Wrist on 1770 Lancaster 1/8+barrel+1/8

[rootnuke]

I'm not to this wood wit'lin point yet but I am trying to do some planning regarding some stock thickness issues in certain areas.
More specifically this question has to do with the wrist area. In reading Peter Alexanders book The Gunsmith of Grenville County Page 115 he writes;
The wrist should equal 1/8"+barrel width just forward of the lock panels + 1/8".

Would that be correct for a Early Lancaster?

It seems mighty small, nevertheless it does fall in line with my trigger inlet debth and flow from the trigger inlet to the toe.

I have to get going to work, but I will post some specific measurments and maybe an image to better illustrate my question later today. eace:

 

[54JNoll]

I was fortunate enough to get to handle a couple original Longrifles a couple weeks ago. Less is definatly more is a good way to look at it. The wrists were definately "petite". I also own an original double flint fowler and its wrist is fairly petite as well. Obviously Peter Alexander's formula does not work for my double fowler but thinner is better.

 

[Stumpkiller]

Some of the "early" guns (c. 1770 still being fairly early) had a wrist that was wider than it was tall. Makes the gun feel slimmer (at least to me) while maintaining strength at the wrist. I'm not familiar enough with the Lancaster style stock to know if this was the case.

 

[rootnuke]

Some of the "early" guns (c. 1770 still being fairly early) had a wrist that was wider than it was tall. Makes the gun feel slimmer (at least to me) while maintaining strength at the wrist. I'm not familiar enough with the Lancaster style stock to know if this was the case.

In looking at early photographs many of the pictures are at a certain angle which do not allow me to make a proper judgement on the wrist size. Now that you mention the wider vs taller difference, that helps me and makes sense as to why things look thick one perspective and thin in another.

 

[Ohio Joe]

Of the four Lancaster (Dickert's) that I own, mine are 7/32nds + barrel + 7/32nds... This feels right to me, but it may not to others? That's not a consideration I make when building my personnal muzzleloaders. I make them to fit me, not anyone else.

The stocks for these rifles came from TOTW, and I have filed and sanded this area to where it fits me... I think TOTW probably leaves them a bit thick in case your wanting to do some raised carving, therefore the 1/8 + barrel + 1/8 is most likely correct for what some builder's are going for?

A slim fullstock muzzleloader is a beautiful piece of work... My building approach is that I build what the common working man would have used from a given time period... You probably won't find many of these kind of muzzleloaders in museums... They were tools for the poor, not toys for the rich...

 

[rootnuke]

I ordered last week "Recreating The American Longrifle" by Buchele, Shumway & Alexander.
Well today it arrived and in chapter 13 it illustrates a Isaac Haines longrifle. Unfortunately I cannot tell between whether the wrist is oval or perfectly round.
The concept of oval wrist and maintaining strength and yet when viewed from the side it seems sleek and slender does seem appealing.

 

[Ohio Joe]

Rootnuke,

I understand what your saying... My personal opinion is that either would work fine and you should go with something that is pleasing to your eye...

I feel that when a gunmaker made a rifle for someone back in the old days, that someone had some input to certain things they liked about the rifle being made for them... I think then, as now, the maker accomodated his customer's request's...

Museums are probably the best place to study firearm's you are going to make... Pictures are great for idea's, but actually seeing a particular firearm, (and even getting to hold one), is far more informative... Take good notes, as most museums I know of will not allow pictures to be taken???

There is a particular museum that will allow me to examine a certain muzzleloader that I am recreating... I can'not say which museum this is, but the curator, his employee's, and I have a good relationship through extra efforts I take to help out this museum when and where I can... If you are going to build muzzleloaders', seek out the best knowledge you can and do your best to put that knowledge to work for you...

Good luck on your project...

 

[tg]

Most of the pics I have indicate a wider than deep wrist on early guns which a 1770 Lancater would be, also a factor is the buttstock from the wrist back is wider than later guns, narrowing down a wrist to much that then transitions into a wide early comb/buttstock may not work real well, narrow wrist on later guns blended into a much narrower stock configuration.

 

[tg]

As a note to the above the wider than deep is generaly only 1/16 inch and many guns also are just the opposite with a slightly deeper than wide wrist and often the difference is only 1/32 RCA 1&2 gives these dimesions on most guns the early guns seem to run from 1 5/16 and up in width and depth. my Early lancaster is 1 7/16 wide x 1 5/16 deep and my Virginia is 1 9/16 round guns of both dimensions can be found in RCA.

 

[Birddog6]

I have 3 sets of plans for that time era in Lancasters & they all have the wrist kinda oval & wider than thicker. The bottom of the oval is kina flat too at the trigger area.
Now these are not as noticable as a Bucks would be, but still you can feel it. The last plans I looked at has the width at aprox 1.45" and the depth at 1.25 so there is not a lot of dif. I would of course adjust this with the size of the lock panels & etc.
Now the plans for the later rifles such as the 1790 & 1800 the wrist is just the opposite in dimensions.

