREEN]

Wow, those weights are somewhat surprising because I've always seen the Armstrong as a dainty, graceful rifle as well. And I admit to being guilty of wanting slim, light rifles in the sub 7.5 pound range myself.

 

[Scota@4570]

Here are some photos I gathered

 

[rich pierce]

A gun can look and be built slim and weigh 10!pounds or look fat and weigh 7 pounds. Architecture is the main determinant of appearance.

 

[GANGGREEN]

No doubt that you're right. Obviously a great deal of the weight is in the barrel and many/most originals had heavy barrels. You still have to give Armstrong credit though because his rifles looked positively dainty, so apparently he was a real artist (or genius).

A gun can look and be built slim and weigh 10!pounds or look fat and weigh 7 pounds. Architecture is the main determinant of appearance.

 

[Scota@4570]

Here is an earlier John Armstrong lock. It is closer to a siler.

 

[Col. Batguano]

Rich explained it perfectly.

It is positively amazing what an extra 1/8"-3/16" thickness in the web does to the overall look and feel of the gun. I suspect that it is because it affects the wrist most of all, as an increase of only 1/16" in web thickness equates to nearly 0.2" in circumference (C=2 x Pi x R) change (if it is a circular wrist). More if it is somewhat oval or egg shaped. The most common mistake newer builders make is having too fat of a wrist, and I suspect most of that comes from having too thick of a web.

I suggest you build the gun with a thin web, and if you want more thickness you can always leave it in there over the top of your RR. Simple pinned triggers will give you the most flexibility on locating them (up or down) within the fire control group.

If you elect to install a floor plate + trigger integrated unit, you will have less ability to move it up or down. On the surface they sound easier, but in the end they are really much more work. I had no choice but to install that sort of a unit on my last build because I wanted a DASST, (why? because I didn't have one of those yet) and it was a real chore to get it installed AND keep the breech area thin looking. In the end, I filed the trigger plate as thin as it possibly could be, the trigger blade as thin as possible, and bending the sear arm upwards within the lock to accommodate the height of everything. The fore & aft adjustment was tricky too. I cobbled together a jig to give me the most rearward position (for the trigger) that would give me 100% reliability on the set trigger (blade when set and tripped), so as to be as light as possible for the regular trigger (blade) when unset.

Note; Now that I have a gun with a DASST I would never build another one with one. WAY too much work! and it changes other things that don't need to be. To accommodate setting the trigger requires swinging it forward, which required deepening the trigger guard bow to a shape somewhat counter to the profile of the original I was modeling the gun after. Most people would never notice it, but it's one of those things that you as a builder do.

 

[rich pierce]

Here is an earlier John Armstrong lock. It is closer to a siler.

Armstrong locks are often longer and thinner than most available locks today. Also probably over 80% of “original” flintlocks have been restored from percussion, so we don’t really know frizzen, cock, or frizzen spring shapes.
It’s easy to make a lock longer but not slimmer. When making a custom gun obe has to decide how far one is willing to go with fabricating parts.

 

[Scota@4570]

It may be possible to modify an L/R Bedford lock. It may be possible to use a different L/R pan and frizzen. IF one sent a photo of an early Armstrong lock to LR they may be able to make suggestions.

 

[pooch156]

It may be possible to modify an L/R Bedford lock. It may be possible to use a different L/R pan and frizzen. IF one sent a photo of an early Armstrong lock to LR they may be able to make suggestions.
[/QUOTE

I have been looking at that very same lock. It's long and slim and matches up with the brass sideplate that TOTW offers for the Armstrong Rifle. I spent the morning and early afternoon researching and I found that J. Armstrongs' locks varied in shape. Some of Armstrongs' pans had the shape of the Siler lock by Chambers while others had the round bottom pan of the L&R locks.

 

[rich pierce]

We may never know what the pans looked like. 80% or more of flintlocks on original guns have replacement parts on them due to reconversion from percussion. There are about zero original Bedford flintlocks that are not reconversion, so we have no idea what the cocks, pans, frizzens, and frizzen springs on original Bedford locks looked like either. The L&R Bedford is based on what the gunsmiths doing the reconversion imagined.