doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion Classic & Custom Single Barreled Sporting Rifles @ doublegunshop.com Revisiting Barney Worthen

Michael, thanks for the answer. I was looking for a starting point for a future project.

Michael, I would like to enter another plea for stock dimensions. while different people need or prefer different things, it is also true that the rifles you are showing are in a transitional era between irons and scopes and with a goodly bit of muzzleloading influence perhaps still prevalent. And shooting styles also changed.

When I look at that first rifle in this thread, the first thing I noticed is what seems to be enormous drop. At least it looks enormous but maybe with the rest of the dimensions, it's not as dramatic as it looks.

Nice rifles. Worthen sure knew what he was doing.

Brent,
It takes some work but it is relatively easy to get the stock dimensions that you may want right from the pictures Michael posts.
The short story is if you have a CAD program, like Draftsight which is a free download, you can insert Michaels picture into the CAD program. Then use the CAD program to measure one known dimension like the action or barrel length. Now comparing the actual real life dimension to the CAD dimension scale the drawing so that the picture in the CAD drawing is full size. Then it is as easy as pie to measure any feature of the stock you wish.
Now it sounds complicated but really isn't, just a little reverse engineering.

Michael, did he pretty much stick to the issue front sight on his rifles?

Also: what is going on with the trigger in the top rifle? You can see it in the shot from beneath, into the trigger guard. It looks like it's got a groove or split milled into it. Is it something more than the issue trigger?

Thanks

Note in both instances drop measurements are from "line of sight" - with original front sight or any for that matter, one could easily deduce the more common(today) measurement from center of bore.

LRF, yes, I can do it empeiically. I have done it, several times for muzzleloaders. But that is hardly practical when reading up on a type of rifle or group of rifle makers to understand their ideas about what works.

The art of fitting rifles seems almost lost these days. Not to mention the layouts for rifles that are built around iron sights. At least you don't find much discussion of it when listening to modern cognoscenti discussing the merits of a McMillan vs. a Bell and Carson, etc.

Anyway, it is something that I would like to see mentioned more often in descriptions of classic rifles of all types.

Sorry I couldn't help.

When I am laying out a stock, I trace the barreled action onto a thin wood plank, and design the rest of the rifle off that tracing. Typical dimensions on the plank are 1/2" thick, 48" long, 10" wide. After completing the design, I band saw the outline of the pattern; it will be similar to a try gun and will give a good idea as to the fit. If something seems amiss, then corrections are easy to make.

Here are some pictures from Dan. I'll try to answer all the questions as I can, busy now with home chores, proofing the bread so have a little time ;-).

Michael and all, hope you are having the holidays you are planning for.

Interesting, wonder how well the design held up over multiple mounts and dismounts. Everyone knows the weakness of the takedown concept. An interrupted thread design would be a little more "wow" factor for quarter turn mounting. The notch in the barrel shank, on the underside, is that for a spanner? Is the ring a separate part that is also threaded and could be used to tight the fit. Is that a set screw in the side of the ring?

Very nice wood metal fit around release tang. Checkering (pointing up) a bit weak in the tight spots.

Thank you Michael & Dan for taking the time from this busy time of year to share!