I try to use a set of plans for any rifle I build. I don't try or even concern myself with the dimensions of the last rifle or the one before. I concentrate on the one I have now & use the dimension of that base plan & then adjust what I need to from there. A good set of plans does have the cutaways of the wrist, forestock, cheekpiece & etc. and to me any set of plans that doesn't have it is not a good set of plans & I try to refrain from buying them. If one place can put all of that info on there & sell it for $10, there is not reason why the others can't also.

Even when I build a rifle that has no plans, when I blow it up to get the dimensions & I make my plans I put the dimensions on the plans as I go. If I have to make another one, I don't want to go to have to measure the plans & etc. all over again, I want to lay it out & build it.

I don't know where you bought your kit & parts from, but if it was TOW the 1770 set of Lancaster plans they have does have all the dimensions on it. In fact, every set of plans I have bought from them have been excellent & good plans. The carvings on the plans mean nothing to me, but the basic dimensions & style & layouts make it much easier IMHO, weather it be starting from a blank or a precarve. To this day if you called me & asked me to build you a Beck, Lancaster, Dickert, Jaeger, if I didn;t have the plans of that particular rife, When I order the parts for it I get a fresh set of plans & if I they are not available I make them as when I go into rifle mode, I want to be able to leave it & come back the next day & know Exactly where I left off & what I am doing next & these plans help me do that.

I know some guys build off the hoof & don't use any plans, and everyone has their druthers... I'd druther have a plan... ::

Custom Muzzleloaders & Custom Skinning Knives

 

[rootnuke]

My 1770 Lancaster is from TOW. Currently my plans are at the house but I looked at the plans briefly this morning.
My definition of "plans" is a defined scale drawing with measurements associated with each diagram.
The TOW plans I received is a 2 page (I think D size) drawing with brief notations as to TOW part numbers and a part description.
There is, for example a cross section diagram of the wrist. But there are no measurments x/y associated with that diagram. Now to be perfectly honest, in looking closely I can see the oval shape in the wrist cross section. Furthermore in reading and forming a overall view of what the dimension of the wrist should be I have a pretty good idea. But the plans are not something I can simply look at and see a measurment as to what the dimensions should be. I will need, through reading and practice apply my measurements.

Don't get me wrong I appreciate the TOW plans and am getting more and more out of them. But it just seemed that it was more of a advertisement of TOW part numbers and a general "here what you should end up with" kinda drawing.

I think it is like you said bd6, you just make your own plans. I intend on taking what I have learned regarding sizes and dimensions of whatever part and making my own plans and notes etc.

One thing I have learned is there is no all encompasing "plan". There are individual guidelines both specific and general, builder experiences, basic concepts, general knowledge, accepted practices etc.

Building is an art. :hmm:

 

[54JNoll]

Do not leave extra wood for carving. The stock should be brought to final proportions and then the carving applied. The carving in very shallow and performed in such a way that it more of an allusion of height that makes it stand above the level of the stock.

 

[rootnuke]

Do not leave extra wood for carving. The stock should be brought to final proportions and then the carving applied. The carving in very shallow and performed in such a way that it more of an allusion of height that makes it stand above the level of the stock.

I intend on experimenting with roccoco pattern drawing and carving on the stock prior to bringing the stock down to carving level.

 

[Birddog6]

If it is your first rifle I suggest you don't carve it at all. Get it built right & correctly in all aspects, then stained & finished & etc. Now ya got something to shoot, nice clean job on the rifle & etc. Then build one & go a lil deeper into the building & a lil carving & etc. Then the 3rd one do a lil more & try a lil more difficult stuff & etc. Then the 4th one a lil more & etc.

Once ya sink a chisel in it, there is no backing out & LOTS of stuff you cannot fix or cover. And please don't misunderstand me, you may Very Well be capable of doing i' But I have seen allot of really nice rifles that the guy should not have put a tool to as guys usually want to advance too fast try stuff they are no way prepared to do. Lots of stuff I will not do myself & I have built a few rifles.. I try to do better & more each time & cleaner looking jobs, but I do know my limitations & work toward improving & entending my limitations rather than trying to be a John Bivins overnight.

Kinda like starting out on the Indy 500 track at 200 mph is not the way to Learn to be a race driver ? IMHO....

Now don't take this as a negative thing as that is not the intent.

I think you are doing a find job with building this rifle but IMHO, I think you should take baby steps, not run the 440 yet.

 

[tg]

Some simple incise carving at the termination of an incise moulding along the forestock, amd on the lower stock or behind the cheek piece would be a good start for any carving on a first time project.